Factors Influencing Entrepreneurship Educators’ Pedagogical Choices—A Configurational Approach

Abstract

Entrepreneurship education is critical for developing the entrepreneurial skills of tomorrow’s entrepreneurs and leaders. In this paper, we aim to identify factors influencing entrepreneurship educators’ pedagogical choices, in particular, factors influencing their preferences to become either a teacher-centric or a student-centric educator. Our analysis includes job satisfaction, self-efficacy, and department support as the antecedent variables influencing the outcome. The data are collected from 289 global entrepreneurship educators, and fuzzy-set comparative qualitative analysis (fsQCA) was used to obtain multiple configurations of conditions leading to either a teacher-centric or student-centric model. The fsQCA analysis reveals that for teacher-centric educators, job satisfaction and more than 10 years of teaching experience are the most important factors, whereas for student-centric educators, teaching experience is not important factor, but self-efficacy and entrepreneurship teaching training are influential factors. In the article we discuss the important theoretical and practical contributions resulting from the analysis.

1. Introduction

Some authors, such as [1], have claimed that because entrepreneurship is being recognised as a set of skills essential to various professions, entrepreneurial education must be integrated into higher education. Numerous academic works, such as Rideout and Gray [2], and Winkel [3], has argued before that entrepreneurship education is about taking action, and that teaching methods should also be entrepreneurial. Moreover, [4] states that entrepreneurship education can be seen as instilling an entrepreneurial mindset in students and learners. Furthermore, entrepreneurship education literature shows that pedagogical preferences have moved from teacher-guided and content-focused approaches to more practice-based models [5].

This transition reflects research from trait-based investigations about who entrepreneurs are and what they do in venture creation to more contemporary research based on behavioural and cognitive theory [5,6]. As such, the focus of recent research has been on why people start businesses and how they do it [7]. While the focus of such a stream of research has changed, still the literature shows that the main focus revolves around the “what” (creating teaching content), “whom” (learning processes of students), and “how” (the use of various teaching methods) [6]. Nevertheless, less attention has been given to “who” (entrepreneurial education or the role of the instructors) [6,8]. This gap in the literature deserves attention, mainly due to the role that entrepreneurship educators play in developing and creating courses, teaching, guiding, and interacting with students.

Entrepreneurship educators are potentially the main players in instilling the entrepreneurial mindset, changing students’ attitudes, improving knowledge, and encouraging students to become entrepreneurs and create their own business [8]. However, educators’ pedagogical choices have been studied only by a few scholars [9,10,11]. For example, [9] argued that an educator’s teaching model, or approach, is a representation of his or her knowledge, perceptions, ideas, and views about teaching. The authors of [9] identified three basic teaching models: (i) supply model, (ii) demand model, and (iii) competency model. Moreover, Wraae et al. [12] identified three pedagogical approaches, and labelled them as: (i) teacher-centric, (ii) student-centric, and (iii) network-centric models. This decision is based on the ongoing discussion over if the old teacher-centric model should be replaced with a student-centric model [13,14,15,16,17].

From a sustainability perspective, and how entrepreneurship educators can contribute to this phenomenon, it can be argued that entrepreneurship is a means to solve global and “wicked” problems, including climate change, healthcare, food insecurity, and environmental issues. As such, new ventures founded on innovations can make a difference by providing solutions to global challenges. In addition, teaching students to think more “entrepreneurially” can also foster innovative thinking inside existing companies that can likewise make a difference in solving these problems. Hence, the ways we teach entrepreneurship is very important to deal with global sustainability challenges. In this regard, [18] argued that it is important to consider the contribution of entrepreneurship education that prepares entrepreneurs by providing them with important guidelines to consider in their work. Some authors, such as [19], argued that a new business can be oriented towards pursuing earning goals, but it can also be oriented to consider the social and environmental implications of business activities.

To date, an understanding of the factors influencing pedagogical choices is not well understood. As such, the purpose of this research is to fill a knowledge gap by asking “how do personal factors, educator training and experience influence pedagogical choices”? In this research, we focus on the first two models of [12], i.e., teacher-centric, and student-centric. These two pedagogical choices will be used as dependent variables, and our aim is to identify factors that influence entrepreneurship educators to choose either of these pedagogical choices as their teaching model [9,12,20]. As we argued, following recent developments in academia and education, it is important to identify the different reasons that may cause an educator to prefer either of these models over the other. In order to offer a comprehensive view on this problem, we have carefully selected a set of possible antecedent conditions from the literature. The literature shows that department support and self-efficacy [5,6,7,8,10,11,21,22,23,24] play a crucial role in entrepreneurship educators’ pedagogical approaches. Additionally, motivated by the results of [25] among others, we also consider job satisfaction as a factor that influences educators’ pedagogical approaches. It has also been suggested that establishing a uniform network of support services within the university (department) will make the process of knowledge generation and transfer easier to manage [26]. Finally, it has been argued that the educators’ teaching experience and entrepreneurship teaching training [11] influence educators’ pedagogical choices. Moreover, it has been found that educators should attend entrepreneurial teaching training before creating the entrepreneurship educational programmes [27]. In addition, [28] argues that higher education institutions’ strategic planning is increasingly including a third objective by placing a strong emphasis on the training of entrepreneurs in addition to teaching and research. Therefore, we include in the analysis the length of teaching experience as well as the educators’ participation in a teaching training programme focused on how to teach entrepreneurship. To this end, the research question we aim to answer is the following: “What factors influence entrepreneurship educators’ pedagogical choices”? The data were collected in 2021 from 289 global entrepreneurship educators, and fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) [29], a configurational thinking approach was used to analyse the data.

The rest of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 provides the background information and theoretical foundation. Section 3 discusses the research method and data collection. Section 4 introduces the empirical results. Section 5 and 6 presents the discussion and conclusion, respectively.

2. Review of the Literature and Propositions

Identity theory has been widely employed in entrepreneurship research [30]. Identity theory stresses one’s identification with a specific role, and one’s sense of self, meanings, and expectations for that role [31,32]. Erikson [33] argued that the individual’s self serves as the foundation for identity, and the choice of the role is the product of the self [34]. For example, one might define his or her role, as a husband, a wife, a student, or a mathematician. Role identification is a multi-faceted and continuing process, and according to the literature, teachers define their roles within the social, organisational, and institutional contexts in which they operate [35,36].

Beauchamp and Thomas [36] argued that the influence of teachers’ surrounding context, colleagues, school administrators and community, educational institution, and their own students all contribute to how a teacher’s role identity is shaped. In addition, according to Thomassen et al. [37], standards and requirements for specific courses, as well as spaces, networks, and other contextual characteristics influence how the educators see themselves in their professions.

Several authors have found that identity may be influenced by other factors, such as self-efficacy, job satisfaction, and the support educators receive from their departments. For example, formal and informal rewards motivate behaviour in organisations (in this case universities), and the degree to which one is satisfied or dissatisfied with these, as well as the nature of one’s employment situation, can influence role perceptions and behaviours of the educators [9,38,39].

Furthermore, it has been suggested that the level of confidence with which entrepreneurship educators approach their work and teaching responsibilities has an impact on their role identity and, as a result, how they are seen in the classroom. Kelchtermans [40] discovered that: (i) self-image, (ii) self-esteem, and (iii) job motivation, are three of the most important characteristics that influence how teachers see themselves as professionals in their work. Therefore, to examine factors influencing entrepreneurship educators’ pedagogical choices (i.e., teacher-centric and student-centric), we aim to explore further self-efficacy, job satisfaction, and department support, in addition to the length of the teaching experience and the impact of previous entrepreneurship teaching training programmes (please see Figure 1).

2.1. Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction is described as “an affective (emotional) reaction to a job that occurs from the employee contrasting actual outcomes to desired ones” [41], p. 212. Employee engagement is linked to job satisfaction in the sense that a satisfied employee intends to work more, is more engaged, and develops trust and believes in her organisations [42]. Moreover, it has been found that other elements and factors entailed in the work, such as work tasks, the organisation, supervision, colleagues, and pay structure, all contribute to job satisfaction [43].

According to the literature, teacher identity in a university setting is positively linked to a sense of appreciation for teaching, connectivity, competence, and a future career path [44]. As we mentioned, social interactions and one’s surrounding contribute to the formation of role identity; therefore, the extent to which an individual is satisfied with his or her work should rationally influence role identity [31]. For example, Canrinus et al. [45] found that occupational commitment, self-efficacy, and motivation level all contribute to teachers’ professional identity of the Dutch teachers, or [46] found a positive relationship between professional development, teacher self-efficacy, belief, and job satisfaction. Moreover, some authors, such as [40], argued that job satisfaction and a sense of fulfilment help to develop a positive self-esteem. Canrinus et al. [45] argued that a teacher’s job satisfaction is related to her or his professional identity, which, in turn, influences her or his self-efficacy and confidence. In addition, the literature shows that job satisfaction has a positive relationship with self-efficacy, especially for the high school teachers [47], and that the higher is the job-related self-efficacy, the higher the job satisfaction level [48]. To put it in another way, the more people believe they can perform certain jobs, the more likely they are to be satisfied with their achievements.

Thus, we believe that the extent to which teachers are satisfied with their job situation, their level of self-efficacy, and support from their departments all influence their choice of pedagogical methods.

2.2. Self-Efficacy

The confidence an individual builds in his or her abilities is one of the most significant aspects in individual behaviour to execute or not perform an activity, such as starting a new business or becoming an entrepreneurship educator [49]. Self-efficacy refers to a person’s belief in her or his own capacity to achieve in a specific subject or situation. As Bandura [50,51] stated, self-efficacy is one’s ability to plan and carry out the steps necessary to achieve a specific objective. Self-efficacy, according to Stets and Burke [52], is linked to the motivational aspect of performing in a role and asserted that “individuals may categorise themselves in particular ways (in a group or a role) to not only fulfil their need to feel important and worthy (the self-esteem motive), but also to feel competent and productive (the self-efficacy motive)” (p. 233).

In this paper, self-efficacy is defined as the degree to which entrepreneurship educators believe they can influence student behaviour and learning results [50]. To put it another way, we believe that the more confident an entrepreneurship educator is in her or his ability to influence students’ behaviour, the more likely she or he is to develop stronger role perception. This implies that the entrepreneurship educator’s self-efficacy will have an impact on their role identity, or how they see themselves. Bandura [50] suggested that mastery experiences, social model experiences, social persuasion, and attempting to change unfavourable emotional inclinations about oneself can all have a positive or negative impact on the level of self-efficacy. Moreover, Cai et al. [53] argued that entrepreneurship education fosters the emerging entrepreneurial behaviours through the entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Finally, Lamonte and Engels [54] have found that teacher training programmes, past successful experience, and mentorship influence teachers’ self-efficacy. Canrinus et al. [45] asserted that there is a strong relationship between teachers’ classroom self-efficacy, job satisfaction, occupational commitment and motivation, and how they perceive and sense their professional identity (p. 117).

2.3. Departmental Support

In this paper, adapted from [55] to our context, departmental support is defined as any implement, such as an incentive or policy, put in place by a department within an educational institution that encourages and support educators to pursue activities related to entrepreneurial education. Moreover, prior research has found that appropriate university resource allocation and distribution of educational support improves entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and promotes students’ entrepreneurial inclinations [21]. It has also been suggested that teaching methods and learning environments have a direct impact on entrepreneurship education effectiveness. Therefore, it can be speculated that department (university) support not only impacts the effectiveness of the entrepreneurship education but also influences educators’ teaching methods [1].

Proposition 1.

Job satisfaction, self-efficacy, and department support, in combination with teaching experience and entrepreneurship training, are sufficient conditions to influence entrepreneurship educators’ pedagogical choices (i.e., teacher-centric and student-centric).

Proposition 2.

Entrepreneurship educators’ previous teaching training participation and the length of their teaching experience are important conditions for their pedagogical choices.

3. Data and Methodology

In the following, we will discuss the data collection process, along with a basic descriptive analysis and the chosen data analysis methodology, FsQCA. Some packages of the statistical programming language R were used to perform computations and generate the results [23]. Drawing from entrepreneurship education literature, we developed an online survey, and distributed it through the authors’ professional and personal networks, targeting only entrepreneurship educators and professors. Specifically, we used a convenience sampling strategy, but we focused on those who were members of the Entrepreneurship Division of the Academy of Management, and those through the network of the Babson Collaborative. Therefore, the sample is composed of only entrepreneurship educators at different academic levels. We asked “please indicate your current role (title) at your university or college” (e.g., adjunct professor, full professor, associate professor, or assistant professor). While we acknowledge the advantage of the convenience sampling strategy (a group of easily accessible participants), we are also aware of its limitations, such as generalisability and replicating the results [56]. The questionnaire was evaluated and pilot tested to identify and correct for any ambiguous wording or expressions. The survey consisted of twofold sections: (i) demographic information (in total 14 questions) and (ii) measurement items forming the five constructs (28 items in total) used in the research (see Appendix A). All survey items were derived from previously validated items. For example, we used nine items from [4] to measure self-efficacy. Job satisfaction (six items) and department support (four items) were derived from studies of [21,57], respectively. The dataset is comprised of the response from 343 educators. Of the 343 responses received, 54 were eliminated from further study as they had not taught entrepreneurship courses in their respective universities in the previous five years.

3.1. Measurement Model

The constructs used in the study were measured via previously validated items using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘Strongly disagree’ to ‘Strongly agree’. We measured job satisfaction with six items from [25]. To measure pedagogical approaches (student-centric and teacher-centric), we used nine items from [9,12,20], five for student-centric and four for teacher-centric, respectively. Four items for measuring department support were extracted from [21], and nine items for measuring self-efficacy measures were obtained from [4,24], respectively. The list of items is presented in Appendix A, but it should be noted that some items were removed due to loadings below the recommended threshold. All survey items were measured using the 5-point Likert scale, with “1” being strongly disagree and “5” being strongly agree. The Cronbach alpha showed acceptable values of internal consistency for most of the constructs exceeding the threshold value of 0.70. However, it should be noted that sometimes the Cronbach α test does not comply with the cut-off values. This is mainly due to over- or underestimation of the true reliability. This issue may occur when, for example, there is no sufficient number of items used in the survey (see Appendix B). As such, this issue may violate tau-equivalence, and thus, generates a lower reliability coefficient, and obtains a low Cronbach value [58].

3.2. Data Pre-Processing for FsQCA

As the first step of the fsQCA analysis, data calibration is performed using a fuzzy transformation. The variable experience (EXP) was coded as a binary indicator, taking value 1, when the respondent has at least 10 years of experience in entrepreneurial education, and 0 otherwise. The variable entrepreneurial training (TRAIN) takes the value 1 if the respondent has participated in an entrepreneurship-teaching programme within the last 10 years, and 0 otherwise. The items for the other constructs (job satisfaction (SAT), self-efficacy (SELF), and departmental support (DEPT)) were combined using arithmetic, calculating the mean operator to obtain an average score.

After we obtained the aggregated values, the direct calibration approach was utilised. This approach allows for rigorous analysis, reproducibility, and validation. In order to transform the original values into fuzzy membership values in the [0, 1] interval, three threshold values corresponding to non-membership (transformed value 0), cross-over point (transformed value 0.5), and full membership (transformed value 1) need to be determined. We used certain well-known statistical measures in this study and estimated the three thresholds as the 5th, 50th, and 95th percentiles of the variables. Using a logistic function based on the three estimated threshold values, intermediate points were turned into fuzzy membership.

Table 1. Calibration threshold values.

Factors	5%	50%	95%
Job satisfaction	2.83	4.17	5.00
Self-efficacy	3.27	4.60	5.00
Department support	2.00	4.00	5.00
Teacher-centric	2.67	4.00	5.00
Student-centric	2.67	4.00	5.00

shows the calibration thresholds for the various variables.

The next step of the analysis is to identify potentially necessary conditions [22]. Identifying a variable as necessary would imply that whenever the outcome variable has high values, the antecedent condition should (almost) always have high values. The necessity analysis results are presented in

Table 2. Necessity analysis (teacher-centric model).

Construct	Consistency	Coverage
EXP	0.43	0.49
Not EXP	0.57	0.47
TRAIN	0.42	0.50
not TRAIN	0.58	0.47
SAT	0.75	0.64
not SAT	0.55	0.61
SELF	0.69	0.64
not SELF	0.58	0.59
DEPT	0.74	0.63
not DEPT	0.55	0.61

(teacher-centric) and

Table 3. Necessity analysis (student-centric model).

Construct	Consistency	Coverage
EXP	0.40	0.50
Not EXP	0.60	0.54
TRAIN	0.47	0.60
not TRAIN	0.53	0.47
SAT	0.74	0.68
not SAT	0.54	0.64
SELF	0.73	0.72
not SELF	0.53	0.58
DEPT	0.75	0.69
not DEPT	0.51	0.62

(student-centric). To determine whether a variable is a necessary condition, we can calculate consistency and coverage measures. Consistency values higher than 0.9 indicate the presence of a necessary condition, as suggested by [29]. Coverage captures the importance of the relationship; the lower it is, the smaller the number of cases to which the identified relationship is applicable. The measures are calculated for both the presence and the absence (indicated with ‘not’ in the tables) of each condition variable. As we can observe from the tables, none of the conditions had values higher than 0.90 for the consistency measure, with the highest value being 0.75 for any condition. This shows the potential for configurational approaches, such as fsQCA in this domain, as these results show that by simply looking at variables one at a time, we cannot expect to obtain a full understanding on the pedagogical choices of educators.

An interesting observation one can make based on the tables is that teaching experience and training are the conditions with the lowest consistency values; as we will present in the main analysis, there is no clear, linear relationship between teaching experience/training and pedagogical practices. In particular, the teacher-centric model can be associated with extensive and limited experience and teaching training.

4. Results

In this section, the descriptive statistics as well as the main results of the fsQCA analysis are presented. The final usable dataset includes 289 eligible responses. Of the respondents, 150 (51.9%) were females, and 136 (47.1%) were males. The average age of the respondents was 49.1 years old with standard deviation 11.1, and range between 27 and 79 years. The length of teaching entrepreneurship courses ranged from 1 year to 45 years, but most of the respondents (n = 156) indicated they taught entrepreneurship courses between 5 and 15 years. Regarding the level of students taught, 219 (75.8%) respondents have indicated that they primarily taught courses to undergraduate students, and 189 (65.4%) to master’s-level students. Finally, most of educators had an assistant, associate, or full professor title (n = 198), while the rest were lecturers (n = 23), researchers (n = 10), and part time employees or adjuncts (n = 24). Of the respondents, 134 mentioned that they have attended training programmes on how to teach entrepreneurship.

We have performed sufficiency analysis for teacher- and student-centric pedagogical approaches as the outcome variable separately. Following general principles [59], truth tables were constructed based on all of the combinations of the five conditions and two outcomes considered in this analysis. In order to obtain the final sufficient configurations, in both analyses we set the frequency cut-off value as 1 and the consistency threshold as 0.85, above the recommended minimum 0.8 [29]. The results can be seen in

Table 4. Solution configurations (teacher-centric).

Construct	1	2	3	4
Teaching experience	●	●	◌	◌
Entrepreneurship training	●	●	◌
Job satisfaction	●	◌		●
Self-efficacy		●	◌	●
Department support	◌		●	◌
Consistency	0.74	0.85	0.80	0.82
Coverage	0.08	0.08	0.18	0.20
Overall consistency	0.77
Overall coverage	0.40

(teacher-centric) and

Table 5. Solution configurations (student-centric).

Constructs	1	2	3	4	5
Teaching experience	◌	◌	◌
Entrepreneurship training	●	●		●	●
Job satisfaction		◌	◌	◌	●
Self-efficacy	●		●	●
Department support		●	●		◌
Consistency	0.75	0.86	0.90	0.86	0.83
Coverage	0.19	0.11	0.18	0.18	0.15
Overall consistency	0.79
Overall coverage	0.41

(student-centric).

In the tables, ● and ◌ stands for the presence and absence of a condition (row) in the configuration (column). Moreover, regarding teaching experience, the black circles indicate teaching experience more than 10 years, and the blank circles indicate less than 10 years teaching experience. A similar interpretation applies to entrepreneurship teaching training programmes: black circles indicate that an educator has attended a training programme focused on how to teach entrepreneurship within the last 10 years, and blank circles indicate otherwise. As we can see from Table 4, we have obtained four configurations of conditions leading to educators expressing preferences towards a teacher-centric approach. The four solution configurations can be grouped in two pairs based on the role of the conditions teaching experience and, partly, entrepreneurship teaching training programme.

As we can see, in both Solutions 1 and 2, the teaching experience and training are present as part of the sufficient configurations. According to this, these two solutions characterise educators who emphasise teacher-centric approaches and have extensive experience and training in the domain. Furthermore, these experienced and trained educators can still be differentiated based on their level of job satisfaction. According to Solution 1, experience, training, and high job satisfaction results in the use of teacher-centric approaches when combined with lack of departmental support. According to Solution 2, teaching experience, training, and low job satisfaction results in the use of teacher-centric approaches when combined with high self-efficacy.

In contrast, Solutions 3 and 4 characterise educators who have less (than 10 years) experience (and partly lack training) and employ teacher-centric approaches. As the results show in Table 4, in the case of the less experienced educator, there is a mix of presence and absence of other conditions that together result in a preference for a teacher-centric model. In particular, Solution 3 indicates that for entrepreneurship educators who have less than 10 years of teaching experience, and have not attended teaching entrepreneurship training programmes, the presence of department support, and the absence of self-efficacy, influence their pedagogical approach, resulting in a preference for teacher-centric models. Additionally, Solution 4 indicates that for educators with less than 10 years of teaching experience, the presence of both job satisfaction and self-efficacy, and the absence of department support, influence their choice of becoming teacher-centric educators.

As per the student-centric approach, we have obtained five configurations of conditions, as seen in Table 5. Similarly to the teacher-centric approach, we can group the conditions based on mainly the teaching experience and entrepreneurship training conditions. The first three solutions characterize educators who have less than 10 years teaching experience and show preference for student-centric approaches. Solution 1 indicates that the presence of self-efficacy is the only additional required condition for the educators with less than 10 years of teaching experience who have attended the teaching training before. Solution 2 indicates that the presence of department support, and the absence of job satisfaction influence the educators with less than 10 years of teaching experience who have attended training programmes to become student-centric educators. Solution 3 indicates that the presence of self-efficacy and department support, and the absence of job satisfaction, are sufficient conditions for educators with less than 10 years of teaching experience irrespective of participating in teacher training or not. In contrast, the remaining two configurations of conditions characterise educators who have participated in entrepreneurship training programmes but have less than 10 years of teaching experience. These configurations apply to both experienced and inexperienced educators. In Solution 4, the presence of self-efficacy and the absence of job satisfaction leads the educators with teaching training in their career to choose a student-centric model. Finally, Solution 5 indicates that for educators who have attended the entrepreneurship teaching training programme, the presence of job satisfaction and the absence of department support influence their pedagogical choice, which is for a student-centric model.

5. Discussion

Traditionally, the most common teaching technique in higher education has been a didactic instruction and is often referred to as “teacher-centred” [13]. In this pedagogical model, teachers and educators are regarded as knowledge transmitters using static learning materials [13]. However, this prominent approach has been criticised for not being a very effective approach in instilling an entrepreneurial mindset and skills [17], or teaching learners how to be an entrepreneur [14]. Instead, some researchers suggested an alternative model, which is based on experiential learning or a student-centred model, and in this model the knowledge is created via transformation of experience [16]. Corbett argued that information can be acquired through two approaches: direct experience or through recreation of experience [15].

In this paper, the overall aim was to identify multiple configurations of conditions that lead to either teacher-centric or student-centric approaches. In other words, we used a configurational thinking approach to identify factors influencing entrepreneurship educators to choose their teaching model. The fsQCA results clearly show that while there are similarities between the educators who choose teacher-centric or student-centric pedagogical approaches, the choices clearly depend on their self-efficacy, department support, teaching experience, and partially, on their previous training in entrepreneurship education. For example, educators with more than 10 years of experience and department support tend to become teacher-centric educators. While educators with less than 10 years of teaching experience, but attended in teaching training, tend to become student-centric educators. This group of educators rely also on their self-efficacy and, to some extent, on support they receive from their department. For example, the first three solutions in Table 5 present an interesting finding, as they imply that for educators with less than 10 years of teaching experience the presence of department support and self-efficacy are important conditions for their decision to choose the student-centric model as their pedagogical approach. Moreover, according to Table 5, in four out of five configurations of conditions, teaching training is present. This finding strongly suggests that entrepreneurship departments in universities around the world should pay particular attention to training their junior entrepreneurship educators. The less experienced educators strongly rely on training to compensate for their lack of teaching experience. Whereas, for those educators who chose the teacher-centric model, teaching experience (more than 10 years), and to some extent, job satisfaction, are the most important conditions. For educators in this model, department support does not play a role.

6. Conclusions

In this paper, we have used identity theory, and focused on the factors that influence entrepreneurship educators’ pedagogical choices, in particular, the preference towards teacher- or student-centric approaches. Based on analysing the literature, we identified five antecedent conditions (variables) that were found to be influential in shaping educators’ pedagogical identity. To test the relationship between the proposed set of conditions and the pedagogical model preferred by the educator, we analysed a dataset of responses from 289 international entrepreneurial educators. Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis has been employed to obtain a holistic perspective and uncover possible non-linear interactions, and equifinal causal configurations of the identified antecedents that explain educators’ pedagogical choices.

The results of the fsQCA analysis revealed multiple configurations of conditions leading either to the teacher-centric or student-centric model as the outcome of interest. From a theoretical perspective, the fsQCA results show that factors influencing entrepreneurship educators’ pedagogical choices vary between the teacher-centric model and student-centric model. For example, for the teacher-centric model, it was found that more than 10 years of teaching experience and job satisfaction (to some extent) are important factors that, in various combinations with the presence or absence of other conditions, explain why some educators prefer this pedagogical approach. Whereas, for educators’ who prefer the student-centric model, self-efficacy and entrepreneurship education training programmes are important factors, but job satisfaction does not play a role.

The results presented in this paper offer useful theoretical and practical insights to entrepreneurship research as we tapped into a previously largely unexplored area of entrepreneurship education. As we have shown, making use of appropriately selected antecedent conditions, we can identify distinct causal configurations that aid in differentiating the reasons for selecting either teacher- or student-centric approaches in entrepreneurial education. The specific configurations offer theoretical insights regarding the role of individual conditions (factors) not fully recognised in the literature before. Furthermore, from a more practical and managerial standpoint, the results can aid universities, and in particular, departments offering education related to entrepreneurship to optimally design their policies in order to realise some required educational goals. With these results, we can support our stated propositions, where we stated that self-efficacy, department support, and job satisfaction influence entrepreneurship educators’ pedagogical choices (Proposition 1). Yet, the fsQCA results enabled us to confirm the second proposition, where we stated that entrepreneurship educators’ previous teaching training and the length of their teaching experience are important conditions for their pedagogical choices.

Practically, the extent to which teaching experience, training, or personal factors influence student or teacher-centric choices would provide insights in how to better staff classes by matching teacher preferences to appropriate content or level of teaching. Furthermore, the likelihood of preferring student-centric approaches is associated with training, so this implies for schools to have faculty who are more flexible with pedagogies, entrepreneurship education training programmes would be a good idea.

Finally, from an entrepreneurship education and sustainability challenges standpoint, we argue that entrepreneurship educators should aim to educate and train students to become entrepreneurs who have a strong desire to create innovative business practices characterised by innovation as well as the right sensitivity and a mindset oriented towards long-term sustainability [60,61]. In such an event, future entrepreneurs can establish businesses that support innovative approaches to resource production that produce resources with fewer pollutants, converting already-existing industrial structures to produce green and renewable resources [60,61,62] In addition, according to the UN (https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/education/ (accessed on 1 September 2022)) goals (Goal 4, education), we argue that educators are the key to what transpires in the entrepreneurial classroom, as education enables upward socioeconomic mobility and ensures inclusive and equitable quality education and promotes lifelong learning opportunities for all.

As for future research, it would be interesting to explore whether pedagogical choices might vary when considering entrepreneurship in an engineering or science environment, in other words, exploring the differences across disciplines. We also suggest exploring further to understand why experienced educators tend to prefer more teacher-centric approaches? There are several limitations to the study. First, while the five antecedent conditions were selected based on a rigorous search and previous results in the literature, there can be other important factors, such as teaching philosophy and teaching goals of the educator, which may influence the educators’ pedagogical choices. Second, the coverage results presented in Table 4 and Table 5 show that there is still a large unexplained fraction of educators who do not fit the identified patterns but have a clear preference for either teacher- or student-centric approaches. This indicates that, in the future, collecting more data will be required to get an even more refined understanding of the research problem. Finally, many possible antecedent condition configurations do not appear in the dataset. This implies that we may obtain different results after collecting more data. According to this, a critical future research task will be to collect additional data to test and validate the presented results.