Dr. Tim Deignan timdeignan@runbox Freelance Consultant for the

1. Entrepreneurial Skills Development for Arts and Media students in West Yorkshire Colleges and Universities Dr. Tim Deignan timdeignan@runbox.com Freelance Consultant for the West Yorkshire Lifelong Learning Network www.wylln.ac.uk IEPC Harrogate UK 15th 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. Tool: Enterprise Education (activities and resources for teaching and learning) Outcome: *Entrepreneurial skills and understanding *Preparation for employment in the creative and cultural industries Subject: FE & HE Providers Object: Students / Trainees Rules: Standards Assessment etc Community: Departments Faculties etc Division of Labour: Tutors Students / Trainees etc Framework - Activity Theory

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 (1902-1989) 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

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

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

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):391-414