What lies beneath? The experiential essence of entrepreneurial thinking.

Cognitive developmental psychology and constructivism offer possibilities for the future of entrepreneurial cognition research to explore: (1) deeply seated beliefs and belief structures that ultimately anchor entrepreneurial thinking and (2) how they change as entrepreneurs move toward a more professional, expert mind-set. Such insights aid the field in identifying those developmental experiences that are the sources of those critical deep beliefs intrinsic to our mental models regarding entrepreneurship. As a field, entrepreneurship is lauded for the effectiveness of its teaching, and this essay offers strong theory to explain that our pedagogical best practices reflect important, well-known cognitive phenomena.

Introduction

What is the essence of being "entrepreneurial?" The field has explored related questions from many perspectives, but one recurring insight is that the successful entrepreneurs can be characterized by an expert mind-set. However, K. Anders Ericsson (e.g., Ericsson & Charness, 1994) has shown that while some individuals move from novice to expert, others do not. And, that change manifests itself in significant changes in deep cognitive structures. If that is true, then it is vital for the field of entrepreneurship to learn as much as we can about what differs in the deep cognitive structures of expert entrepreneurs (maps, scripts, schemas, etc., and the deep beliefs and assumptions driving them). This essay offers some insight into this quest.

It is also important to gain a better understanding of how such deep structures evolve. As this understanding grows, our ability to help entrepreneurs grows in parallel. One key implication of Ericsson's work is that experts, including entrepreneurs, are definitely made, not born. There may be some innate "hard wiring" but expertise appears to be learned. The research also indicates that experts consistently and reliably follow recognizable, if highly complex, cognitive behaviors and processes (e.g., Baron & Henry, 2006; Mitchell, 2005). Consequently, if we want to understand entrepreneurship, it is vital to understand how one becomes an expert entrepreneur. The evidence indicates that the content of an expert's knowledge base need not differ from that of a novice, but experts typically organize or structure the content differently. This begs the question concerning how expert entrepreneurs structure their knowledge. I believe that to answer this question, we must first identify the deep beliefs that anchor and shape knowledge structures (e.g., maps, scripts), which in turn influence knowledge content.

Furthermore, studying deep beliefs is important because such beliefs play a pivotal role in what we perceive as relevant in new knowledge, how we process stimuli and information, and finally, how we store and structure the knowledge resulting from these steps. Yet, most of us are unmindful of our deep beliefs or their impact on the ways we perceive, think, and feel. I also believe that examining deep beliefs affords us the opportunity to better understand entrepreneurship because:

* Behind entrepreneurial action are entrepreneurial intentions;

* Behind entrepreneurial intentions are known entrepreneurial attitudes;

* Behind entrepreneurial attitudes are deep cognitive structures;

* Behind deep cognitive structures are deep beliefs.

In any complex domain, how we structure our "expert" knowledge and skills also evolves. People connecting the same "dots" may connect those dots very differently from one another, but they will also connect them differently as they become more expert in that domain (Baron, 2006; Baron & Ensley, 2006). The growing interest in social neuroscience reflects the desire among scholars and practitioners alike to understand how we structure knowledge at a very deep level (Andreasen, 2005; Cacioppo & Berntson, 2001; Cacioppo, Berntson, Adolphs, Carter, Davidson, McClintock et al., 2002; Insell & Fernald, 2004).

I have defined "beliefs" here as deeply held strong assumptions that underpin our sensemaking and our decision making. Philosophers have long argued that not all beliefs are created equal in importance. That is, some beliefs are deeper than others; some beliefs build upon beliefs that are deeper still. I argue then that if we are to truly understand the critical aspects of the deep belief structures of expert entrepreneurs, scholars must mindfully explore at deeper and deeper levels.

This essay opens with a focus on how we acquire deep beliefs. To do this, I present a brief overview of the constructivist learning framework. From there, I integrate cognitive developmental psychology and the role of constructivistic learning on cognitive development of deep beliefs, knowledge content and structure, and use examples of entrepreneurship relevant research where possible. I then proceed with an example of one of the most important deep beliefs that should be of great interest, that is, role identity; and from there address both implications for entrepreneurship pedagogy and for research and future direction. Figure 1 suggests the basic premise: As individuals move from a more novice entrepreneurial mind-set toward a more expert mind-set, that movement is reflected in significant changes in deep cognitive structures, punctuated by critical developmental experiences.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Deep Beliefs: Behaviorist versus Constructivist Models of Learning

Educational theory has for some time demonstrated there are two fundamental models of how humans learn--and these models offer rather different prescriptions for teaching and training (Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Hamilton & Hitz, 1996; Perkins, 1994). The traditional model is behavioral in nature and focuses on acquiring information, whether the information entails specific facts or the framework in which learners use the facts (usually derided as the "memorize and regurgitate" model). Here, a person learns a fact and that fact's place in their knowledge structures--until they learn a new fact that displaces the former one.

The constructivistic model, on the other hand, assumes that humans construct knowledge structures that continue to evolve. The model assumes that learning is highly situated in the ambient conditions of the learning and in the multiple influences of the social setting, as shaped by deep belief structures. As such, it becomes important for learners to understand the deep cognitive changes that are underway, and it is equally important for instructors to understand (if not embody) the expert mind-set. Under the behaviorist model beliefs evolve through the acquisition of new facts that update or displace the old, much like "find and replace" in a word processing document. Under the constructivist model, the acquisition of new knowledge also forces a change in how we organize or structure the information content. This highlights an important cognitive process: To advance a learner's knowledge always requires confronting significant discrepancies and contradictions. But, don't we want to nurture reflective practitioners (Jack & Anderson, 1999)?

Prior knowledge, assumptions, and beliefs may prove problematic, even dysfunctional, if not confronted in a constructive manner. The constructivistic approach, therefore, offers explanations both for how structures evolve as well as specifies the mechanisms individuals use in order to confront and resolve discrepancies and contradictions in their constructed knowledge base. Consider the parallel of Kuhn's notion of "paradigm." As problematic, even dysfunctional information accumulates, a scientific field adapts its paradigm to accommodate this disconfirming information until it can no longer do so. Ultimately, the field must construct a new paradigm. For individuals, there comes a moment when their deep cognitive structures and the deep beliefs that anchor them must change, often dramatically, and the constructivist view accounts for this.

Ultimately, the constructivist approach to human learning enhances learning how to learn, as students move from changing their deep cognitive structures to a metacognitive capability for understanding the changes they are making and the changes they need to make to become more expert. Having a strong sense of how they "connect the dots" affords human beings the ability to direct their own learning. For example, evidence suggests that entrepreneurs, especially successful (expert) ones, have above-average skills with respect to self-directed learning (Guglielmino & Klatt, 1993).

Probably the most recognizable constructivist phenomenon in entrepreneurship is the identification and shaping of personally relevant opportunities (Bouchhiki, 1993; Gaglio & Katz, 2001; Gaglio, 2004) and at the heart of entrepreneurial intent (Bagozzi, 1992; Krueger & Brazeal, 1994; Krueger, 2000; Krueger, Reilly, & Carsrud, 2000). Even more interestingly, is that entrepreneurship education has long owed its success to implicitly following the constructivistic model (shadowing, living cases, etc.) that appeals to and shapes deep belief structures. Today, entrepreneurship pedagogy has become even more constructivistic by explicitly focusing on expert scripts, explicitly teaching "uphill" counterfactual thinking (Saks & Gaglio, 2004), explicitly compelling students to be self-directed learners--and then forcing them to reflect on their learning (e.g., Morse & Mitchell, 2005): Not what one finds in traditional management education programs.