Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
Entrepreneurship as a career
An acceptable pointer of the professionalism of a discipline is when its existence leads to a career or job opportunity. Sexton and Bowman (1984:93) add to this and is quoted as follows ”…consequently, colleges and universities have recognised that starting and operating a business is a viable career alternative that deserves academic attention” Mahlberg (1995:37) critically states that entrepreneurship as a discipline is one of the few subjects that pushes integration and the combination of functional knowledge and abilities to the limit. He further argues that the abilities and knowledge needed for the establishment of a business even differs from the ability and knowledge needed for the growth of the business. From this one can conclude that entrepreneurship should obviously follow a holistic approach.
It is important to notice that entrepreneurship as a process is as complex as any science. Gartner (1989:695) regards entrepreneurship as a non-continual, non-linear process known for its multi-disciplinary characteristics. Guedallo et al (1997:4) adds to this and regards the process as being unstable, holistic and even catastrophic ”…rather it is University of Pretoria etd – Antonites, A J (2003) a disjointed, discontinuous, unique event no matter whether it is a mega or a macro venture” Van Vuuren (1992:26) quotes Bygrave who compares science with physics. He points out that in the hierarchy of Sciences, Mathematics (as basic science) for instance would feature on top, with Sociology at the bottom. In this context entrepreneurship should be regarded as an applied science, rather than basic. He furthermore points out that with all the applied sciences, engineering would be on top with entrepreneurship right at the bottom.
The multi-disciplinary characteristics of entrepreneurship are proven because some of the basic sciences (mathematics, physics, biology, psychology and sociology) as well as applied sciences (medical, economic and business management) show a degree of correspondence and are mostly contained within the field of entrepreneurship. Churchill (1998:39) points out that physics as a science already had its origin around 5 B.C. (Democritus and Plato).
Entrepreneurship on the other hand originated in the 18th century (Smith era). Training in the aforementioned science reaches back more than 2000 years whilst training in entrepreneurship is only about 30 to 40 years old.
1 Chapter 1: Background and orientation of the problem
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Problem statement
1.3 Research objectives
1.4 Propositions
1.5 Demarcation, scope and limitations of the study
1.5.1 Demarcation and scope of the study
1.5.2 Limitations of the study
1.6 Importance and benefits of study
1.7 Research design
1.7.1 Experimental design
1.7.2 Internal validity
1.7.3 External validity
1.7.4 Classification of experimental design
1.8 Programme of investigation
1.9 Conclusion
2 Chapter 2: Entrepreneurship training
2.1 Introduction
2.2 The Entrepreneur: Conceptualising and definition
2.2.1 Entrepreneurs are seen as the flagships of complete uncertainty and risk
2.2.2 The Entrepreneur as “true” innovator
2.2.3 The Entrepreneur as conveyor of uncertainty, certain abilities and innovation
2.2.4 Entrepreneurship in terms of perception and adaptation
2.3 Research within the field of Entrepreneurship
2.4 Training within the field of Entrepreneurship
2.4.1 Entrepreneurship as a subject
2.4.11 Systematic theory development
2.4.2 The Entrepreneurship training model
2.5 Entrepreneurial performance (E/P)
2.6 Motivation (M)
2.6.1 Motivation
2.7 Entrepreneurial skills (E/S)
2.7.1 Risk propensity
2.7.2 Opportunity identification
2.7.3 Role models
2.8 Creativity and innovation
2.9 Conclusion
3 Chapter 3: The concepts: Creativity, innovation and opportunity finding
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Historical background
3.3 Obstacles in creativity theory
3.3.1 The study of creativity yields a mystical approach
3.3.2 Pragmatic approaches to the study of creativity
3.3.3 Psychodynamic approaches to creativity
3.3.4 Psychometric approaches to creativity
3.3.5 Cognitive approaches to creativity
3.3.6 Social-personality approaches to creativity
3.3.7 Confluence approaches to creativity
3.4 Creativity defined
3.4.1 The creative person
3.4.2 The creative process
3.4.3 The creative press (environment)
3.4.4 The creative product
3.5 Myths of creativity
3.5.1 Creativity is an innate talent and cannot be taught
3.5.2 Creativity is a phenomena linked with the so-called reb
3.5.3 Right brain versus left-brain
3.5.4 Art, Artists and creativity
3.5.5 Exemption
3.5.6 Intuition
3.5.7 The need for “craziness”
3.5.8 The group versus the individual
3.5.9 Intelligence and creativity
3.6 Innovation
3.7 Opportunity identification
3.7.1 A needs-orientated paradigm
3.7.2 Changes
3.7.3 Change orientation
3.7.4 Component charts and gaps
3.8 Training and creativity, innovation and opportunity finding in and entrepreneurial context
3.9 Conclusion
4 Chapter 4: The Creativity, innovatin and opportunity finding training Model (CIO)
4.1 Introduction
4.2.1 The entrepreneurial creativity, innovation and opportunity finding training model (CIO)
4.2.2 Action learning
4.2.3 The CIO training model
4.3 Conclusion
5 Chapter 5: Research procedures and Methodolog
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Statistical Analysis
6 Chapter 6: Analysis and discussion of results
7 Chapter 7: Summary and recommendations
Bibliography
ADDENDUM
