JEMA: Jurnal Ilmiah Bidang Akuntansi dan Manajemen, 18(2) 2021,107 -136
http://dx.doi.org/10.31106/jema.v18i2.11461, ISSN (Online) 2597-4017
107
Evaluations of an entrepreneurship development
program: A systematic literature review
Ronal Ferdilan
1*
, Wawan Dhewanto
2
, Sonny Rustiadi
3
1
School of Business and Management, Institute of Technology Bandung, Bandung,
Indonesia
2
School of Business and Management, Institute of Technology Bandung, Bandung,
Indonesia
3
School of Business and Management, Institute of Technology Bandung, Bandung,
Indonesia
*Corresponding Author(s) Email: ronal-ferdilan@sbm-itb.ac.id
ABSTRACT
The contribution of entrepreneurship at both the
microeconomic and macroeconomic levels is remarkable.
There are many entrepreneurship development programs
(EDP) initiatives proposed by policymakers around the
world to ensure the growth of entrepreneurs. While EDP
is necessary to improve entrepreneur capabilities,
however studies on EDP evaluation literacy remain
limited. This study aims to fill the gap by investigating
EDP evaluation literacy by using a systematic literature
review (SLR). This study carried out a bibliometric
analysis on a Scopus database in the last three decades,
from 1989 to 2021 with all the manuscripts were written
in English. The results show that most of the literature on
EDP evaluation-related themes is mainly focused on
program evaluation, characteristics, challenges,
stakeholders, and context, with program evaluation and
characteristics are considered as the most significant
issues of EDP evaluation. Interestingly, this study also
reveals that few manuscripts review the process of EDP
as the success criterion of EDP implementation.
Keywords: Entrepreneurship; Development; Small and
Medium Enterprises (SMEs); Education;
Training; Systematic Review; Bibliometric
Analysis
JEL Code:
I25, I30, M13
DOI:
10.31106/jema.v18i2.11461
Article History:
Received 2021-07-08
Reviewed 2021-07-30
Revised 2021-08-02
Accepted 2021-08-19
Licensed:
CC-BY
mailto:ronal-ferdilan@sbm-itb.ac.id
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Evaluations of an entrepreneurship development program: A systematic literature review
by Ronal Ferdilan, Wawan Dhewanto, Sonny Rustiadi
108
Introduction
Entrepreneurship development programs (EDP) are activities (or a package of training
and counseling designed) to increase knowledge and creativity. EDP encourages the
entrepreneurial spirit of people to start and grow their business in both formal (high-school
and post-secondary school students) and informal sectors (Gangi, 2017; Hägg & Gabrielsson,
2020; Lackéus, 2015; Valerio et al., 2014). The purposes of EDP are to improve skills,
knowledge, and attitudes of targeted individuals and community (Fayolle et al., 2016;
Gedeon, 2017; Klingler-vidra et al., 2019), to start a new business, and to add new jobs
(Decker et al., 2014; Jeng & Hung, 2019), to provide an alternatives sources of income
(Dvouletý, 2017; Terjesen et al., 2016), and to initiate economic growth (Martínez et al.,
2018; Song & Winkler, 2014; Stoica & Roman, 2020). Nowadays, EDP implementation is
getting more recognition and attention from policymakers and academicians because of its
contributions (Tsai et al., 2014). EDP offered many benefits to the entrepreneurial
community. It increases the economic contribution, gives alternative solutions to youth
unemployment issues, creates social impact, etc. (Nabi et al., 2017; Pettersson et al., 2017;
Valerio et al., 2014).
The academic literature EDP-related has been expanding steadily over the years,
covering themes like entrepreneurship program categorization, attitudes, and perception, EDP
objective, program content and framework, social entrepreneurship, evaluation, and impact
(Gabrielsson et al., 2020; Kakouris & Georgiadis, 2016; Loi et al., 2016; Martin et al., 2013).
However, Gustafsson-Pesonen & Remes (2012) argued that despite its popularity, it’s very
often reported that the biggest obstacles of entrepreneurship programs are on what (and how)
educators or trainers teach and their attitudes toward entrepreneurship. Besides, Gustafsson-
Pesonen & Remes (2012) also pointed that the evaluation of the EDP effectiveness remains
arguable. Fayolle (2013) added that while the impact of the program or session on trainees,
students, and other participants may be an appropriate evaluation criterion, there is still the
issue of how to measure it. What should the indicators be, and how should they be measured?
How can you quantify a shift in someone's intention or behavior? How may the sign of the
time component be considered? And how can educational, teaching, and training aspects be
distinguished from all other factors that influence the decision to pursue a particular career
path or profession?
The clear EDP evaluation measurement is necessary to provide tremendous program
improvement of all deficiencies in achieving the program’s goals and objectives and closing
JEMA: Jurnal Ilmiah Bidang Akuntansi dan Manajemen, 18(2) 2021,107 -136
http://dx.doi.org/10.31106/jema.v18i2.11461, ISSN (Online) 2597-4017
109
the loop of the program decision-making. Although there is still debate about evaluation
measurement due to the absence of a control group (Fayolle, 2013) and meta-analysis (Bae et
al., 2014), this problem can be minimized by analyzing its nature, educational interventions,
and context. Therefore, to fill such a gap, the study aims to explore the state of EDP
evaluations using a systematic literature review (SLR) since this method can give an
exceptional knowledge of the current body of work (Frank & Hatak, 2014). We have
investigated 366 papers from the Scopus database that were published from 1989 to 2021 that
used the keywords “entrepreneur,” “develop,” “evaluate,” “education,” and “training.” The
usage of Scopus as the primary database in the study is because this reputable international
database is utilized by academicians worldwide. By investigating state of the art, we
identified five main themes: evaluation, program characteristics, challenge, stakeholder, and
context. Besides these central themes, we also evaluated the manuscript based on the period it
was published, the contributors, and the subject area of the manuscript. This study is
considered the first amongst EDP-related manuscripts that uses SLR to explore the
evaluations of the EDP. Furthermore, the systemic literature review is used as this method
can create an academic map regarding EDP evaluation trends and futures (Alvesson &
Sandberg, 2011).
The manuscript is composed as follows: the first and second sections will briefly review
academic literature, concentrating specifically on the theme’s critical aspect of EDP.
Subsequently, the third section states the methodology of the research to produce a duplicable
SLR. Following these come the results of the SLR and a review of EDP trends constructed in
journals studied of this theme. Thus, the final part contains the result, suggestions,
limitations, and suggestions for future research.
Literature Review
Entrepreneurship Development Program (EDP)
Entrepreneurship is considered a critical alternative strategy to deal with various
situations, such as financial crises and increased unemployment rates (Galvão et al., 2018). It
is appreciated as a trigger of regional prosperity and social development (Ashrafi et al., 2020;
Galvão et al., 2019; Song & Winkler, 2014). The entrepreneurship level of a country has been
shown to influence the advancement of national economies (Atems & Shand, 2018; Prieger et
al., 2016), progress and innovation (Landström & Harirchi, 2018; Sánchez, 2013), the
number of job creation (Shane & Venkataram, 2012), and the growth in nominal Gross
Domestic Product (Khyareh et al., 2018). Therefore, due to the critical contribution to the
Evaluations of an entrepreneurship development program: A systematic literature review
by Ronal Ferdilan, Wawan Dhewanto, Sonny Rustiadi
110
economy’s sustainable development, policymakers have been focused on shaping education
and training to ensure entrepreneurship development. This program is vital for developing
entrepreneurship as it is packaged with managerial, financial, vocational, and technical
training. Suminar et al. (2021) added that the entrepreneurship development program (EDP)
is the right strategy to scale up the level of innovation, creativity, ability, and literacy of
entrepreneurs to produce new, profitable young entrepreneurs to create jobs and assist the
government in alleviating unemployment and poverty. Many researchers have discussed
various connotations and meanings of EDP that different direct approaches in its theoretical
development. Such discussions are still going on, multiple researchers’ Ahmad et al., (2018),
Fayolle & Gailly (2008), and Gibb (2002) stated that there is no complete consensus on
definitional terminology. They claimed that the meaning of EDP can only be deduced from
their emphasis and the objective of public policy 'initiatives. For example, Sudha (2019)
argues that EDP improves entrepreneurial passion, competency, and capability to run
enterprises. EDP also changes people's attitudes in developing their competency, passion,
working capacity, and knowledge. Besides, EDP helps participants identify any business
opportunities. It also boosts the confidence, reflection, expertise, and qualification to operate
a successful business (Jones & English, 2004; Kumar, 2017). Landra et al. (2018) explained
that EDP are set up to train their entrepreneurial abilities and innovation. To summarize,
numerous researchers (Béchard & Denis, 2005; Béchard & Denis, 1998; Gabrielsson et al.,
2020; Heinonen & Hytti, 2016; Interman, 1992; Kyrö, 2015; Lackéus, 2015) classified these
education and training programs into simple three purposes. The purposes are to promote
business awareness and creation, small business development, and train trainers.
Entrepreneurship Development Programs (EDP) Evaluation
The attention of EDP is booming worldwide. Although there is debate whether these
programs should be introduced at an early age (elementary school) or university level, more
and more public policy “initiatives” related to entrepreneurship are implemented by the
government to accelerate the growth of business and enhance entrepreneurial spirit and
literacies. (Fayolle, 2013) also added that given that it is a hot topic on the political agenda,
there is an increasing number of publications by academicians that have focused on EDP.
However, the critical question now arises, whether the implementation of EDP affects the
intended goals and produces an effective result. (Brentnall et al., 2018) argued that if public
money were allocated on such initiatives because they are represented as solutions to societal
JEMA: Jurnal Ilmiah Bidang Akuntansi dan Manajemen, 18(2) 2021,107 -136
http://dx.doi.org/10.31106/jema.v18i2.11461, ISSN (Online) 2597-4017
111
issues, it was reasonable to examine whether they were a good investment. Therefore, more
investigations should be made in evaluating EDP (Farashah, 2013; Larso et al., 2018).
Surprisingly, despite the huge number of public initiatives allocated to this program (and
the critical issue from government perspectives), a little study is available to comprehensively
discuss the assessment and evaluation of EDP (Fayolle, 2013). Yet Acs et al. (2016) and
Gustafsson-Pesonen & Remes (2012) also pointed out that the review of the effectiveness of
the EDP remains debatable. While the impact of the program or session on trainees, students,
and other participants may be an appropriate evaluation criterion, there is still the issue of
how to measure it. What should the indicators be, and how should they be measured? How
can you quantify a shift in someone's intention or behavior? How may the sign of the time
component be considered? And how can educational, teaching, and training aspects be
distinguished from all other factors that influence the decision to pursue a particular career
path or profession (Fayolle, 2013)?
The nature of EDP that is inseparable from training and education made the teaching
model one of the critical sources in evaluating EDP. Eseryel (2002) identified six approaches
that can be used in assessing EDP: goal-based evaluation, goal-free evaluation, responsive
evaluation, systems evaluation, and professional review and quasi-legal. Fayolle (2013)
added that among these approaches, goal-based (Kirkpatrick's reaction, learning, behavior,
result framework) and systems-based approaches (such as Input, Process, Output, Outcome
model by Bushnell) are predominantly used to assess EDP. EDP evaluation should focus
more on the process than content (Gruenwald, 2014). Lundström et al. (2014) and Vesper &
Gartner (1997) also strengthened that argument by stating that the accomplishment of
programs goals and teaching methods are the two most commonly used to assess EDP.
Moreover, Galvão et al. (2019), Nyadu-Addo & Mensah (2018) added that the attendances
and participation in the business clinic (assessment), context (Galvão et al., 2018; Jessica &
Menold, 2015; Purzer et al., 2016), individual characteristics (Fretschner & Weber, 2013;
Huang-Saad et al., 2018), knowledge/theory understanding (Brentnall et al., 2018; Neergaard,
2014), as another EDP successful indicator. The program assessment offers information
required for external certification and accountability information and delivers information
used internally for quality control and improvement purposes (Lundström et al., 2014;
Palomba & Banta, 1999).
Evaluations of an entrepreneurship development program: A systematic literature review
by Ronal Ferdilan, Wawan Dhewanto, Sonny Rustiadi
112
Methods
This study used systematic literature reviews that cover EDP evaluation-related topics
for program improvement. Armitage & Keeble-Ramsay (2008) Borrego et al. (2014) and
Tranfield et al. (2003) added that the SLR technique shows an important practical (in terms of
accuracy for duplicability) when dealing with many investigations presented in a long period.
SLRs are widely used for conducting evidence-based policy (Pittaway, 2016; Pittaway &
Cope, 2007). Therefore, considering these points, we utilize SLR to identify issues on EDP
evaluation and analyze its growth. The analysis also intends to assess the impact of papers on
this subject, analyze journals that produce documents, verify significant writers and
academicians, and classify desirable topics and procedures.
The search was conducted using the Scopus database and covered the period 1989 to
2021. The terms used to determine relevant studies were examined in titles, abstracts, and
keywords. These terms were entrepreneur*,” “develop*,” “evaluate*,” and “education or
training.” The core logic to select the Scopus database was its extensive analysis of
universally indexed papers of a value standard by academics. Furthermore, many papers
recognized by Scopus are also accessible in other databases. As one of the most
comprehensive databases, Scopus can also form a different bibliographic outcome than other
databases. Because the research of EDP evaluation remains thin, we chose to use all articles
about this topic in Scopus, from 1989-2021, to have a rich data source. To the best of our
knowledge, there is no existing SLR that focuses on exploring the evaluations of the EDP
from the Scopus database published from 1989 to 2021. From this search, it can be known
that the first papers in the Scopus were written by Wan (1989) and Curran & Stanworth.
(1989) While Wan (1989) study focused on evaluating the type and efficacy of a company’s
workshop program to promote business planning competencies, Curran & Stanworth (1989)
assessed the character of entrepreneurship education. For our study, these two papers
published in 1989 will be treated as the beginning point of the EDP evaluation discourse.
Furthermore, we first selected documents with analytically confirmed information and
eliminated documents other than journal articles to obtain the necessary papers. Then, we
chose “entrepreneur*,” “develop*,” “evaluate*,” and “education or training” as keywords to
discover papers related to this theme. The resulting outcome was a total of 1191 papers.
These papers then undergo four phases of elimination. First, we eliminated papers not written
in English (reducing the article count from 1191 to 1132). Second, writings other than social,
management, and business scope were eliminated, reducing the papers to 481. Third, we
JEMA: Jurnal Ilmiah Bidang Akuntansi dan Manajemen, 18(2) 2021,107 -136
http://dx.doi.org/10.31106/jema.v18i2.11461, ISSN (Online) 2597-4017
113
excluded other disciplines to focus just on the theme. Lastly, we stopped outcomes that were
not a journal article or different than the theme. The final result used as the base for SLR is
366 papers. Table 1 presents a summary of the phase used in the SLR method.
Table 1. Literature Review Exclusion Criteria
Stage Exclusion Criteria Amount
Stage 1 Search Scopus bibliography by “entrepreneur*,”
“develop*,” “evaluate*,” and “education or training”
keywords.
1191
Stage 2 Choosing outputs that were written in English. 1132
Stage 3 Choosing output that focused on social, management,
and business scope.
481
Stage 4 Choosing the scientific papers only, eliminate
conference papers and review.
366
Figure 1. Summary of SLR Process
Evaluations of an entrepreneurship development program: A systematic literature review
by Ronal Ferdilan, Wawan Dhewanto, Sonny Rustiadi
114
The quality impact of the manuscript often refers to the number of citations. Although the
usage of citation has been a debate for over decades (as the older the manuscript has had
more time to accumulate citations), the usage of citation as the proxy of the quality of
manuscript remained still (Dumay et al., 2014). Therefore, to overcome the bias, this study
uses citation analysis into three points of view which are co-authors citations network
analysis, co-citations sources network analysis, and co-citations and corresponding group
analysis. The result of Tables 3 and 4 compare the top 10 authors and top 10 co-cited authors
indicated that rather than a few authors dominating the rankings, the rankings show a wide
range of authors; this reflects the breadth and diversity of scholars and institutions working in
this field (Demartini & Beretta, 2020; Massaro et al., 2016). Furthermore, the analytical
framework and dataset (text queries) must be defined and coded using the developed
framework as another phase of SLR (Massaro et al., 2016). Following the coding process, we
completed the final phase of the SLR, which involves analyzing the results to produce
insights and critiques, respond to the research question, and make recommendations for
future research directions. Figure 1 shows the summary of the SLR process used in the study.
Result and Discussion
Entrepreneurship Development Programs (EDP) Research Trends
Figure 2. Number of Publications (EDP related) per Year
Figure 1 shows the development of published researches on the topic of EDP evaluation.
In 2001, the subject started to appear at a constant level, whereas some periods before this
year had no papers. Between fourteen years (1989-2003), there were only 29 papers
JEMA: Jurnal Ilmiah Bidang Akuntansi dan Manajemen, 18(2) 2021,107 -136
http://dx.doi.org/10.31106/jema.v18i2.11461, ISSN (Online) 2597-4017
115
published concerning EDP evaluation. The amount started to rise dramatically since 2004,
with the largest amount of published research being 42 papers in the year 2019. At the
beginning of 1989, the EDP study has focused on the program characteristics identification
and their target participants. Furthermore, the program improvement is made based on the
program’s evaluation. Wan (1989) explores the characters and effectiveness of the enterprise
training program. The Australian government founded this in 1989 to promote business
planning competency. All training programs are held in the capital city of each state of
Australia and are divided into three phases: seminar series, intensive training, and business
plan competition. Thus, these programs were evaluated by past participants’ perception of the
program effectiveness, economic (monetary) impact, and feedback evaluation from sources
other than participants (employers and academicians). He found that the training program has
effectively achieved the program’s goals to promote business planning competency. The
evaluation of these enterprise’s workshop results is that these programs lack focus on
personal training qualities, as they over-emphasize practical skills in business planning.
Following Wan (1989) and Curran & Stanworth (1989), the study concerned four typologies
of entrepreneurial education: entrepreneurial education for small businesses, entrepreneurial
awareness for entrepreneurs, advancing industry for small business owners, and small
business awareness. They evaluate that the program with the highest effectiveness was small
business education for small business owners.
Figure 3. Publications Based on Countries and Continents
Figure 2 confirms that the United Kingdom (64 manuscripts), United States America (56
manuscripts), Australia (23 manuscripts) is the most contributors of EDP-related studies in
cumulative with the contribution of more than 50%. Europe accounted for the biggest
continent contributors of the study related to EDP with a contribution of 45% followed by
Evaluations of an entrepreneurship development program: A systematic literature review
by Ronal Ferdilan, Wawan Dhewanto, Sonny Rustiadi
116
America, Asia, Oceania, and Africa. Table 2 presents the top five publishers of 160 journals
that discuss this issue. In addition, this topic began to come up in 1990 in the Journal of
Business Venturing. The subject area of management, business, and education appears the
most in the top-five publishers.
Table 2. Top Five Publishers
Journals
Number of
Articles
First
Published
Number of
Citations
SJR
SNIP
Subject
Area
Education and
Training
34 2005 965
0.752
1.504
Bs, Mg, Ac,
Ed
Journal of
Entrepreneurship
Education
29 2011 141
0.283
1.030
Ac, Bs, Mg,
Ed, Ec, Et
Industry and Higher
Education
18 1998 196
0.450
0.718
Bs, Mg, Ed
Journal of Business
Venturing
12 1990 2867
4.977
3.700
Bs, Mg
Emerald Emerging
Markets Case Studies
11 2013 0
0.166
0.048
Bs, Mg, Ed,
St
Note: Ac= Accounting, Bs=Business, Ed=Education, Ec=Economics, Et=Econometric,
Mg=Management, St=Strategic
Table 3. Top Ten Authors Based on Number of Publications
Authors
Number of
Publications
Total
Citations
Average
Citations
Jones, Paul 4 66 16.5
Baptista, Rui 3 35 11.6
Frese, Michael 3 127 42.3
Januario, Carlos 3 26 8.7
Maritz, Alex 3 25 8.7
McElwee 3 33 11
Naia, Ana 3 35 11.7
Trigo, Virginia 3 35 11.7
Abdullah, Moha Asri 2 2 1
Balan, Peter 2 27 13.5
While co-author in this study is defined as one or more persons who write the article, co-
citations are the frequency in which two documents are cited together by other documents.
Table 3 highlighted the most performed authors in the current time and the number of their
JEMA: Jurnal Ilmiah Bidang Akuntansi dan Manajemen, 18(2) 2021,107 -136
http://dx.doi.org/10.31106/jema.v18i2.11461, ISSN (Online) 2597-4017
117
citations. Even though Jones issued the most publications related to EDP (4 publications), it
was Fayolle that has the most cited of publications (563 citations) followed by Hornsby and
Palich (506 and 488 citations).
Table 4. Top Ten Co-Citations Authors
Authors
Number of
Publications
Total
Citations
Average
Citations
Fayolle, Alain 173 563 3.3
Hornsby, Jeffrey 46 506 11.0
Palich, Leslie. 22 488 22.2
Fischer Eileen 71 483 6.8
Chandler, G. N., 24 445 18.5
Linan, Fransisco 59 283 4.8
Zacharakis, Andrew 34 273 8.0
Fiet, James 33 269 8.2
Gurol, Yonca 4 207 51.8
Heinonen, Jarna 28 183 6.5
The Citation Network Analysis
The Citation Network Analysis (CNA) is based on the list of references found in journal
articles or other types of publications. References are citations to prior works that have
influenced the direction of a study. Even though papers with a large number of citations are
not necessarily representative of influential and world-class research, it is widely accepted
that citations can be used to assess the relevance of publications (Colicchia et al., 2018;
Dawson et al., 2014). Papers may be removed from the study if no other works cite them,
regardless of their content's importance, or if they have garnered a small number of citations
due to their recent publication. Other technologies, like keyword analysis and citation score
analysis, might thus complement and minimize the aforementioned flaws. Therefore, to build
bibliographic networks, a VOS viewer was used to analyze bibliometric networks and cluster
analysis. Figure 3 presents the co-author's network analysis based on (at least) 20 co-citations
per author, demonstrating the “world” of five groups of the most outstanding co-authors of
106 authors. Although these authors discuss a diverse range of topics, they cite one another
quite frequently. It signifies the presence of a solid network (correlation) between them. It
also can be acknowledged that the EDP study is growing by citing each other’s papers.
Furthermore, Figure 4 that was formed with at least 20 co-citations per journal shows that
Evaluations of an entrepreneurship development program: A systematic literature review
by Ronal Ferdilan, Wawan Dhewanto, Sonny Rustiadi
118
most of the journals – out of 78– with co-citations were issued in the recent periods and
polarized into the six biggest connected groups. The top three journals that published EDP
frequently are The Journal of Business Venturing, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, and
Journal of Small Business and Management. There is a link between groups, indicating the
interconnection among them.
Figure 4. Authors Citations Network Analysis (Authors Perspective)
Figure 5. Co-Citations Network Analysis (Sources of Publication Perspective)
For further analysis with at least four co-citations per manuscript, 80 most of the co-cited
manuscripts were carefully chosen and classified into 5 segmented groups. These 5 groups
selected are Group 1 that includes 30 percent of the journals and Group 2 Group 5 which has
JEMA: Jurnal Ilmiah Bidang Akuntansi dan Manajemen, 18(2) 2021,107 -136
http://dx.doi.org/10.31106/jema.v18i2.11461, ISSN (Online) 2597-4017
119
17.5 percent respectively. Figure 5 proved that these five groups have a strong connection to
each other.
Figure 6. Co-Citations and Corresponding Group Network Analysis
Group 1
This group consists of 30 lists of the manuscript, with 8 of them having more than four
co-citations. The authors in Group 1 evaluated the EDP based on the impact and process.
(Kolvereid & Moen, 1997; Matlay, 2008; Matlay et al., 2009; Souitaris et al., 2007) evaluated
the program based on the impact, while Jones did the evaluation based on the process. Matlay
(2008) evaluated the impact of the EDP on the entrepreneurial result of the graduates of
Higher Education Institutions. He found the entrepreneurial education improves these
graduates with sufficient literacy and competency to enter both an entrepreneurial profession
and their careers – after one year, five years, and ten years. The results of this ten–year–
entrepreneurship–education evaluation show that the program has a successful
entrepreneurial outcome. The majority of participants experience fast progression on owning
a small business or obtaining impressive management levels. Meanwhile, Souitaris et al.
(2007) evaluated the entrepreneurship program’s result to the entrepreneurial mindset and
motive of 250 science and engineering undergraduates from two campuses in London and
Grenoble. Their analysis confirms that entrepreneurship programs increase some
Evaluations of an entrepreneurship development program: A systematic literature review
by Ronal Ferdilan, Wawan Dhewanto, Sonny Rustiadi
120
entrepreneurial mindset and reason. Besides, the most significant benefits come from a
program framework that incorporates an emotional component. The results contribute to the
planned behavior theories and education theories. The findings also have broader inferences
for the entrepreneurial emotion philosophy and for teaching entrepreneurship practices. Next,
Kolvereid & Moen (1997) evaluated the impact of entrepreneurship education on business
graduates with a major in entrepreneurship versus graduates in other majors in a Norwegian
business school. They found that graduates with a major in entrepreneurship have a bigger
entrepreneurial motive. Lastly, Matlay et al. (2009) that evaluated the EDP in 1995-2004,
found that EDP in the United Kingdom HEI positively impact the graduate’s mindset towards
their career and promote the potential entrepreneurs requiring expertise and competency in
starting, running, and growing their business (Matlay & Carey, 2007). They found that, in
2000, the regional government funding and cultural issues were perceived as a barrier for
EDP. In 2004, they discovered that all the 40 campuses in the samples establish
Entrepreneurship education because of the demand from students, faculty staff affiliates, and
government support funding.
Katz (2003) who analyzed more than 100 publications of the Entrepreneurship Education
in America from 1876 until 1999, found that the cited authors formed an outline to define the
chronology of entrepreneurship education in America. This framework is beneficial as a
guide for future research. In addition, Jones’s study provides an exclusive technique of
understanding the learning process to be entrepreneurial in university (Jones, 2010). Based on
the research findings, the author argues that the students in the university understand the
limitation of entrepreneurship education they learn. Consequently, the educators should
consider the students’ capacity to provide a better learning atmosphere to develop the
students’ capability. Understanding the limitations of both educator and student is crucial to
maximizing the entrepreneurship program in the university. The EDP could be evaluated
based on two aspects: the participants and their business. The evaluation based on
participants could be determined from the development of knowledge of entrepreneurship
theory; the essential of entrepreneurship; the significance of entrepreneurship; creative and
innovation competency; entrepreneurial and ethical self-evaluation; and interacting, selling,
and negotiation. In addition, the business developments are dependent on their business
changes: finding and estimating chances; monetary of a concept; constructing opening
strategies; developing a business planning; getting capital; opening the enterprises; growing
the enterprise; and harvesting plan. The program characteristic and the delivery of the EDP
are also discussed in this group as Fiet (2000a, 2000b) argues that the teaching process should
JEMA: Jurnal Ilmiah Bidang Akuntansi dan Manajemen, 18(2) 2021,107 -136
http://dx.doi.org/10.31106/jema.v18i2.11461, ISSN (Online) 2597-4017
121
not be dull, as the most effective programs for coaching theory are connected to definite
persons, places, timing, contacts, and environments.
Group 2
This group consists of 14 list manuscripts with seven of them having more than four co-
citations, emphasizing four topics which are program evaluations, program characteristics,
program stakeholders, and challenges. The authors in this group evaluated EDP based on the
impact and process. The first publication assessed the influence of the Entrepreneurship
Education Program on the students’ entrepreneurial intention. They found that the program
had an extremely low positive effect on their recognized behavioral controls (Fayolle, A.,
Gailly B., 2006). The second paper proposes a model of entrepreneurship education majority
stimulated by education sciences. Also, this publication analyses the ontological and
educational of the program. Fayolle & Gailly (2008) used the proposed framework to review
several categories of entrepreneurship education programs, concentrating on three main types
of education processes. Moreover, Duval-couetil (2013) discussed the approach of the EDP
evaluation. She argued that the impact evaluation should be determined by the stakeholder
consensus, considering the diverse range of internal and external collaborators with different
interests in the educational program. This SLR also focused on the program challenges. The
challenges especially relate to entrepreneurship education program valuation. Moreover, she
promoted the stakeholders’ involvement and consensus on developing, implementing, and
evaluating entrepreneurship education programs. She also proposed to involve
comprehensive stakeholders. The evaluation requires many resources: time, money, and
expertise. Also, participation from expert evaluators is essential. She offered three assessment
instruments of entrepreneurship education: evaluation on the course-level that appraises the
participants’ reaction to an entrepreneurship program; assessment on the broader agenda that
measures a wider array of results, including interest, expertise, response, career decision,
business creation, financial impact; and evaluation on specific parts or ideas related to
entrepreneurship. Meanwhile, Rauch & Hulsink (2015) have tested the effectiveness of
entrepreneurship education. They evaluated the program impact based on the planned
behavior theory. Then, Martin, et al. (2013) reported a meta-analysis of the formulation of
human resources in entrepreneurship. They found a significant impact of entrepreneurship
education and training on human resources and entrepreneurship outcomes. Also, they
observed that the entrepreneurship outcome is stronger for entrepreneurship education
programs than entrepreneurship training programs.
Evaluations of an entrepreneurship development program: A systematic literature review
by Ronal Ferdilan, Wawan Dhewanto, Sonny Rustiadi
122
Furthermore, the topic of program characteristics was discussed by Fayolle & Gailly
(2008). There are three categories of entrepreneurship programs namely learning to be
enterprising persons, learning to be competent entrepreneurs, studying to be academicians
(teachers or researchers in the field of entrepreneurship). Another study from Gibb (2002)
and Gorman et al. (1997) even added that as the rising of entrepreneurship interest is mainly
due to the pressure of globalization, the need for entrepreneurial behavior is being felt by a
broad variety of stakeholders (e.g., pastors, medics, educators, communities, and others) with
a concern on the market.
Group 3
This group consists of 14 list manuscripts that emphasize the program characteristics
such as content program (Detienne & Chandler, 2004; Edelman et al., 2008; Fiet, 2000b).
The first paper studied by Solomon (2007) presented an analytical synopsis of contemporary
entrepreneurship education in the USA in 2004-2005. The second article was the research of
Shane & Venkataraman (2000) that conceptualized the agenda of the Entrepreneurship study.
Detienne & Chandler (2004) discussed opportunity identification as a crucial subject in the
entrepreneurship program. They appreciated opportunity identification as a core content of
entrepreneurship education, which can be advanced as exclusive skills. The participants can
learn the competency through the Solomon Four Group Designed experiment. Moreover,
while Edelman et al. (2008) found that there are some intersections and differences between
the real-life of start-ups to the textbook content, Fiet (2000a, 2000b) in his articles, reviewed
several assumptions that teaching theories to students have a more significant impact than
only showing them what entrepreneurs do. He also explored the content of entrepreneurship
education and the process of the program actualization.
Group 4
This group is composed of 14 manuscripts that emphasize the EDP evaluation and
context. It contains five publications with more than three co-citations with the most of them
concurs that EDP evaluation should be carried out based on the impact (Karlan & Valdivia,
2011; Krueger et al., 2000; Oosterbeek et al., 2010). While Ajzen (1991) analyzed the Theory
of Planned Behavior in EDP evaluation, Oosterbeek et al. (2010) evaluated the impact of an
entrepreneurship education program on university scholars’ competency and enthusiasm.
However, the latter found that the program did not achieve the expected effect. In 2011,
Karlan & Valdivia (2011) evaluated the impact of training on microfinance customers and
organizations. Also, Krueger et al. (2000) contrasted two intention-based schemes with their
capacity for the entrepreneurial intention estimation. The models are based on the Planned
JEMA: Jurnal Ilmiah Bidang Akuntansi dan Manajemen, 18(2) 2021,107 -136
http://dx.doi.org/10.31106/jema.v18i2.11461, ISSN (Online) 2597-4017
123
Behaviour Theory of Ajzen (1991) and the entrepreneurial event model of Shapero. They
proposed that the prediction model should depend on the intention because situational or
individual determinants have a low prediction ability based on the empiric cases. Finally,
Thomas & Mueller (2000) investigated culture or the connection among philosophy on four
personality traits that are linked with entrepreneurial passion. The personal entrepreneurial
characteristics are innovation, locus of control, risk-taking, and energy.
Group 5
This group contains 14 manuscripts that emphasize EDP evaluation, characteristics, and
challenges. Similar to the previous group, most of the manuscripts in this group concurs that
EDP evaluation can be and should be conducted based on the impacts (Athayde, 2009;
Fayolle & Gailiy, 2015; Graevenitz & Weber, 2009; Liñán et al., 2011; Nabi et al., 2017). On
the first topic, Fayolle & Gailiy (2015) recommended the framework of entrepreneurial
intention and its antecedents to evaluate the impact of the EDP. Thus, the second study of
EDP evaluation by Nabi et al. (2017) found that the research of the EDP (education) impact
still mainly emphasizes short-term measures with impact index based on the emotion-based
methods and the intention-to-behavior change. Moreover, while Graevenitz & Weber (2009)
proposed a theoretical framework of Bayesian learning to evaluate the improvement skills of
entrepreneurship as the impact of entrepreneurship education, Athayde (2009) assessed the
impact of the young entrepreneurship program on the participants. Lastly, Liñán et al. (2011)
proposed the elements forming an entrepreneurial intention. They stated that personal
characters and perceived behavioral control are the determinants of entrepreneurial intention.
The second topic is program characteristics. Kuratko (2005) and Pittaway & Cope
(2007) studied the contents of EDP which is the contents of market entry, compromise skills,
leadership, construction skills, creative problem solving, and skills to use technology and
innovation skills, intention to be entrepreneurs, business capital, copyright, risk management,
characters of an entrepreneur, and growth constrain. The entrepreneurship education contents
are established based on the real-life situation: business strategy, creating business for
scholars, discussion with industrialists, situation investigation, and case study.
Thirdly, the program challenges topic. Kuratko (2005) divided the challenges of
entrepreneurship study into ten issues namely stagnation, low quality of publications, lack of
academician experts in entrepreneurship, low level of technology usage, the dot-com
tradition, conflicting of academia with the real-life, the dilution of entrepreneurship,
managing the risk, the leadership revolving of academic administrative, and the one-man
show. Therefore, to overcome the challenges in promoting entrepreneurship programs, the
Evaluations of an entrepreneurship development program: A systematic literature review
by Ronal Ferdilan, Wawan Dhewanto, Sonny Rustiadi
124
usage of robust theoretical and conceptual basics combine with a real investigation (not take
it for granted) is a mandatory act (Fayolle, 2013).
Discussion
The descriptive of EDP issue from the five selected groups above is mostly concerned
with program evaluation, characteristics, challenges, stakeholders, and context. In addition,
the topic of program evaluation and program characteristics are recognized as the main
significant them of EDP evaluation (See Table 5). In addition, the findings show that most
evaluations are conducted based on the impact of the program. Just a few of the papers
consider the process of EDP as the assessment of the EDP implementation.
Table 5. EDP Issues
Group Evaluation Characteristics Challenges Stakeholders Context
1 √ √
2 √ √ √ √
3 √
4 √ √
5 √ √ √
Table 5 above illustrates the five topics of co-authors in the EDP-related studies. From
the existing papers, several topics are discussed, with some of them revealing similarities.
The most significant issues are program evaluations and program characteristics, found in
four groups. Firstly, EDP can be evaluated based on impacts and processes (although most of
the assessments also assess the implications to assess the program achievement). To appraise
the result of the program is necessary, but to assume by its impact alone is significantly
insufficient, as the goal of the review is to improve the program. The findings above also
reveal that a few articles review the process. Nevertheless, since two other minority authors
use the process as a basis of a program evaluation, it can be considered as rebalancing the
program evaluation and identifying current and future trends.
There were five topics discussed in the literature. The first topic was the EDP evaluation.
The literature on EDP evaluation reveals that EDP evaluations are primarily concerned with
the impact of the program on the participants' capabilities and their business. Nevertheless,
just a few of the bibliography suggested for review on the EDP implementation process, such
as the delivery process, the expertise of stakeholders involved, and other aspects of the
implementation process. Even though most previous research conducted the EDP evaluation
JEMA: Jurnal Ilmiah Bidang Akuntansi dan Manajemen, 18(2) 2021,107 -136
http://dx.doi.org/10.31106/jema.v18i2.11461, ISSN (Online) 2597-4017
125
based on the impact, this study expands the scope for EDP evaluation based on both effect
and the process. The aim to evaluate the impact is to find whether the intended goals are
achieved or not. Besides, the objectives of the review of the operation of the EDP are to find
out the quality of the process and improvement purposes. The findings conclude the
assessment typology based on both the impact to see the result and the process that consist of
the evaluation of the impact and process, the evaluation of the impact, and the evaluation of
the process. However, since the EDP evaluation is complex due to the variety of the content,
purpose, and approach (Fayolle & Gailiy, 2015), the EDP evaluation should be conducted to
ensure the program enhancement (Warhuus et al., 2017). This EDP evaluation and
implementation need the participation of various stakeholders who have resources of
expertise, money, and information (Bischoff et al., 2018; Duval-couetil, 2013) in short,
medium, and long-term periods of evaluation (Galvão et al., 2019; Matlay, 2011). While
numerous researchers evaluated the EDP based on the impact to measure the effectivity,
nevertheless the evaluation of the process of the execution was also needed to ensure
improvements of the future EDP. Consequently, it is suggested to evaluate EDP based on the
impact and the process of the EDP.
The second topic discusses three program characteristics: program delivery, design
programs, and program content. Thirdly, the discussion is about challenges, namely the
program implementation, the challenge to understand the program, and the challenge of
evaluating. Since the sources of the program come from the activity of attention of various
stakeholders, then the success level depends on the stakeholder’s participation level (Galvão
et al., 2017). The fourth issue is the stakeholder. Bischoff et al. (2018) declared that
stakeholder theory in a business context commonly refers to the organizations and individuals
who can influence or be influenced by business activities. There are more than ten
stakeholder categories that were defined by Leonidou et al. (2020) which consists of
academia, government, community, customers, service intermediaries, user community,
suppliers, business networks, start-up teams, innovation intermediaries, social media,
university peers, NGOs, industry cluster, associations, friend and family. However, these
wider ranges of stakeholders have often produced contra-productive conflict between each
other due to the different systems and interests of each stakeholder. Some authors use
Quadruple Helix (Dhewanto et al., 2021; Primanto et al., 2018), the Penta Helix (Tonkovic et
al., 2015), collaboration, and the individual actors’ model (Rustiadi & Arina, 2019) as a
framework to analyze the roles that stakeholders. Finally, the last issue of EDP evaluation in
this study is the context, which means the diversity of programs.
Evaluations of an entrepreneurship development program: A systematic literature review
by Ronal Ferdilan, Wawan Dhewanto, Sonny Rustiadi
126
Conclusion and Suggestion
In this literature review, we have investigated 366 EDP manuscript related and explored
several issues such as program evaluation, characteristics, challenges, stakeholders, and
context, with program evaluation and characteristics. This study shows that most manuscripts
that conducted EDP evaluations are based on the program's impact on the participants'
competency, their businesses, or their career. While a few that the review of the process of
EDP as the success criterion of EDP implementation. This study helps to identify EDP
evaluation criteria based on their impact and process so it can produce a more comprehensive
evaluation to improve EDP implementation. From a practical perspective, this study shows
the policymaker the benefits of EDP evaluation. Other EDP studies may also be inspired to
conduct EDP evaluation to make the program more effective and efficient. In summary, to
accomplish the goal effectively and efficiently, there should be an evaluation of the goal’s
achievement and the antecedents.
The limitation of this study is the use of the Scopus database by excluding some papers
in which involves subjectivity in grouping the articles and choosing the keywords. Future
research could include Web of Science bibliographies, books, book chapters, and conference
papers as sources. Future studies could also be an investigation on the evolution of the EDP
implementation and evaluation during 1947-1989. It would also be compelling to discuss the
conduct of the evaluation of EDP within Asia, Australia, and Africa contexts. Furthermore,
future studies should also consider the need to explore, reflect, and ask questions more
critically, not on the side of being taken for granted. For instance, by asking again, how could
a program improvement be accomplished with a thorough evaluation? Considering the
available resources are very limited, how do we do the evaluation? Is there any other benefit
besides study, insight, and talent? Are there any differences between trainers with a practical
background to the academician one? Do innovative ideas lead to wealth creation? Do the
program significantly influence the business performance?
References
Acs, Z., Åstebro, T., Audretsch, D., & Robinson, D. T. (2016). Public policy to promote
entrepreneurship: a call to arms. Small Business Economics, 47(1), 35–51.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9712-2
Ahmad, S. Z., Abu Bakar, A. R., & Ahmad, N. (2018). An evaluation of teaching methods of
entrepreneurship in hospitality and tourism programs. International Journal of
Management Education, 16(1), 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2017.11.002
JEMA: Jurnal Ilmiah Bidang Akuntansi dan Manajemen, 18(2) 2021,107 -136
http://dx.doi.org/10.31106/jema.v18i2.11461, ISSN (Online) 2597-4017
127
Ajzen. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Process, 50, 179–211.
Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating Research Questions Trough
Probematization. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 247–271.
Armitage, A., & Keeble-Ramsay, D. (2008). Undertaking a Structured Literature Review or
Structuring a Literature Review: Tales from the Field. The Electronic Journal of
Business Research Methods, 6(2), 103–114. www.ejbrm.com
Ashrafi, D. M., Sarker, M. A. R., Hashim, J. B., Haque, A., & Nayan, F. K. (2020). An
exploration of the youths perception toward social entrepreneurship development:
Evidence from Bangladesh. JEMA: Jurnal Ilmiah Bidang Akuntansi Dan Manajemen,
17(1), 88. http://dx.doi.org/10.31106/jema.v17i1.5539
Atems, B., & Shand, G. (2018). An empirical analysis of the relationship between
entrepreneurship and income inequality. Small Business Economics, 51(4), 905–922.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9984-1
Athayde, R. (2009). Measuring Enterprise Potential in Young People. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 33(2), 481–500.
Bae, T. J., Qian, S., Miao, C., & Fiet, J. O. (2014). The Relationship Between
Entrepreneurship Education and Entrepreneurial Intentions: A Meta-Analytic Review.
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 38(2), 217–254.
https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12095
Béchard, J.-P., & Denis, G. (1998). Entrepreneurship Education Research Revisited: The
Case of Higher Education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 22–
43.
Béchard, J., & Denis G. (2005). Entrepreneurship Education Research Revisited: The Case of
Higher Education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 22–43.
Bischoff, K., Volkmann, C. K., & Audretsch, D. B. (2018). Stakeholder collaboration in
entrepreneurship education: an analysis of the entrepreneurial ecosystems of European
higher educational institutions. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(1), 20–46.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9581-0
Borrego, M., Foster, M. J., & Froyd, J. E. (2014). Systematic literature reviews in
engineering education and other developing interdisciplinary fields. Journal of
Engineering Education, 103(1), 45–76. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20038
Brentnall, C., Rodríguez, I. D., & Culkin, N. (2018). The contribution of realist evaluation to
critical analysis of the effectiveness of entrepreneurship education competitions.
Evaluations of an entrepreneurship development program: A systematic literature review
by Ronal Ferdilan, Wawan Dhewanto, Sonny Rustiadi
128
Industry and Higher Education, 32(6), 405–417.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422218807499
Colicchia, C., Creazza, A., & Strozzi, F. (2018). Citation network analysis for supporting
continuous improvement in Higher Education. Studies in Higher Education, 43(9),
1637-1653. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1276550
Curran, J. & Stanworth, J. (1989). Education and Training for Enterprise Problems of
Classification, Evaluation, Policy and Research. International Small Business Journal,
7(2), 11–22.
Dawson, S., Gašević, D., Siemens, G., & Joksimovic, S. (2014, March). Current state and
future trends: A citation network analysis of the learning analytics field. In Proceedings
of the fourth international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 231-
240). https://doi.org/10.1145/2567574.2567585
Decker, R., Haltiwanger, J., Jarmin, R., & Miranda, J. (2014). The role of entrepreneurship in
us job creation and economic dynamism. In Journal of Economic Perspectives (Vol. 28,
Issue 3, pp. 3–24). American Economic Association. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.28.3.3
Demartini, M. C., & Beretta, V. (2020). Intellectual capital and SMEs’ performance: A
structured literature review. Journal of Small Business Management, 58(2), 288-332.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2019.1659680
Detienne, D. R., & Chandler, G. N. (2004). Opportunity Identification and Its Role in the
Entrepreneurial Classroom: A Pedagogical Approach and Empirical Test. Academy of
Management Learning and Education, 3(3), 242–257.
Dhewanto, W., Herliana, S., Yunita, F., Nur Rizqi, V., & Williamson, I. O. (2021).
Quadruple Helix Approach to Achieve International Product Quality for Indonesian
Food SMEs. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 12(2), 452–469.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-020-00644-2
Dumay, J. (2014). Reflections on interdisciplinary accounting research: the state of the art of
intellectual capital. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 27(8), 1257-1264.
https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-05-2014-1714
Duval-couetil, N. (2013). Programs : Challenges and Approaches. Journal of Small Business
Management, 51(3), 394–4019. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12024
Dvouletý, O. (2017). Effects of soft loans and credit guarantees on performance of supported
firms: Evidence from the Czech Public Programme START. Sustainability
(Switzerland), 9(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/su9122293
JEMA: Jurnal Ilmiah Bidang Akuntansi dan Manajemen, 18(2) 2021,107 -136
http://dx.doi.org/10.31106/jema.v18i2.11461, ISSN (Online) 2597-4017
129
Edelman, L. F., Manolova, T. S., & Brush, C. G. (2008). Entrepreneurship Education:
Correspondence between Practices of Nascent Entrepreneurs and Textbook
Prescriptions for Success. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(1), 56–
70.
Eseryel, D. (2002). Approaches to Evaluation of Training: Theory & Practice. Educational
Technology & Society, 5(2), 93–98.
Farashah, A. D. (2013). The process of impact of entrepreneurship education and training on
entrepreneurship perception and intention: Study of educational system of Iran.
Education and Training, 55(8–9), 868–885. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-04-2013-0053
Fayolle, A. (2013). Personal views on the future of entrepreneurship education.
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 25(7–8), 692–701.
Fayolle, A., & Gailiy, B. (2008). From craft to science Teaching models and learning
processes in entrepreneurship education. Journal of European Industrial Training,
32(7), 569–593. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090590810899838
Fayolle, A., & Gailiy, B. (2015). The impact of Entrepreneurship education on
Entrepreneurial Attitudes and Intention : Hysteresis and Persistence. Journal OfSmall
Business Management, 53(1), 75–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12065
Fayolle, A., Gailly, B., & Lassas‐Clerc, N. (2006). Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship
education programmes : a new methodology. Journal of European Industrial Training,
30(9), 701–720. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090590610715022
Fayolle, A., Verzat, C., & Wapshott, R. (2016). In quest of legitimacy: The theoretical and
methodological foundations of entrepreneurship education research. International Small
Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 34(7), 895–904.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242616649250
Fiet, J. O. (2000a). The pedagogical side of entrepreneurship theory. Journal of Business
Venturing, 16, 101–117.
Fiet, J. O. (2000b). The theoretical side of teaching entrepreneursip. Journal of Business
Venturing, 16(99), 1–24.
Frank, H., & Hatak, I. (2014). Doing a research literature review. In A. Fayolle & M. Wright
(Eds.), How to Get Published in the Best Entrepreneurship Journals: A Guide to Steer
Your Academic Career (pp. 94–117). Edward Elgar Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781782540625
Evaluations of an entrepreneurship development program: A systematic literature review
by Ronal Ferdilan, Wawan Dhewanto, Sonny Rustiadi
130
Fretschner, M., & Weber, S. (2013). Measuring and understanding the effects of
entrepreneurial awareness education. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(3),
410–428. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12019
Gabrielsson, J., Hägg, G., Landström, H., & Politis, D. (2020). Connecting the past with the
present: the development of research on pedagogy in entrepreneurial education.
Education and Training, 62(9), 1061–1086. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-11-2019-0265
Galvão, A., Ferreira, J. J., & Marques, C. (2018). Entrepreneurship education and training as
facilitators of regional development: A systematic literature review. Journal of Small
Business and Enterprise Development, 25(1), 17–40. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-
05-2017-0178
Galvão, A., Marques, C. S., Ferreira, J., Galvão, A., & Marques, C. S. (2019). Evaluation of
an entrepreneurship training programme : a proposal for new guidelines. Education +
Training, 61(2), 136–152. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-11-2018-0228
Galvão, A., Mascarenhas, C., Gouveia Rodrigues, R., Marques, C. S., & Leal, C. T. (2017). A
quadruple helix model of entrepreneurship, innovation and stages of economic
development. Review of International Business and Strategy, 27(2), 261–282.
https://doi.org/10.1108/RIBS-01-2017-0003
Gangi, Y. A. (2017). The role of entrepreneurship education and training on creation of the
knowledge economy. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and
Sustainable Development, 13(4), 375–388. https://doi.org/10.1108/wjemsd-06-2017-
0032
Gedeon, S. A. (2017). Measuring Student Transformation in Entrepreneurship Education
Programs. Education Research International, 2017, 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/8475460
Gibb, A. (2002). In pursuit of a new ` enterprise ’ and paradigm for learning : creative
destruction , new values , new ways of doing things and new combinations of
knowledge. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4(3), pp.233-269.
Gorman, G, Hanlon, D., & King, W. (1997). Some Research Perspectives on
Entrepreneurship Education, Enterprise Education and Education for Small Business
Management: A Ten-Year Literature Review. International Small Business Journal,
15(3), 56–77.
Graevenitz, G. von, & Weber, R. (2009). The Effects of Entrepreneurship Education.
Discussion Paper No. 269 The Effects of Entrepreneurship Education, 49(269), 1–46.
JEMA: Jurnal Ilmiah Bidang Akuntansi dan Manajemen, 18(2) 2021,107 -136
http://dx.doi.org/10.31106/jema.v18i2.11461, ISSN (Online) 2597-4017
131
Gruenwald, R. K. (2014). Alternative Approaches in Evaluating the EU SME Policy:
Answers to the Question of Impact and Legitimization. Entrepreneurial Business and
Economics Review, 2(2), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.15678/eber.2014.020207
Gustafsson-Pesonen, A., & Remes, L. (2012). Evaluation of entrepreneurial development
coaching: changing the Teachers’ thinking and action on entrepreneurship. Annals of
Innovation & Entrepreneurship, 3(1), 17211. https://doi.org/10.3402/aie.v3i0.17292
Hägg, G., & Gabrielsson, J. (2020). A systematic literature review of the evolution of
pedagogy in entrepreneurial education research. In International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research (Vol. 26, Issue 5, pp. 829–861). Emerald
Group Holdings Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-04-2018-0272
Heinonen, J., & Hytti, U. (2016). Entrepreneurship mission and content in Finnish policy
programmes. 23(1), 149–162. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-10-2014-0170
Huang-Saad, A. Y., Morton, C. S., & Libarkin, J. C. (2018). Entrepreneurship Assessment in
Higher Education: A Research Review for Engineering Education Researchers. Journal
of Engineering Education, 107(2), 263–290. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20197
Interman. (1992). Interman, International Management Development Network in
Cooperation with the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and the
International Labor Office (ILO). (1992). Networking for Entrepreneurship
Development, Geneva: International Labor Office.
Jeng, D. J. F., & Hung, T. H. (2019). Comeback of the failed entrepreneur: An integrated
view of costs, learning, and residual resources associated with entrepreneurial failure.
Journal of Small Business Strategy, 29(1), 23–35.
Jessica, M., & Menold, M. (2015). Exploring the Impact of Cognitive Preferences on Student
Receptivity to De-sign Thinking (2015). 122nd ASEE Annual Conferenc and
Exposition, 1–18.
Jones, C. (2010). Entrepreneurship education : revisiting our role and its purpose. Journal of
Small Business & Enterprises Development, 17(4), 500–513.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14626001011088697
Jones, C., & English, J. (2004). A contemporary approach to entrepreneurship education.
Education + Training, 46(8/9), 416–623. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910410569533
Kakouris, A., & Georgiadis, P. (2016). Analysing entrepreneurship education: a bibliometric
survey pattern. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 6(1).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40497-016-0046-y
Evaluations of an entrepreneurship development program: A systematic literature review
by Ronal Ferdilan, Wawan Dhewanto, Sonny Rustiadi
132
Karlan, D., & Valdivia, M. (2011). Teaching entrepreneurship: impact of business training on
microfinance clients and institutions. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(2),
510–527.
Katz, J. A. (2003). The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship
education 1876–1999. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 283–300.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(02)00098-8
Khyareh, M. M., Khairandish, M., & Torabi, H. (2018). Macroeconomic Effects of
Entrepreneurship: Evidence from factor, efficiency and iinovation driven countries.
International Journal of Entrepreneurship, 23(1), 1–21.
Klingler-vidra, R., Pardo, R. P., & Klingler-vidra, R. (2019). Beyond the Chaebol ? The
Social Purpose of Entrepreneurship Promotion in South Korea Beyond the Chaebol ?
The Social Purpose of Entrepreneurship Promotion in South Korea. Asian Studies
Review, 43(4), 637–656. https://doi.org/10.1080/10357823.2019.1663576
Kolvereid, L., & Moen, Ø. (1997). Entrepreneurship among business graduates: does a major
in entrepreneurship make a difference? Journal of European Industrial Training, 21(4),
154–160. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090599710171404
Krueger, N. F., Reilly, M. D., & Carsrud, A. L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial
intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15, 411–432.
Kumar, H. M. (2017). Role of Entrepreneurial Development Programmes in Growth of
Entrepreneurship in India. International Journal of Latest Technology in Engineering,
Management & Applied Science (IJLTEMAS), VI(VI), 1–1.
Kuratko, D. F. (2005). The Emergence of Entrepreneurship Education: Development, Trends,
and Challenges. ET& P, 1042–2587, 577–597.
Kyrö, P. (2015). The conceptual contribution of education to research on entrepreneurship
education. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 27(9–10), 599–618.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2015.1085726
Lackéus, M. (2015). Entrepreneurship in Education: What, Why, When, How. Paris: OECD.
In OECD.
Landra, N. S., I Ketut Setuia Sudja, I Nengah, & Arizona, P. E. (2018). Enterpreneurship
Development Program for the improvement of the Student at Mahasaraswati University
Denpasar. International Journal of Sustainabillity, Education and Global Creative
Economic, 1(1), 75–78.
Landström, H., & Harirchi, G. (2018). The social structure of entrepreneurship as a scientific
field. Research Policy, 47(3), 650–662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.01.013
JEMA: Jurnal Ilmiah Bidang Akuntansi dan Manajemen, 18(2) 2021,107 -136
http://dx.doi.org/10.31106/jema.v18i2.11461, ISSN (Online) 2597-4017
133
Larso, D., Mirzanti, I. R., & Simatupang, T. M. (2018). Evaluation of emerging
entrepreneurship policy. International Journal of Economic Policy in Emerging
Economies, 11(1/2), 49. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijepee.2018.10012090
Leonidou, E., Christofi, M., Vrontis, D., & Thrassou, A. (2020). An integrative framework of
stakeholder engagement for innovation management and entrepreneurship development.
Journal of Business Research, 119, 245-258.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.054
Liñán, F., Rodríguez-Cohard, J. C., & Rueda-Cantuche, J. M. (2011). Factors affecting
entrepreneurial intention levels: A role for education. International Entrepreneurship
and Management Journal, 7(2), 195–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-010-0154-z
Loi, M., Castriotta, M., & di Guardo, M. C. (2016). The theoretical foundations of
entrepreneurship education: How co-citations are shaping the field. International Small
Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 34(7), 948–971.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242615602322
Lundström, A., Vikström, P., Fink, M., Meuleman, M., Glodek, P., Storey, D., & Kroksgård,
A. (2014). Measuring the Costs and Coverage of SME and Entrepreneurship Policy: A
Pioneering Study. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 38(4), 941–957.
https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12037
Martin, B. C., McNally, J. J., & Kay, M. J. (2013). Examining the formation of human capital
in entrepreneurship: A meta-analysis of entrepreneurship education outcomes. Journal
of Business Venturing, 28(2), 211–224.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBUSVENT.2012.03.002
Martínez, A. C., Puentes, E., & Ruiz-Tagle, J. (2018). The effects of micro-entrepreneurship
programs on labor market performance: Experimental evidence from Chile. American
Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 10(2), 101–124.
https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20150245
Massaro, M., Dumay, J., & Guthrie, J. (2016). On the shoulders of giants: undertaking a
structured literature review in accounting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, 29(5), 767-801. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-01-2015-1939
Matlay, H. (2008). The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial outcomes.
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15(2), 382–396.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14626000810871745
Evaluations of an entrepreneurship development program: A systematic literature review
by Ronal Ferdilan, Wawan Dhewanto, Sonny Rustiadi
134
Matlay, H. (2011). The influence of stakeholders on developing enterprising graduates in UK
HEIs. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 17(2), 166–
182. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552551111114923
Matlay, H., & Carey, C. (2007). Entrepreneurship education in the UK: A longitudinal
perspective. In Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development (Vol. 14, Issue
2, pp. 252–263). https://doi.org/10.1108/14626000710746682
Matlay, H., Carey, C., Matlay, H., & Carey, C. (2009). Entrepreneurship education in the
UK : a longitudinal perspective. Journal of Small Business & Enterprises Development,
14(2), 252–263.
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), 1–42.
Neergaard, H. , R. S. , & J. S. (2014). Identity transformation: Learning entrepreneurship
through pedagogical nudging. Paper presented at Institute for Small Business and
Entrepreneurship, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Nyadu-Addo, R., & Mensah, M. S. B. (2018). Entrepreneurship education in Ghana – the
case of the KNUST entrepreneurship clinic. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development, 25(4), 573–590. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-02-2017-0062
Oosterbeek, H., Ã, M. V. P., & Ijsselstein, A. (2010). The impact of entrepreneurship
education on entrepreneurship skills and Motivation. European Economic Review,
54(3), 442–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2009.08.002
Palomba, C., & Banta, T. W. (1999). Assessment Essentials: Planning, Implementing, and
Improving Assessment in Higher Education. Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Pettersson, K., Ahl, H., Berglund, K., & Tillmar, M. (2017). In the name of women? Feminist
readings of policies for women’s entrepreneurship in Scandinavia. Scandinavian
Journal of Management, 33(1), 50–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2017.01.002
Pittaway, L. (2016). Entrepreneurship Education : A Systematic Review of the Evidence.
October 2007. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242607080656
Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007). Entrepreneurship education: A systematic review of the
evidence. In International Small Business Journal (Vol. 25, Issue 5, pp. 1–33).
https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242607080656
Prieger, J. E., Bampoky, C., Blanco, L. R., & Liu, A. (2016). Economic Growth and the
Optimal Level of Entrepreneurship. World Development, 82, 95–109.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WORLDDEV.2016.01.013
JEMA: Jurnal Ilmiah Bidang Akuntansi dan Manajemen, 18(2) 2021,107 -136
http://dx.doi.org/10.31106/jema.v18i2.11461, ISSN (Online) 2597-4017
135
Primanto, A. B., Khoirul Abs, M., & Slamet, A. R. (2018). A Study of The Best Selling
Smartphone in The Two Biggest Marketplace in Indonesia. Jurnal Terapan Manajemen
Dan Bisnis, 4, 17–24.
Purzer, S., Fila, N., & Nataraja, K. (2016). Evaluation Of Current Assessment Methods In
Engineering. Anvances in Engineering Education, Winter, 1–27.
Rauch, A., & Hulsink W. (2015). Putting Entrepreneurship Education Where the Intention to
Act Lies : An Investigation Into the Impact of Entrepreneurship Education on
Entrepreneurial Behavior. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 14(2), 187-
204.
Rustiadi, S., & Arina, N. (2019). Indonesia weaving culture innovation: a study of
collaboration and individual actors. Jurnal Kewirausahaan Dan Bisnis, 24(14), 66–80.
Sánchez, J. C. (2013). The impact of an entrepreneurship education program on
entrepreneurial competencies and intention. Journal of Small Business Management,
51(3), 447–465. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12025
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of
research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2012). Note as the promise of entrepreneurship. The
Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217-226.
Solomon G. (2007). An examination of entrepreneurship education in the United States.
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 14(2), 168–182.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14626000710746637
Song, L., & Winkler, C. (2014). China’s trans-regional entrepreneurship: A panel data
analysis of 31 provinces. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 6(3),
202–222. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-06-2014-0020
Souitaris, V., Zerbinati, S., & Al-laham, A. (2007). Do entrepreneurship programmes raise
entrepreneurial intention of science and engineering students ? The effect of learning ,
inspiration and resources. 22, 566–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2006.05.002
Stoica, O., & Roman, A. (2020). The Nexus between Entrepreneurship and Economic
Growth : A Comparative Analysis on Groups of Countries.
Sudha, B. (2019). Entrepreneurship and Economic Development. International Journal of
Multidisciplinary Reserch Review, 1(10), 194–197.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332092174
Suminar, T., Arbarini, M., & Loretha, A. (2021). Management of Entrepreneurship Training
Program in Literacy Village.
Evaluations of an entrepreneurship development program: A systematic literature review
by Ronal Ferdilan, Wawan Dhewanto, Sonny Rustiadi
136
Terjesen, S., Bosma, N., & Stam, E. (2016). Advancing Public Policy for High-Growth,
Female, and Social Entrepreneurs. Public Administration Review, 76(2), 230–239.
https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12472
Thomas, A., & Mueller, S. (2000). A Case f or Comparative Entrepreneurship: Assessing the
Relevance of Culture. Journal of International Business Studies, 31(2), 287–301.
Tonkovic, Edward Veckie, & Vlado Walter Veckie. (2015). Aplications Of Penta Helix
Model In Economic Development," Economy of eastern Croatia yesterday, today,
tommorow, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Faculty of Economics,
Croatia, 4, 385–393.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a Methodology for Developing
Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. British
Journal of Management, 14, 207–222.
Tsai, W. H., Lee, P. L., Shen, Y. S., & Hwang, E. T. Y. (2014). A combined evaluation
model for encouraging entrepreneurship policies. Annals of Operations Research,
221(1), 449–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-011-1029-6
Valerio, A., Parton, B., & Robb, A. (2014). Entrepreneurship Education and Training
Programs around the World Dimensions for Success. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Vesper, H., & Gartner, B. (1997). Executive forum Measuring progress in entrepreneurship
education. Journal Of Business Venturing, 12, 403–421.
Wan, V. (1989). The Enterprise Workshop Programme in Australia. International Small
Business Journal, 7(2), 23–34.
Warhuus, J. P., Tanggaard, L., Robinson, S., & Ernø, S. M. (2017). From I to We:
collaboration in entrepreneurship education and learning? Education and Training,
59(3), 234–249. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-08-2015-0077