Desarrollo motor del RNPT

From the extant research it is reasonable to suggest that current understanding of the impact of extracurricular university-based BPC participation in terms of entrepreneurial learning can, at best, be deemed limited. Consequently there remains much which is not known, but needs to be known, about the BPC as an assumed entrepreneurial learning experience for the nascent entrepreneur; the word assumed is used here because there appears to be a lack of evidence to substantiate such a frequently made yet unchallenged assertion.

This research gap can be deemed multifaceted. Arguably there are four dimensions to the lack of current understanding which surrounds BPC participation as an entrepreneurial learning experience for the nascent entrepreneur participant. These dimensions can be articulated as the lack of understanding with regards to:

(1) Whether entrepreneurial learning as a process and outcome drives

the participant’s BPC entry. The literature would appear to be suggesting

that because entrepreneurial learning features as an objective for those organising BPC provision that this similarly is the case for those participating.

106 There appears to be limited evidence to suggest that nascent entrepreneurs enter the competition with learning in mind. Symptomatic of this is a lack of understanding as to what learning needs the participant might have. When entrepreneurial learning in an entrepreneurship education context depends upon the development of necessary capabilities, mind-set and awareness, understanding these needs is imperative, particularly if it is to be understood whether or not they are subsequently met through provision.

(2) How entrepreneurial learning features as an immediate outcome of

BPC participation not only how entrepreneurial learning might occur as a

process but also any outcomes of that process in terms of entrepreneurial capabilities, mind-set and awareness developed. This is particularly pertinent with regards to whether any learning needs are met through the experience and how the competition experience afforded this as a relevant experience. Entrepreneurs are seen as learning through their experiences and socio- relational encounters. However, beyond learning by doing, it is not understood how this might be afforded by and through competition participation, particularly the participant’s engagement with the various different competition experience features and those involved as stakeholders in the competition.

(3) How any entrepreneurial learning derived from the competition is

taken forward and used in the months following competition participation. It is not known whether there are any differences between the

immediate outcomes of a competition and outcomes in the months following the competition, especially with regard to whether any learning outcomes and experience derived from the competition served as being relevant to endeavours to develop and implement the nascent venture. To overlook the aforementioned observation, is to overlook that entrepreneurship education which is not relevant may be being promoted.

(4) The BPC participation experience from the perspective of the

nascent entrepreneurs who participate. There exists limited

understanding of the ‘human side’ of BPC participation from the perspective of the nascent entrepreneur and within the context of their lived experiences.

107 This can be deemed problematic considering that it is the agency of the learner as a nascent entrepreneur which drives the entrepreneurial process and the learning which then occurs as part of that process. Appreciation as to how the individual participant might change over the course of her/his participation and transform her/his participation experience in the months beyond participation is not forthcoming, despite this being central to affording an appreciation of the relevance of the provision and any learning afforded. The type of research methodologies and designs which have been adopted contribute to this gap, with a notable lack of useful qualitative and longitudinal emphasis.

Compounding the four different dimensions of the research gap, there appeared to be an inherent contradiction in the literature with regards to entrepreneurial learning and the BPC participation experience and moreover a potential disconnect between BPC provision and the tenets of entrepreneurial learning and entrepreneurship education for the nascent entrepreneur. On the one hand the extracurricular BPC is positioned as the type of experiential socio-relational activity which is deemed conducive to facilitating entrepreneurial learning. However, on the other hand the value of the lynchpin of this activity, the business plan, is heavily criticised within the entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship education literature bases, to the extent of being viewed as potentially counterproductive to the authentic and relevant entrepreneurial learning that entrepreneurship education is predicated around providing.

3.5.5. Research Aim and Objectives

In addressing the research gap, the research was guided by an aim of exploring extracurricular BPC participation as an entrepreneurial learning experience amongst nascent entrepreneurs.

Four research objectives were developed which would enable this aim to be achieved;

108 Research Objective 1: To explore if and why entrepreneurial learning features within the participant rationale for Business Plan Competition participation

Research Objective 2: To explore whether entrepreneurial learning features as an immediate outcome of the competition experience

Research Objective 3: To explore how the competition experience and any entrepreneurial learning which occurs through the experience is applied post competition

Research Objective 4: To provide an experience-based understanding of the Business Plan Competition, through eliciting the nascent entrepreneurs’ accounts of their participation at the commencement of, completion of and six months following the competition.