Understanding influences on entrepreneurship educator role identity

1. Introduction

Numerous research studies on entrepreneurship education investigate the curriculum, teaching content, student learning processes, teaching methods and the outcomes of courses (cf. Fayolle and Klandt, 2006; Gabrielsson et al., 2020; Kuratko and Hoskinson, 2014; Mwasalwiba, 2010; Nabi et al., 2017; Neck and Corbett, 2018; Neck et al., 2021; Neck et al., 2014; Pittaway and Cope, 2007; Ratten and Umanij, 2021; Aparicio et al., 2019). The focus of received research has been largely on the “what”, or teaching content, the learning processes of students “whom” and the use of various teaching methods “how” (Gabrielsson et al., 2020). However, Hägg and Gabrielsson (2020) argue that the “who” of entrepreneurship education is less studied than the other three aspects. This is somewhat surprising given that the entrepreneurship educator plays a crucial role in course creation, teaching, developing materials, facilitating student learning and interaction, which impacts student learning effectiveness and desired outcomes such as attitudinal changes, knowledge enhancement and potentially venture creation (Finkle et al., 2006; Jones and Mataly, 2011; Peura and Hytti, 2022; Todding and Venesaar, 2018). In addition, many studies on entrepreneurship educator’s role identity tend to focus on a particular context or setting, such as higher education or vocational training. Moreover, while there is some accumulated knowledge on the factors that shape entrepreneurship educator’s role identity, much of this knowledge is still based on anecdotal evidence or personal experiences. Thus, there is a need for more empirical research that uses rigorous methods to examine the various factors that shape educators' sense of self and professional identity.

At the same time, many conceptual frameworks, and recent reviews of the field of entrepreneurship education do not include the role of the educator at all, focusing programs, policies and approaches to curricula (Gibb, 2002; Hoppe et al., 2017; Sirelkhatim and Gangi, 2015). Of those that include the role of the entrepreneurship educator, some show that they have a role in facilitating instruction and learning assessment (Jones and Mataly, 2011; Macht and Ball, 2016), and that the educator orientation directly shapes knowledge of entrepreneurship education curricula, student understanding of entrepreneurship education, instructional strategies and assessment (Jones and Matlay, 2011). Even though many studies prescribe what educators should do and how they should seek to provide a student-centered learning experience (Macht and Ball, 2016; Neck and Corbett, 2018; Todding and Venesaar, 2018), the importance of the entrepreneurship educator role and an articulation as to how their role is shaped are dealt with only peripherally. One integrative framework proposes a teaching and learning model of entrepreneurship education and highlights “teacher factors”, which includes teaching and learning approach, competencies and experiences, teaching goals, objectives and assessment (Todding and Venesaar, 2018). It is argued that teacher factors interact with learning environment and student factors leading to teaching and learning activities and learning outcomes, but the model does not reflect on how these teacher’s factors are shaped.

Literature from entrepreneurship education does recognize that the educator’s role identity shapes how they approach and perform their role as an educator, and how such role perception influences the effectiveness of their teaching and the learning outcomes (Finkle et al., 2006; Krueger, 2007; Neck and Corbett, 2018). Teaching effectiveness in entrepreneurship education is the ability of educators to facilitate learning and development of the necessary knowledge, skills and attitudes that enable students to start, manage and grow successful businesses (Liu et al., 2022; Otache, 2019). The effective entrepreneurship education involves several components, including active learning (using teaching methods that encourage students to actively engage in the learning process), relevant curriculum (curriculum designed to meet the needs of students) and supportive learning environment (an environment that encourages creativity, risk-taking and innovation) (Bell and Bell, 2020; Hynes and Richardson, 2007). But even though it is well recognized that the entrepreneurship educator is a critical player in entrepreneurship education, and research describes and prescribes how the educator might be effective, there are few theoretical insights about the role of the instructor, how they facilitate learning, how their role is shaped and how they see themselves in this role (Haag and Gabrielson, 2020; Toding and Venesaar, 2018).

While research on educator role identity in entrepreneurship is sparse, the teacher education literature suggests that an educator’s identity is shaped by three components: social structure, interactional factors and personal factors. Social structure relates to the context and department of the faculty member, and it influences the role identity meanings formed in different contextual situations (Stryker, 2001). For example, faculty are identified by their disciplines, their rank (e.g. assistant, or associate professor), courses they teach, departments within which they serve (e.g. marketing, finance, strategy) and their affiliation with a particular center or institute (Kreber, 2010). Interactional factors refer to interactions and negotiations with others (McCall and Simmons, 1978), where faculty engages with others through which their self-concepts is confirmed or validated by means of self-presentations. Finally, personal factors relate to internal dynamics and perceptual control of the individual (Burke and Stets, 2009). Of these three components, personal factors: job satisfaction, personal values and self-efficacy are the major influence on identity (Richter et al., 2021; Stets and Burke, 2014; Canrinus et al., 2011).

In contrast to literature in entrepreneurship education, teacher professional identity is well studied. Anchored in role identity theory, which emphasizes the identification one has to a particular role, essentially how individuals see themselves in context (Burke and Reitzes, 1981; Stets and Burke, 2000). These works consider factors influencing educators' professional identity, a sub-identity of role identity that includes the role of agency in the pursuit of professional development and learning in accordance with teacher goals (Beauchamp and Thomas, 2009). It includes a set of cognitions about one’s profession and is based on attributes, beliefs, values, motives and experience (Beijaard et al., 2004), or more specifically, “it is a lens through which teachers (educators) look at their job, give meaning to it, and act in it” (Keltchermans, 2009, p. 260). This work delves into the relationship between how teachers' instructional practices are associated with how they make sense of their job (Day et al., 2006), how personal factors including task perceptions are associated with self-efficacy, job satisfaction and beliefs (Richter et al., 2021) and how professional identity develops (Lamonte and Engles, 2010). Further, these studies also show that teacher professional identity is linked to the ways that teachers teach and their commitment to teaching and the extent to which they may use student-centered or teacher-centered approaches in the classroom (Lamonte and Engles, 2010; Day et al., 2006; Kelchtermans, 2014).

In the context of entrepreneurship education, the educator role identity is of great interest for several reasons. First, compared to other disciplines, entrepreneurship educators may be more likely to come to teaching entrepreneurship from many different pathways; some have experience in starting and running a business while others do not, some are part-time faculty some are full-time (Jones and Mataly, 2011). Second, the number of PhD programs providing specialization in entrepreneurship remain small [1] and the number of tenure/tenure track positions exclusively in entrepreneurship is also relatively small [2]. Entrepreneurship educators most often have PhD’s from different disciplinary backgrounds (i.e. strategy, management, marketing, finance) (Finkle et al., 2006). Third, there are limited opportunities for faculty to participate in educator or training programs specifically for entrepreneurship education Pittaway et al. (2023). Fourth, for most colleges and universities, entrepreneurship is considered as a sub-discipline of management, marketing, operations or strategy. As such, entrepreneurship educators are not frequently housed in a separate entrepreneurship faculty department, like finance, strategy or marketing, but instead, it is considered a niche area (Fayolle et al., 2016; Katz, 2008) and they are almost always teaching elective rather than core courses. This contextual reality suggests that it may be difficult for educators to develop their entrepreneurial role identity and to be highly committed to it if they are not trained in the field of entrepreneurship (Peura and Hytti, 2022) and/or teaching an elective that is housed in a different department where they may feel they have less legitimacy and support. In contrast, the entrepreneurship educator is often expected to be the lead advocate for entrepreneurship courses, or even a change agent, moving entrepreneurship education across disciplines, to co-curricular and the school (Gibb, 2011). Hence, having a strong role identity would be important if the educator is expected to lead entrepreneurship beyond the classroom.

As such, this study specifically examines influences on entrepreneurship educator role identity. An understanding of the entrepreneurship educator, who designs, orchestrates and executes the entrepreneurial learning process is crucial to our understanding of entrepreneurship education and its effectiveness (Neck and Corbett, 2018). The perspective entrepreneurship educators have regarding their role can impact their job performance, which includes decisions about teaching methods and strategies employed in the classroom (Beijaard, 1995; Burke and Reitzes, 1981), the quality of instruction and student attainment (Richter et al., 2021), a sense of fulfillment derived from their work (Gibbs and Coffey, 2004) and their motivation for teaching, which has been shown to impact education planning, curriculum design, teaching effectiveness and student outcomes (Watt and Richardson, 2007). Therefore, it is relevant to ask how entrepreneurship educators see themselves in their roles, and what influences their role perceptions? We ask, “What factors influence entrepreneurship educator role identity”?

Using a unique dataset of 289 entrepreneurship educators world-wide, we draw from role identity theory to develop a conceptual model to empirically validate and analyze the effect of personal factors (Richter et al., 2021) on how entrepreneurship educators perceive their role as educators. To analyze the data, we used structural equation modeling (SEM) technique. This study makes several contributions. First, we find that self-efficacy, job satisfaction and personal values influence the role identity perceptions. Self-efficacy and job satisfaction were strongly significant, consistent with theory and earlier findings in teacher education (Canrinus et al., 2011; Richter et al., 2021). Personal values have significant but a weaker influence on role perception. In other words, those educators with strong self-efficacy and job satisfaction will have a stronger entrepreneurial role identity. Moreover, the multigroup analysis results suggest that the distinct qualities of entrepreneurship educators, such as their gender, length of experience in teaching entrepreneurship and whether they run a business concurrently with their teaching duties affect their perspectives regarding their role and responsibilities. The examination of background factors demonstrates that gender affects (1) the link between job satisfaction and role perception, with job satisfaction playing a more significant role for female educators, and (2) the link between personal values and role perception, being a more significant factor for male educators. Additionally, the result shows that greater experience in teaching leads to stronger role perceptions but operating an entrepreneurial business has the opposite effect.

Overall, the findings of the study provide new insights and theoretical implications for the field of entrepreneurship education as they offer an understanding of how an individual’s sense of self and professional identity as an entrepreneurship educator is formed through their perceptions of self-efficacy, job satisfaction and personal values. This work elaborates the framework created by Todding and Venesaar (2018), by reflecting the key influences on teacher factors that then influence the process and product of entrepreneurship education. Specifically, the study highlights the importance of personal factors in shaping the role identity and suggests that interventions aimed at improving educators' self-efficacy and job satisfaction could enhance their effectiveness in the classroom. Additionally, the study contributes to the broader literature on role identity and professional development by providing a more nuanced understanding of the factors that shape educators' professional identities. We begin with a brief literature review, theoretical background and hypothesis development, then present the methodology, results and discussion. The paper concludes with limitations and future research directions.

2. Background on entrepreneurship educators and role identity

The conceptual boundaries associated with the entrepreneurship educator role identity can be defined as the limits or the scope of the concept. For example, the level of education (e.g. primary, secondary, tertiary), the type of institution (e.g. public, private, business school) and the specific subject matter taught (e.g. entrepreneurship, small business management). It also includes the perspective from which the role identity is examined, such as the individual’s own perception of their role, or the perceptions of others (Riley and Burke, 1995).

Literature shows that those educators with a strong positive perception of or commitment to their entrepreneurship educators' role might be more likely to promote learning and innovate than those with a weaker perception of their role (Bandura, 1997). While it is noted that more recently teacher-guided instructional models are being replaced with constructivist perspectives, where educators act as facilitators, co-learners and adopt a learner-centered approach (Gabrielsson et al., 2020; Mueller and Anderson, 2014; Nabi et al., 2017; Pittaway and Cope, 2007; Robinson et al., 2016), most research about the role of the educator is largely descriptive (Kabongo and McCaskey, 2011; Toding and Venesaarm, 2018) or conceptual (Béchard and Grégoire, 2007; Gabrielsson et al., 2020; Myrah and Currie, 2006; Nabi et al., 2017). Recent qualitative studies find that educators' instructional approaches and methods were associated with how they see themselves in their role (Neck and Corbett, 2018; Wraae et al., 2020; Wraae and Walmsley, 2020).

However, a few studies have explored development of entrepreneurship educator identity, notably a qualitative study using a sense-making approach finds that training for entrepreneurship educators involving sharing of ideas and resources can contribute to entrepreneurial educator’s role identity (Peura and Hytti, 2022). Alternatively, other work notes the teacher’s role as an entrepreneurship educator derives from a model of teacher development and reflection (Shulman and Shulman, 2004) where the teacher’s vision which generates readiness and induces motivation to pursue pedagogical and organizational practices in the classroom (Seikkula-Leino et al., 2010). Finally, one other study examines how passion of the entrepreneurial educator can influence student outcomes (Tavakoli et al., 2018).

3. Theoretical background and hypotheses

The essential part of identity theory is best described as: “in order to be (some identity), one must act like (some identity) and in order to not be (some other identity), one must not act like (that other identity)” (Burke and Reitzes, 1981, p. 90). More specifically, identity theory emphasizes the identification one has to a particular role, and incorporates view of self, meanings and expectations associated with that role and its performance (Burke and Reitzes, 1981; Burke and Tully, 1977). There is general agreement that the self of the individual provides the basis for the identity (Erikson, 1994), and the choice of the role is a product of the self (Stryker, 2001). For example, a person may have role identities such as a professor, wife, vegetarian or other, which provide meaning and distinguish them from other roles. Similarly, Stryker (2001, 1980) finds that master statuses, such as gender and ethnicity are a part of identity theory because they can act as characteristics for a role and at the same time act as a modifiers of role identities. The importance of role identity lies in its ability to explain an individual’s behavior in relation to their role within a larger societal structure (Hogg et al., 1995; Stryker, 1980). This means that the self-conceptions of roles motivate behaviors because individuals desire self-consistency to maintain one’s self-identity (Burke and Reitzes, 1981).

Identity theory offers a theoretical foundation for considering role perceptions. Role identity is the way one identifies with and perceives their particular role, and the view of self, meaning and expectations that the holder of the role associates with the role (Burke and Reitzes, 1981; Burke and Tully, 1977). People form identities based on a sense of belonging to a certain social category (e.g. nationality, organization, religion, social group, etc.) and their identity in turn influences their self-concept and their behavior (Stets and Burke, 2000). Generally, identities are multiple and socially constructed phenomena (Ibarra and Barbulescu, 2010; Stets and Burke, 2014), and they vary across many dimensions including the importance to the individual, or whether they reflect achievements, or whether they are durable (Stryker and Serpe, 1982).

The field of entrepreneurship is characterized by a focus on developing and promoting the skills necessary for fostering creativity and innovation, whether in practical, classroom or other environments (Binks et al., 2006; Morris and Liguori, 2016). As a result, educators who teach entrepreneurship are often viewed as entrepreneurial individuals by both themselves, and others. Hence, entrepreneurship educator role identity would be associated with enacted behaviors associated with this role (Stets and Burke, 2014). Following Bandura (1997) we suggest that the educator’s self-image influences teaching approaches and strategies in the classroom, and a strong entrepreneurial role identity would suggest greater likelihood of promoting entrepreneurial learning and creating positive experiences for their students. Entrepreneurship educators with a strong sense of identity would see themselves as entrepreneurial in their teaching approach (Bosman and Fernhaber, 2018), which scholars have characterized as behaviors that facilitate, guide and coach students to learn theories of entrepreneurship, develop entrepreneurial skills and develop an entrepreneurial mindset (Béchard and Grégoire, 2007; Wraae et al., 2020). In the entrepreneurial context, this may be manifested as a greater awareness of student expectations, and an experiential learning approach rather than a traditional, or teacher-centered approach (Gabrielsson et al., 2020; Myrah and Currie, 2006; Neck and Corbett, 2018). In other words, the strength of the educators' identification with an entrepreneurial role identity would likely lead to behaviors that are associated with entrepreneurial teaching approaches.

Literature indicates that the identity of a teacher as it relates to their role is shaped by the social, organizational and institutional context in which they work, and it is a multi-faceted and ongoing process (e.g. Forbes and Davis, 2007; Settlage et al., 2009). This is a social process where interactions with others (faculty, students, administrators) shape teacher role identity. As part of their job definition, entrepreneurship educators, who work within an institutional setting like higher education or universities, have a specific social role such as professor or instructor. Further, faculty roles are also identified by discipline, the department in which they teach, courses and their research. In particular, standards and requirements for certain courses as well as spaces, networks and other contextual factors influence how educators see themselves in their roles (Thomassen et al., 2019).

In addition, identity theory argues that personal, interpersonal and structural resources influence role identity (Stets and Burke, 2014). While interpersonal or interactional negotiations with others are important in that they validate or invalidate role identity depending on the nature of the interaction McCall and Simmons (1971). Structural influences refer to the social and organizational structure within which an educator is working (Stryker, 2001). Both influences are difficult to measure. However, personal factors which refers to the internal dynamics one must validate or verify their identity are easier to capture (Burke and Stets, 2009).

Professional identity is a subset of role identity and considered more or less central to overall identity (Beauchamp and Thomas, 2009). It includes the notion of agency and the pursuit of professional development and learning, in accordance with specific goals, in this case, teacher goals. Professional identity is described as a set of attributes that are imposed on the teaching profession by outsiders or members of the teaching community and provides a set of shared attributes and values differentiating this group from others (Beauchamp and Thomas, 2009; Sachs, 2001). However, entrepreneurship educator role identity differs from typical individual role identity in that it encompasses the specific beliefs, attitudes and behaviors associated with being an educator in the entrepreneurship field. While an individual’s role identity may encompass many different aspects of their life, such as their occupation, family role and community involvement, educator role identity is specific to the role of teaching and instructing others. In addition, teacher identity emerges through a process of socialization and learning through relations within a community (Kreber, 2010), and it is shaped by the knowledge, beliefs, self-efficacy and disposition towards teaching practices and interactions with the environment (Forbes and Davis, 2007).

Several studies in the teacher education literature have examined personal influences on professional role identity, and most consistently, core influences are personal values (Stryker, 2001), job satisfaction (Richter et al., 2021) and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997; Stets and Burke, 2000; Richter et al., 2021; Keltchermans, 2009).

These are important factors for several reasons. First, identity may be influenced by personal values, which are defined as guiding principles for one’s life (Hitlin, 2003), and the commitment to these values, sometimes referred to as “value-identities” which is where individuals conceive of themselves in terms of the values they hold (Gecas, 2000). As such, these core values influence the teacher’s task perception (Kelchtermans, 2009). In other words, personal values are an important aspect of an individual’s identity and can influence their behavior and decision-making in their role as an educator. For example, if an entrepreneurship educator values innovation, they may be more likely to design and implement innovative teaching methods in their classes.

Second, in organizations, in this case universities, formal or informal rewards motivate behavior, and the degree to which one is satisfied or not satisfied with these and/or the nature of one’s employment situation can influence role perceptions and behaviors (Béchard and Grégoire, 2007; Myrah and Currie, 2006; Simpson and Carroll, 2008). In other words, job satisfaction is an important aspect of an individual’s overall well-being and can affect their commitment and engagement in their role as an educator. A highly satisfied entrepreneurship educator is more likely to be motivated and engaged in their work, which can have positive effects on their students' learning outcomes. However, it should be noted that inversed causality may exist. In other words, educators' role perception can affect their job satisfaction, but in this research, we were mainly to assess the influence of job satisfaction of role identity.

Third, the confidence with which entrepreneurship educators approach their role will influence their role identity and subsequently, how they come across in the classroom. Kelchtermans (2009) argues that five components make up the perspective of how teachers view themselves as professionals in their work: self-image, self-esteem, job motivation, task perception and future perspective. Following this work, Canrinus et al. (2011) suggest that professional identity is acquired through self-efficacy, job satisfaction, motivation and commitment in combination. It can be argued that self-efficacy, or an individual’s belief in their ability to perform a task or role effectively, can impact their motivation, persistence and performance in their role as an educator. High self-efficacy can lead to increased job satisfaction and improved performance in the classroom. Therefore, for a greater understanding of the factors shaping role identity, we have developed a conceptual framework (see Figure 1) that explores personal values, self-efficacy and job satisfaction as influences on entrepreneurial role identity. The next section builds out the logic for hypotheses explaining these relationships.

4. Research methodology

Our methodology was influenced by two major objectives. First, to move beyond traditional qualitative research on role identity and entrepreneurship educator’s role, we sought to develop and test a model including the antecedents of entrepreneurship educator role identity. To do so, we designed a quantitative study and developed an online survey. Following the work of Richter et al. (2021), and Kelchtermans (2009), this research adopts the three key measures influencing teacher professional identity for this study. These works argue that the self-perception of the teacher role is influenced by their own self-image, which is influences by self-efficacy, perceptions of job satisfaction, personal system of beliefs and perceptions of the tasks for which the individual feels responsible (Kelchtermans, 2009; Canrinius et al., 2012). These components influence the professional educator identity and subsequently their actions in the workplace, as well as their performance and the quality of their instruction.

Drawing from literature, we explored three antecedents: personal values, job satisfaction and self-efficacy on the role identity. The survey consisted of three sections; (1) a section to obtain the participant’s consent, which informed participants about the purpose, benefits, risks and data privacy conditions of the study, (2) a section to collect demographic information and (3) a section to measure the items (survey indicators) forming the four constructs in the study. Because we were interested in understanding the entrepreneurial educators' role identity of current entrepreneurship educators, in the survey, we included only educators active in teaching entrepreneurship for the last 5 years as of May 2021. This is consistent with identity theory which notes that identity is based on socialization over time (Kreber, 2010; Stets and Burke, 2000).

5. Data analysis and descriptive results

The following subsections provide an overview of the demographic information of the respondents, the measurement model and results. We used Smart PLS v.3 to analyze the data. Of 343 responses received, 54 respondents were excluded from further analysis as they were not engaged in teaching entrepreneurship courses in their respective institutions within the last five years. Therefore, the final useable dataset included 289 responses without missing data or corrupted information. To assess non-response bias, we followed several strategies to mitigate its effects. Research has shown that survey length can impact response rates, with longer surveys leading to lower participation (Tourangeau et al., 2000). To address this, we aimed to design a relatively short survey to increase the likelihood that respondents would be willing to participate. Moreover, we also took measures to ensure the confidentiality and anonymity of respondents' information and answers (Sudman and Bradburn, 1982). This can increase the willingness of individuals to provide honest and accurate responses. Finally, we aimed to increase the representativeness of the sample by distributing the survey to a large percentage of the population of entrepreneurship educators, through different channels and communities (Groves, 2005). Moreover, respondents were told that they will receive an integrated report, upon a request, providing them an in-depth analysis of the research findings. By considering these factors, we hope to minimize the impact of non-response bias and increase the validity of the survey results (Sax et al., 2003). Assessing response rate of 47% indicates our data is potentially free of non-response bias. Moreover, a test for non-response bias was performed, and the results showed no significant differences between responding and non-responding respondents regarding their gender and status of employment.

Out of 289 respondents, 150 (51.9%) respondents were females, 136 (47.1%) were males and 3 (1%) preferred not to indicate their gender. The average age of the respondents was 49.1 years old with (std = 11.1), ranging from 27 to 79 years old. When asked to indicate for how long they have been teaching entrepreneurship courses, respondent answers ranged from one year to 45 years, with the average of 11.2 years. However, most respondents (n = 156) indicated they have been teaching from five years to 15 years. We also asked respondents to indicate whether they taught only entrepreneurial course(s), and 105 (36.3%) of them answered “yes” and 184 (63.7%) indicated that they taught other courses besides entrepreneurship.

Out of 289 respondents, 80 (27.7%) noted that the course they teach is a required or core entrepreneurship course, 73 (25.3%) stated that is an elective entrepreneurship course, while 120 (41.5%) noted they taught both core and electives entrepreneurship courses, and 16 (5.5%) taught other courses as well. When asked about the level of students taught, respondents could choose multiple option(s) and 219 (75.8%) respondents have primarily taught entrepreneurship courses to undergraduate students, and 189 (65.4%) to master’s level students. In addition, 81 (28%) taught primarily practitioners (entrepreneurs), 65 (22.5%) taught PhD students and 20 (6.9%) mentioned they taught others such as associate’s level, corporation, educators, entrepreneurs in an incubators, postdocs and university head and leaders. When asked about their current role (title) in their institution, most were Assistant, Associate or Full Professors (n = 198), lecturer (n = 23), researcher (n = 10) and part time or adjunct (n = 24). Additionally, most of the responders said they are now employed by business, entrepreneurship or innovation departments. The following information was gathered when we questioned respondents if they had ever taken part in a training course or workshop geared toward improving their ability to teach. The respondents reported that 27% had attended a workshop on how to teach management or business courses, 41% had taken part in a training program on how to teach entrepreneurship, 26% had participated in a training program on teaching management or business courses and 46% had attended a workshop on how to teach entrepreneurship. However, it should be emphasized that a significant portion of the respondents had participated in numerous workshops or training sessions. We also asked if they had any prior work experience outside of the university, and 46% said they had worked for a large corporation and 54% said they had worked for a small-medium-sized firm. In addition to teaching, 37% of respondents said they currently have a second job, and 28% said they currently run their own business. In the survey, 22% of respondents said they were now based in the USA, 7% in the UK, 37% in the EU, 10% in Mexico and the rest were from other countries.

6. Discussion

Our study was motivated by lack of research on the role of the entrepreneurship educator existing both in our empirical research and in frameworks and reviews that describe the field of entrepreneurship education. While significant work covers the “what”, “how” and “why” of entrepreneurship education, the role of the educators is described but little is known about how educators see their role, despite the unique role of the entrepreneurship educator. In contrast, the teacher education literature offers frameworks and studies that can help us understand influences on the identity of the educator. The sense of self that a person develops from the roles they play in their various social contexts, such as their job, family and community, is referred to as their role identity. We argued that for entrepreneurship educators, their role identity is likely shaped by a variety of factors such as their personal and professional experiences, their beliefs and values, their satisfaction and confidence of their job and their interactions with students and colleagues. Our study aims to fill this gap in the literature by investigating how these factors shape the role identity of entrepreneurship educators. Drawing from role identity theory, our study investigates the following question: “What factors influence entrepreneurship educator role identity?” Using a unique dataset including of 289 entrepreneurship educators world-wide, a conceptual model was developed to empirically evaluate the entrepreneurship educators' role identity. The SEM findings indicated that the educator’s role identity is affected not only by self-efficacy and job satisfaction, but also their personal values. We discuss our three major contributions below.

7. Conclusions

Based on identity theory, this paper empirically explores and analyzes the personal factors influencing entrepreneurship educators' role identity. The findings of the study provide several insights into contemporary theoretical debates of entrepreneurship education and the role of entrepreneurship educators. Firstly, the study identifies self-efficacy (having the strongest impact on role perception), job satisfaction and personal values as significant factors that shape the role identity of entrepreneurship educators (Canrinus et al., 2011; Richter et al., 2021). This finding is relevant to contemporary debates in the field of entrepreneurship education because it highlights the importance of personal characteristics and beliefs, and how an individual’s sense of self and professional identity as an entrepreneurship educator is shaped by their beliefs in their own abilities, their level of satisfaction with their job and the values they hold (Flores and Day, 2006; Minor et al., 2002). It suggests that educators who have higher levels of self-efficacy and job satisfaction, and who align with the values of entrepreneurship education, are more likely to be effective in their roles. Further, given that entrepreneurship educators frequently work in a department other than entrepreneurship and may be expected to be the advocate for all things entrepreneurial, stronger role identity and confidence in this role will allow them to be more successful in leading entrepreneurial activities in their school (Gibb, 2002).

Secondly, the results show that the link between job satisfaction to role identity is mediated via self-efficacy. This suggests that universities and colleges should strive to improve educator self-confidence, so that they can apply student-centric, experiential and collaborative learning pedagogies in the classroom. Workshops or pedagogical, role-modeling and mentoring may be implemented, especially for more junior faculty or those with less entrepreneurial teaching experience. This finding contributes to the existing literature on entrepreneurship education by providing a deeper understanding of the factors that influence the role perception of educators in this field (Liñán et al., 2011). By identifying key personal influences on role identity perceptions, the study provides insights into how educators can be supported to be more effective in their roles. This insight is important for the development of training and professional development program for entrepreneurship educators, as it can help ensure that they have the necessary knowledge, skills and attitudes to be effective in the role as an entrepreneurship educator (Yitshak and Kropp, 2019; Pittaway et al., 2023).

Thirdly, the study contributes to the broader literature on role identity and professional development by providing a more nuanced understanding of how role identity is shaped by a complex interplay of different factors. This insight is important because it suggests that educators' role identity is not solely determined by their job title, but rather by a combination of personal factors and beliefs. This finding is relevant to contemporary debates on the professionalization of entrepreneurship education and the development of a professional identity for entrepreneurship educators (Flores and Day, 2006; Sachs, 2001, 2005).

Overall, our study contributes to the literature by deepening our understanding of the “who” of entrepreneurship education. It goes beyond examining instructional methods or curricula and delves into the personal factors that shape the role identity of educators. By identifying the significance of self-efficacy, job satisfaction and personal values, we provide actionable insights for educational institutions, policymakers and administrators to better support entrepreneurship educators and enhance the overall learning experience for students. This understanding calls for a holistic approach that focuses not only on developing pedagogical strategies but also on empowering educators and fostering a positive work environment. By addressing these aspects, we can advance the field of entrepreneurship education and improve the effectiveness of educators in cultivating entrepreneurial skills and mindsets among students.