In a nutshell
By reviewing over 150 studies, this influential paper brought clarity to the messy world of entrepreneurship education research — showing that how we teach matters just as much as what we teach.
Before this review came along, research on entrepreneurship education was a bit of a mixed bag. Despite dozens — even hundreds — of studies on whether entrepreneurship education “works,” the answers were all over the place. Some said yes, some said no, and many didn’t say much at all. So the field was growing, but it lacked structure.
Published in 2017 by Nabi, Liñán, Fayolle, Krueger, and Walmsley, this paper took on the monumental task of synthesising this rapidly growing body of work: to organise and critically examine the state of the field, and to offer a much-needed pedagogical framework that could help make sense of the scattered evidence.
The review ended up revealing three key patterns: First, most studies focused on short-term and subjective outcomes — things like whether students felt more entrepreneurial or intended to start a business — rather than tracking what actually happened later, like starting a company or running a successful venture. Second, the results weren’t always consistent. Some programmes clearly worked, while others had mixed or even disappointing outcomes. The authors suggest this isn’t just random — it probably comes down to how the programmes were taught and the different contexts they were delivered in, which earlier research hadn’t really dug into. Third, and perhaps most importantly, the paper showed that the teaching approach genuinely makes a difference. Using a clear framework, it grouped different styles into three main types: the supply model, which focuses on delivering knowledge; the demand model, which encourages exploration and discussion; and the competence model, which centres on solving real-world problems through experience.
Publication Date: July 2017
Authors: Ghulam Nabi, Francisco Liñán, Alain Fayolle, Norris Krueger, and Andreas Walmsley
Institutions: University of Portsmouth, UK, University of Seville, Spain, EMLYON Business School, France, Krueger & Associates, USA, Plymouth University, UK
Study Type: Systematic literature review
Sample Size: Review of 159 peer-reviewed articles published between 2004 and 2016
Research Focus: To evaluate the impact of entrepreneurship education and training (EET) and to introduce a pedagogical framework to better understand the relationship between EET methods, contexts, and outcomes.
Research Methodology: Systematic review and synthesis of empirical studies, analysed through the lens of an integrated teaching model framework, categorising EET approaches into supply, demand, and competence models.
Main Findings: Most studies focused on short-term, subjective outcomes like intentions and attitudes, while fewer assessed long-term, behavioural results. Findings across studies were inconsistent, likely due to differences in pedagogy and context. The review introduced a clear typology of teaching approaches and called for broader, more nuanced impact indicators — influencing the direction of subsequent research in the field.
Citation: Nabi, G., Liñán, F., Fayolle, A., Krueger, N., & Walmsley, A. (2017). The impact of entrepreneurship education in higher education: A systematic review and research agenda. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(2), 277–299. Link
This approach gave researchers a much-needed structure to understand why the same type of programme might yield different results in different settings. It’s not just about whether entrepreneurship education works; it’s about which methods lead to which outcomes and for whom. The authors also suggested looking beyond the usual success measures and paying more attention to things like how students feel, how their confidence grows, and how their way of thinking changes.
Basically, this paper gave the field a much-needed sense of direction. Before it came along, research on entrepreneurship education was all over the place — interesting, of course, but hard to piece together. This review helped bring clarity, it showed how teaching methods connect to outcomes, and it gave researchers a solid framework to build on — and build on it they did. The paper’s influence is still very much felt today, and it shows in how newer studies dig deeper into things like student mindset, emotions, and long-term development, as well as in the questions researchers are asking and the way entrepreneurship education continues to evolve.
Related insights appear in
The Actual Skills You Need for Sustainable Entrepreneurship, Why Reflection Matters in Entrepreneurial Learning, and Rethinking Who Fits the Mould in Entrepreneurship Education.
Read the full paper in Academy of Management Learning & Education.
