1. Entrepreneurial Skills Development for Arts and Media students in West Yorkshire Colleges and Universities
Dr. Tim Deignan
Freelance Consultant for the
West Yorkshire Lifelong Learning Network
IEPC Harrogate UK th November 2009
Rev. 2

2. The Study
32 participants – all enterprise educators in colleges and universities
Looking at their perspectives on entrepreneurial skills development for Arts and Media students
Focus on Activity and Subjectivity

3. Framework - Activity Theory
Tool:
Enterprise Education
(activities and resources for teaching and learning)
Subject:
FE & HE
Providers
Object:
Students /
Trainees
Outcome:
*Entrepreneurial
skills and understanding
*Preparation for employment in the creative
and cultural industries
Division of Labour:
Tutors
Students / Trainees
etc
Community:
Departments
Faculties
Rules:
Standards
Assessment

4. Identifying Contradictions in the System
The lightning-shaped figures in the previous slide represent potential ‘contradictions’ in the activity system. Kangasoja (2002) describes how ‘contradictions are the driving force of development. They are manifest in the daily practices as breakdowns, tensions, ruptures and innovations. They call for reworking, both conceptually and very concretely, the objects and motives that sustain the activity, and for re-mediating the activity system by way of improving and inventing new tools’.

5. Activity and Subjectivity
Perspectives within an activity system

6. Q Methodology
William Stephenson ( )
Psychologist and Physicist
Originator of Q methodology – a tool for the scientific study of subjectivity
‘…one of the great truths of the human condition, that subjectivity is specific and one’s own…’ (1980:17)

7. Q methodology
a foundation for the systematic study of subjectivity (Brown, 1991)
identifies the different stories that can be told about a topic (Stainton Rogers, et al, 1996)
‘…despite its mathematical substructure, Q’s purpose is to reveal subjective structures, attitudes, and perspectives from the standpoint of the person or persons being observed.’ (Brown, 1996)

8. Q methodology
‘Q-methodology is especially suited to the task of uncovering positions really held by participants in a debate rather than accepting decision-makers’, analysts’, or even the participants’ predefined categories.’
(van Eeten, 2001)

9. Using Q-methodology : the stages
Identifying and sampling the ‘concourse’
Selecting participants for a diversity of views on the issues
Q sorting and post-sort interviews
Factor analysis
Factor interpretation

10. Some of the 48 statements used
Enterprise education is a vague concept. (17)
The benefits of enterprise education are obvious. (18)
Conventional teaching and learning methods are not suitable for entrepreneurial skills development. (25)
Enterprise education can alienate arts and media students. (37)
There is a shortage of appropriate staff in colleges and universities who can teach enterprise education properly. (39)

11. Rank ordering the 48 statements
How do you feel about each statement?
e.g.
Enterprise education can alienate arts and media students. (Statement 37)
Disagree
Neutral
Agree

12. Four main viewpoints interpreted
1: Just do it! Students need our help and encouragement
2: Enterprise education has got to be inclusive, tailor-made, and strategically driven
3: Authentic input helps, but there are no guaranteed outcomes
4: Enterprise education benefits everyone, but it needs staff awareness and understanding

13. System tensions identified
Tool
Enterprise Education
Outcome
People with
entrepreneurial
skills and understanding,
prepared for employment in the creative and cultural industries.
Community
Departments & Faculties, etc
 Curriculum design
 Perceived status
 Perceived relevance
Division of Labour
Tutors, Students / Trainees, etc
 Capacity
 Willingness
 Role boundaries
Rules
Standards, Assessment, etc
 Funding
 Assessment methods
 Staff rewards & benefits
 Compulsory for all
Subject
FE & HE Providers
 Shared understandings
 Top level support
 Institutional models
Object
Students / Trainees
 Visibility
 Ownership
 Perceived benefit
 Focus on transitions

14. Designing values into tools
Using Activity Theory and Q-methodology T V S C PS
Key
Stakeholders (S)
Tools (T)
Values and Viewpoints (V)
Problem Space (PS)
Change (C)

15. Bibliography
Brown, S. R. (1980) Political Subjectivity – Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science, (New Haven and London, Yale University Press)
Deignan, T. (2009) ‘Enquiry-based learning: Perspectives on practice’, Teaching in Higher Education, 14(1)13-28
Deignan, T. (2006) Transferable People: Reframing the Object in UK Post Compulsory Education and Training, PhD thesis, University of Manchester
Engeström, Y. (1999) Activity theory and individual and social transformation, pp19-38 in Y. Engeström et al, (1999) Perspectives on activity theory, (Cambridge University Press)
Stephenson, W. (1953) The study of behaviour: Q-technique and its methodology, (Chicago, The University of Chicago Press)
Van Eeten, Michel J.G. (2001) Recasting Intractable Policy Issues: The Wider Implications of the Netherlands Civil Aviation Controversy, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20(3):