Governing the entrepreneurial mindset: Business students’ constructions of entrepreneurial subjectivity

Critical Analysis

This study presents evidence of entrepreneurialism discourse in higher education, and argues that the construction of an entrepreneurial self occurs during academic experiences. Further, it questions the emotional safety of this construction, as unrealized entrepreneurial endeavors presented negative qualities of self-doubt, self-blame, and fragility.

In higher education, an entrepreneurial subject is continually constructed and negotiated, largely through and evidenced by language (709). This is an individual who has expertise with a wide variety of aptitudes and skills, including “creativity, innovation, risk-taking, and the ability to plan and manage projects” (698)… it is a “subject encouraged in [entrepreneurial education] and produced in entrepreneurial discourse under neoliberal rationality, i.e., a subjectivity which is creative, risk-taking, responsible, autonomous, active, motivated, confident and curious” (700). These qualities cleanly mirror those both instructors and students describe as fundamental to designerly success, and their language actively constructs an identity of a student who is defined by these qualities.

The authors argue that education is a place where a self-view of entrepreneurialism is fostered—where students begin to describe themselves as someone who has aptitudes and brings them to situations naturally. This focus has emerged because “universities are increasingly expected not only to contribute to academic entrepreneurship but also to provide students with relevant and transferable entrepreneurial skills in the changing labour market” (698). Entrepreneurial ways of being offer more vocational opportunities for students as traditional jobs morph or are eliminated, and the ability to plot a personal course is offered as a way to achieving financial success. This is a way for students to find their place in “an insecure society, by encouraging them to take responsibility for their own lives”—it is a “neoliberal rationality in its attempt to educate autonomous, self-responsible and self-guided citizens who possess an entrepreneurial mindset and who contribute to the economy” (699).

In this study, research with business students indicates that entrepreneurial discourses are adopted by students throughout business courses, and students begin to describe qualities that they have, and desire, as fundamental to successful participation in the world around them—as “self-evident virtuous attitudes” (708). They place value on these qualities and present self-deprecation when the qualities are not achieved—they describe “their non-entrepreneurial characteristics in an apologetic manner” (708). The observed conditioning is evidenced in design studio, where students explain their failures as personal and often attribute them to a lack of work ethic and resolve. This, the authors argue, shows the harm of an unquestioned discourse of entrepreneurship, as it “may lead to experiences of imperfection, incapability, vulnerability and fragility as social problems” (709).