In this paper, we take our point of departure in the research project 'Entrepreneurship Education 2007' (EDU07), which focused on the earlier stages of the educational system as well as on what teachers do when they do entrepreneurship education. More specifically, the purpose here is to discuss the method – focus group interviews – applied in this research project and in what way it can, without putting words in the mouths of the respondents, answer the question: What is really being taught in entrepreneurship education? In addition to providing researchers with the research result, it is argued that focus-group interviews work as an arena for reflection and action.
This article pays interest to the intersection between policy and practice when implementing entrepreneurship in the educational system. Taking a point of departure in Mahieu’s (2006) call for knowledge of the interplay between different policy levels and Backström-Widjeskog’s (2010) conclusion about tensions occurring when teachers are introduced to the concept, the intention is to develop knowledge about conflicts and tensions at the intersection between policy and practice. From analysing policy documents and narratives from entrepreneurship education implementation projects during a time when entrepreneurship education started to be promoted in Sweden three figures of thought are found (economic/humanistic, biological/social, and individual/collective) which are proposed to be involved in creating tensions and conflicts in the intersection between policy and practice. Theoretically, these figures of thought can be seen as a contribution to understanding processes in which the concept of entrepreneurship education has deliberately been moved, by way of policy, to the educational practice. Reflecting on these thought figures may enhance teachers’ translation processes when starting to work with entrepreneurship education in practice.
Micro firms are less involved in competence development than larger companies. Only 24% of theemployed in micro firms as well as for solo entrepreneurs were involved in competence developmentin 2008 compared 48 - 59% of the employed in large companies.This paper takes its point of departure in an ongoing research project with the purpose to study howcompetence development interventions affect the development of micro firms. The purpose is toanalyze effects for participating micro firms on firm, individual and indicator levels. The basis forthe research is an extensive EU-funded competence development projects concerning micro firmscalled Företagsakademin2.