Nature Vs. Nurture: Who is Interested in Entrepreneurship Education?

A Study of
Business and Technology Undergraduates Based on Social Cognitive Career Theory



by Andrew Bernstein


B.A., Computer Science, 2000, St. Marys College of Maryland
M.S., Computer Science, 2001, The Johns Hopkins University
M.B.A., 2003, The University of Maryland



A Dissertation Submitted to

The Faculty of the School of Business
of The George Washington University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy



January 31, 2011



Dissertation directed by

Elias Carayannis
Professor of Information Systems and Technology Management




UMI Number: 3433540






All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.






UMI 3433540
Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.





ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346



ii

The School of Business of The George Washington University certifies that Andrew
Bernstein has passed the Final Examination for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy as of
November 4, 2010. This is the final and approved form of the dissertation.

Nature Vs. Nurture: Who is Interested in Entrepreneurship Education? A Study of
Business and Technology Undergraduates Based on Social Cognitive Career Theory

Andrew Bernstein

Dissertation Research Committee:

Elias Carayannis, Professor of Information Systems and Technology
Management, Dissertation Director
Richard Donnelly, Associate Professor of Management Science,
Committee Member
Robert Waters, Professor Emeritus of Engineering Management,
Committee Member
Maria Cseh, Associate Professor of Human and Organizational Learning,
Committee Member
Jeffrey Alexander, Senior Science & Technology Policy Analyst, SRI
International, Committee Member

iii









Copyright 2011 by Andrew Bernstein
All rights reserved

iv

Abstract of Dissertation


Nature Vs. Nurture: Who is Interested in Entrepreneurship Education? A Study of
Business and Technology Undergraduates Based on Social Cognitive Career Theory


Research suggests high school students are interested in starting businesses,
however few students possess the knowledge to do so. Undergraduate entrepreneurship
education intends to address this gap by increasing students understanding of
entrepreneurship and their likelihood of success as entrepreneurs. However, since formal
entrepreneurship education is not a prerequisite to become an entrepreneur, the question
arises as to the perceived value proposition of undergraduate entrepreneurship offerings.
This research takes a step toward understanding the value proposition of the
undergraduate entrepreneurship major and elective by examining the effects of
educational self-efficacy, entrepreneurship career self-efficacy, and the outcome
expectation of increased likelihood of success as an entrepreneur through a Social
Cognitive Career Theory framework.
The results identify a positive relationship between self-efficacy for having
successful entrepreneurial careers and interest in entrepreneurship education. While
students perceived positive outcome expectations for both types of undergraduate
entrepreneurship education options, results differed based on level of self-efficacy.
Students with lower levels of self-efficacy perceive the entrepreneurship major or
entrepreneurship elective as improving their success as entrepreneurs over alternative
educational options. However, students with higher levels of self-efficacy agreed at
similar levels that an entrepreneurship major or a non-entrepreneurship major would both
increase their likelihood of success as an entrepreneur.
v

The implications of the findings of this research suggest:
Increasing secondary school students understanding and awareness of
entrepreneurship could lead to greater levels of interest in entrepreneurship
careers and undergraduate entrepreneurship education regardless of the students
intended field of study.
Integration of entrepreneurship education components into non-entrepreneurship
undergraduate curricula could lead to increased interest in entrepreneurship
careers and entrepreneurship education.


vi

Table of Contents

Abstract of Dissertation ..................................................................................................... iv
List of Figures .................................................................................................................... ix
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... x
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Rationale, Significance, or Need for the Study .................................................... 1
1.2 Theoretical Framework for the Proposed Study .................................................. 3
1.3 Research Questions .............................................................................................. 5
1.4 Delimitations and Limitations of the Study ......................................................... 6
1.5 Definitions of Terms ............................................................................................ 7
1.6 Overview of Chapters 2, 3, 4, and 5 ..................................................................... 7
2 Review of Related Literature ...................................................................................... 9
2.1 What is Entrepreneurship? ................................................................................... 9
2.2 Why is Entrepreneurship Important? ................................................................. 11
2.3 The Entrepreneur ................................................................................................ 14
2.3.1 Opportunity Recognition for the Entrepreneur ........................................... 17
2.3.2 Motivating the Entrepreneur ....................................................................... 22
2.3.3 Characteristics of the Entrepreneur ............................................................. 26
2.4 Challenges in the Literature - Self-employment, Small Business Management,
and Entrepreneurship .................................................................................................... 32
2.5 Career Selection Theory ..................................................................................... 34
2.5.1 Theory of Work-Adjustment....................................................................... 34
2.5.2 Hollands Theory of Vocational Personalities in Work Environment ........ 35
2.5.3 The Self-concept Theory of Career Development ...................................... 35
2.5.4 Gottfredsons Theory of Circumscription and Compromise ...................... 36
2.5.5 Social Cognitive Career Theory.................................................................. 37
2.6 The Undergraduate Major .................................................................................. 39
2.6.1 Research with Business and Accounting Majors ........................................ 40
2.7 Choosing to Become Entrepreneur .................................................................... 44
2.8 Entrepreneurship Education ............................................................................... 49
2.8.1 Entrepreneurship Can be Taught ................................................................ 49
2.8.2 Growth of Entrepreneurship Education Offerings ...................................... 52
2.8.3 Maturity in Entrepreneurship Education ..................................................... 54
2.8.4 For or About Entrepreneurship ................................................................... 56
vii

2.8.5 Types of courses / Content .......................................................................... 57
2.8.6 Impact and Benefits of Entrepreneurship Education .................................. 59
2.8.7 Two Entrepreneurship Education Studies ................................................... 61
2.8.8 Radiant and Magnet Entrepreneurship Education ...................................... 64
3 Research Methodology ............................................................................................. 66
3.1 Research Design ................................................................................................. 67
3.2 Conceptual Framework ...................................................................................... 68
3.2.1 Why SCCT is Appropriate .......................................................................... 68
3.2.2 SCCT and Entrepreneurship ....................................................................... 69
3.3 Population and Sample ....................................................................................... 70
3.4 Data Collection Instrument ................................................................................ 71
3.4.1 Likert Scales................................................................................................ 72
3.4.2 Interest......................................................................................................... 73
3.4.3 Self-efficacy ................................................................................................ 73
3.4.4 Outcome Expectations ................................................................................ 75
3.4.5 Demographic Information ........................................................................... 75
3.5 Data Collection Process ..................................................................................... 76
3.6 Data Analysis ..................................................................................................... 77
3.7 Research Questions and Hypotheses .................................................................. 77
3.7.1 Bonferroni Correction ................................................................................. 88
3.7.2 Power Analysis and Study Sample Size ..................................................... 89
3.8 Discussion .......................................................................................................... 90
4 Data Analysis and Results ........................................................................................ 94
4.1 Population and Demographic Findings .............................................................. 95
4.2 Inferential Analysis ............................................................................................ 98
4.2.1 Instrumentation ........................................................................................... 98
4.2.2 Assumptions for Inferential Analysis ....................................................... 104
4.3 Hypothesis Testing According to Research Questions .................................... 107
4.4 Interview Results .............................................................................................. 120
4.4.1 Other Interview Information ..................................................................... 125
4.5 Summary .......................................................................................................... 127
5 Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 130
5.1 Interpretation and Summary of Conclusions .................................................... 132
5.2 Implications of this Research ........................................................................... 138
viii

5.3 Contributions of this Research ......................................................................... 140
5.4 Future Research ................................................................................................ 140
References ....................................................................................................................... 143
Appendix A Data Collection Instrument ..................................................................... 156
Appendix B Informed Consent .................................................................................... 158


ix

List of Figures


Figure 1: Social Cognitive Career Theory 4
Figure 2: SCCT as Applied to the Entrepreneurship Major 5
Figure 3: Decision Process for Choosing a Major 43
Figure 4: Entrepreneurship Career and Academic Model 142

x

List of Tables

Table 1: Entrepreneurship Definitions and Perspectives 9
Table 2: Frequencies and Percentages of Demographic Information for Study
Participants 96
Table 3: Frequencies and Measures of Central Tendency for Item-Responses
to Part I, Questions 3 through 16, of the Study Instrumentation 100
Table 4: Summary Table of Study Results as Relates to Research Hypothesis
Tested 128
1

1 Introduction
1.1 Rationale, Significance, or Need for the Study
It has been suggested that this generation should become known as Generation E
because they are expected to become the most entrepreneurial generation since the
Industrial Revolution (D. F. Kuratko, 2004). This would be no surprise as a Gallup poll
(Walstad, 1994) conducted in 1994 found that 69% of its 602 surveyed high school
students expressed interest in starting a business. However, this poll also indicated those
students had little knowledge about how to do so. When asked how they would describe
their knowledge and understanding of starting and managing a business, only 13 percent
of these high-school students responded excellent or good.
To address this growing interest and lack of knowledge in entrepreneurship, an
increasing number of undergraduate colleges and universities are offering
entrepreneurship courses, concentrations and majors. However, since entrepreneurship
education is not a prerequisite for starting a venture, offering these educational options
does not ensure enrollment.
The undergraduate entrepreneurship education option requiring the greatest
commitment of the students time is the entrepreneurship major. This major provides
students additional breadth and depth in entrepreneurship at the expense of other
academic domains. Therefore, potential entrepreneurs need to consider the tradeoffs
associated with such a decision. While most high school students indicated interest in
starting their own business, only 3.3% of incoming freshmen at US based public and
private colleges and universities indicated they had business owner or proprietor career
2

aspirations (Pryor & Reedy, 2009) when given a single choice of fifty potential careers.
This may suggest that while students are interested in such careers, they are more
interested in others. Similarly it would not be a stretch to believe that the
entrepreneurship major must be both interesting to the student and provide value greater
than alternative majors to ensure enrollment.
This research intends to learn more about the value proposition of the
entrepreneurship major through examination of the following:
the relationship between academic and entrepreneurial career self-efficacies and
interest in the entrepreneurship major
the expectation of increased entrepreneurial success from undergraduate education
The results of this research are expected to reveal that students with interest in the
entrepreneurship major are not homogeneous in their background and entrepreneurship
knowledge. While the entrepreneurship major is perceived to increase students
entrepreneurial skills, those students with high entrepreneurial career self-efficacy were
expected to believe that a non-entrepreneurship major would be more likely to result in
increased entrepreneurial success. Those students would be best suited with a non-
entrepreneurship major to obtain domain-specific knowledge which could be applied to
their entrepreneurial pursuits with the addition of one or more entrepreneurship electives
to their studies.
While existing research in entrepreneurship education touts characteristics of
entrepreneurship students or program graduates, this research is expected to be a first step
toward understanding the students perceived value proposition for the entrepreneurship
major, their most likely non-entrepreneurship alternative, as well as the non-
3

entrepreneurship alternative along with an entrepreneurship elective. In doing so, this
research contributes to the body of research related to entrepreneurship and
entrepreneurship education by providing insight into educational policy and curricula
development for both secondary and higher education. This understanding will help
tailor entrepreneurship education to students with different levels of entrepreneurship
self-efficacy ultimately leading to increased, higher quality entrepreneurial activity.
1.2 Theoretical Framework for the Proposed Study
This research is based on Social Cognitive Career Theory (R. W. Lent, Brown, &
Hackett, 1994) which provides a framework to understand the mechanisms that lead to
individuals interest and goal development to pursue educational and career paths. SCCT
suggests background contextual factors and learning experiences exert influence on self-
efficacy which is defined as beliefs in ones capabilities to organize and execute courses
of action required to produce given attainments (Bandura, 1997), and outcome
expectation variables which then influence interests in career and academic pursuits. In
turn, interests influence the identification of and planning for career choice goals and
actions (see figure 1).
4

Figure 1. Social Cognitive Career Theory
This research adapts the SCCT framework to explicitly account for different types
of self-efficacy in entrepreneurship education. An examination of the influence of
academic self-efficacy on academic interest alone is not sufficient to understand interest
development. I expect to find that three different types of self-efficacy influence interest
in entrepreneurship education. 1) Academic self-efficacy, confidence that a student could
successfully complete the major. 2) Career self-efficacy, confidence that a student could
have a successful career as an entrepreneur. 3) Self-efficacy or confidence that the
student possesses a business idea. Each of these types of self-efficacy are expected to
influence interest in the entrepreneurship major. However, career self-efficacy is
expected to be the strongest influence. Therefore, the framework used in this research, as
applied to the entrepreneurship major, includes all three types of self-efficacy (see figure
2).
5


Figure 2. SCCT as Applied to the Entrepreneurship Major
1.3 Research Questions
This research first identifies the relationship between student interest in majoring
in entrepreneurship and their interest in an entrepreneurial career. Next, to further
understand precursors of interest in entrepreneurship education, this study will examine
the two primary inputs to interest development as identified by SCCT, self-efficacy, and
outcome expectations.

1. What is the relationship between interest in a career as an entrepreneur and interest in
entrepreneurship education?
2. What is the relationship between self-efficacy for successfully completing an
entrepreneurship major and interest in majoring in entrepreneurship?
3. What is the relationship between self-efficacy for having a successful career as an
entrepreneur and interest in entrepreneurship education?
4. Are students who possess a business idea more likely to have interest in
entrepreneurship education than students who do not possess a business idea?
6

5. Do students perceive the entrepreneurship major as improving their opportunity for
entrepreneurial success?
1.4 Delimitations and Limitations of the Study
This study has delimitations of scope based on conscious exclusionary and
inclusionary decisions that were made throughout the development of the proposal. The
primary delimitations of this study are related to the selected sample, theory, and survey
instrument.
The sample for this research will be taken from a single large mid-Atlantic
private, doctoral research institution that are approximately the same age. Using a
sample from a single institution will eliminate certain potential confounding factors of a
multiple institutional study. This delimitation will enable stronger analysis of the social
cognitive career theory and reduces the effect of institutional variables of campus culture,
geographical location, and overall compositional diversity that also may influence
differences in students experiences (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, & Allen, 1999).
While the theory which this research is based upon, SCCT, includes many
components, this research primarily focuses on the components self-efficacy, outcome
expectations, and interest. This research does not examine contextual factors, learning
experiences nor choice goals, or choice actions. While all components are valuable to
study, their inclusion would make the existing study too large for a single dissertation,
furthermore the relationship between interest and choice actions has limited value unless
it is understood why interest itself exists. Confirming the relationships between self-
efficacy, outcome expectations and interest could lead to further research detailing
precursors and the conditions for interest to develop into action.
7

The survey instrument is based on self-perception questions of general concepts
such as self-efficacy and outcome expectations. Furthermore the number of questions is
limited to reduce the impact of subject losing interest in completing the questionnaire.
The primary limitations of this study pertain to the sample and their willingness of
individuals to respond, to obtain their responses within a timely manner, and the accuracy
of their responses.
1.5 Definitions of Terms
Entrepreneurship education consists of courses which are aimed toward explicitly
providing students guidance and/or tools to start their own business or operate an
entrepreneurial organization. It does not include general or specific business courses
unless they are explicitly geared toward entrepreneurial application.
Entrepreneurial self-efficacy, is defined as confidence in ones ability to perform tasks
essential to entrepreneurial success.
Self-efficacy can be defined as beliefs in ones capabilities to organize and execute
courses of action required to produce given attainments (Bandura, 1997)
Self-employment can be equated to nascent entrepreneurship. Nascent entrepreneurship
has been associated with an individuals preference for self-employment over paid
employment (Lazear, 2002; Wagner, 2007).
Outcome expectations are beliefs about the outcome of performing particular behaviors.
1.6 Overview of Chapters 2, 3, 4, and 5
Chapter 2, or Review of Related Literature, examines the relevant literature on
entrepreneurship including the history of entrepreneurship and the entrepreneur. Next
career selection theories will be presented, including SCCT, followed by an examination
8

of variables which are believed to affect students selection of academic major and
careers. Finally this chapter will conclude by discussing entrepreneurship education.
Chapter 3, or Research Methodology, presents the design strategy of the study by
explaining Social Cognitive Career Theory in greater detail and then providing the
research questions and related hypotheses.
Chapter 4, or Data Analysis and Results, presents the findings of the study.
Chapter 5, or Conclusion, summarizes the findings and discuss applications of the
findings, and suggests future research.
9

2 Review of Related Literature
2.1 What is Entrepreneurship?
Stevenson and Jarillo (1990) define entrepreneurship as a process by which
individuals pursue opportunities without regard to the resources they currently control
and Shane and Venkataraman (2000) define entrepreneurship as an activity involving the
nexus of two phenomena: the presence of lucrative opportunities and the presence of
enterprising individuals. Other definitions have stated that entrepreneurship is the
process of creating something new and assuming the risks and rewards (Robert D.
Hisrich & Peters, 1998; Kinicki, 2003). Based on these few definitions and many others
it is no surprise that there is not much agreement on the definition of entrepreneurship
(Koh, 1996) or the theory of entrepreneurship. It has been argued that the inherent
character of entrepreneurship is ambiguous and the creation of an agreed up model may
be unsuccessful (Johannison & Senneseth, 1993). However, "good science has to begin
with good definitions" (W. D. Bygrave & Hofer, 1991). Table 1 includes additional
definitions and perspectives as compiled by Fortner (2006)

Cantillon (1755) Entrepreneurship is defined as self-employment of any sort.
Say (1803) Entrepreneurship is the bringing together of factors for production.
Schumpeter (1934) Entrepreneurship is the carrying out of new combinations. It disrupts
the market equilibrium, and its essence is innovation. Schumpeter is
credited with reviving the concept.
Cole (1968) Entrepreneurship is the purposeful activity to initiate, maintain, and
develop a profit-oriented business.
10

Leibenstein (1969) Entrepreneurship involves activities necessary to create or carry on
an enterprise where not all markets are well-established or clearly
defined and/or in which relevant parts of the production function are
not completely known.
Kirzner (1973) Entrepreneurship is the exploration of opportunities with the ability
to correctly anticipate where the next market imperfections and
imbalances will be.
Ronstadt (1984) Entrepreneurship is the dynamic process of creating incremental
wealth.
Hisrich (1989) Entrepreneurship is the process of creating something different with
value by devoting the necessary time and effort, assuming the
accompanying financial, psychological, and social risks, and
receiving the resulting rewards of monetary and personal
satisfaction.
Vesper (1986) Entrepreneurship is new venture creation.
Stevenson, Roberts, and
Gousbeck (1985)
Entrepreneurship is a process by which individuals, either on their
own or inside an organization, pursue opportunities without regard
for the resources they currently control.
Gartner (1989) Entrepreneurship is the creation of new organizations.
Low and MacMillan
(1988)
Entrepreneurship is the creation of new enterprise.
Stevenson and Sahlman
(1989)
Entrepreneurship is the relentless pursuit of opportunity without
regard for resources currently controlled.
Stoner and Freeman
(1992)
Entrepreneurship is the seemingly discontinuous process of
combining resources to produce goods or services that fosters
11

economic growth, increases productivity, and creates new
technologies, products, and services.
Bygrave and Timmons
(1992)
Entrepreneurship is the process of creating or seizing an opportunity
and pursuing it regardless of the resources currently controlled.
Drucker (1995) Innovation is the effort to create purposeful, focused change in an
enterprise's economic or social potential.
Harvard Business School
(2002)
Entrepreneurship is a way of managing opportunities over time. It is
an approach to management that entails the continuous identification
and pursuit of opportunity, the marshalling and organization of
resources to address evolving opportunities, and the ongoing
reassessment of needs as context changes over time.
Table 1. Entrepreneurship Definitions and Perspectives (Fortner, 2006)
2.2 Why is Entrepreneurship Important?
Entrepreneurship is historically based in economics and is central to Schumpeters
theory of economic development, Knights explanation of profit and the firm, Kirzners
account of the market process and alertness to profit opportunities, and Schultzs theory
of technological adoption and diffusion.
Entrepreneurship remains essential to economics and macroeconomic policy as
fostering entrepreneurial activity spurs innovation, productivity, and growth in the
economy. It is a vital element of both regional and national economies (Byers, Keeley,
Leone, Parker, & Autio, 2000; Schramm, 2004). Additionally, it is believed to be the
catalyst creating wealth and jobs in the new economy (Louw, van Eeden, Bosch, &
Venter, 2003), and increases in real per capita income have been shown to depend on
entrepreneurial activity, particularly in the form of new firm formation (Birch, 1987).
12

A recent literature review (Van Praag & Versloot, 2007) examined the extent
empirical evidence can collectively and systematically substantiate the claim that
entrepreneurship has important economic value. The review identified 57 studies
including 87 observations along the economic value indicators: employment, innovation,
productivity and growth, and utility.
2.2.1.1 Employment
The most researched component of economic value indicators, employment,
suggests entrepreneurs increased the quantity of employment as found in 15 of 17 articles
from 1995 to 2007. This result is not unique to the United States as regional data for
various countries conclude that higher start-up rates are associated with higher immediate
levels of employment (Van Praag & Versloot, 2007). However increased employment is
not distributed evenly throughout new small businesses. While self-employed non-
employers represent three out of four businesses (Headd & Saade, 2008), most net new
jobs are created either by start-up activity or by firms in a rapid-expansion phase
(Schramm, 2004) known as gazelles. At the same time, the growth rate of larger firms,
once startups themselves, decreases with firm size and age (Acs, 1992) and may
experience negative employment growth due to competitive pressures.
2.2.1.2 Innovation
Knowledge used by entrepreneurs and organizations play an important role in
creating innovation (Dosi, 1988). Innovation and opportunities for entrepreneurship are
not always apparent to all individuals as this knowledge may be role and context specific.
It is with this respect to this that practically every individual has some advantage over
13

all others in that he possesses unique information of which beneficial use might be
made (Hayek, 1945).
Innovation and innovative output can be measured both in quantity and quality.
Commonly used quantitative metrics include research and development expenditures,
patents, and the introduction of new products or technologies. Innovation quality has
been measured through patent citations and expert analysis. However, by definition
innovation is the successful commercialization of an improvement to a product or
service; therefore innovation can also be measured by adoption rates and financial
measures including sales and contributions to economic value.
2.2.1.3 Productivity and Growth
In the discussion of entrepreneurial firms, productivity and growth are measured
by the firms or regions contribution to a countrys gross domestic product (GDP) (Van
Praag & Versloot, 2007). This can be done by measuring the contribution to the GDP per
worker, or by examining the output per unit of capital and labor input combined, also
known as total factor productivity.
Whether examining from a national perspective, state, city, or more local
perspective, human capital accumulation is essential for economic development. Both
entrepreneurs and businesses within regions can benefit from clustering of human capital
leading due to increased networking opportunities and characteristics of their labor pools.
For example, Florida (2004) stresses the importance of the creative class. Communities
that attract these young, creative professionals tend to thrive.
Entrepreneurship and innovation drive regional economic growth. In a study of
the economies of 394 regions within the United States between 1990 and 2001, Camp
14

(2005) found the most entrepreneurial regions had better local economies compared to
the least entrepreneurial. They had 125 percent higher employment growth, 58 percent
higher wage growth and 109 percent higher productivity.
2.3 The Entrepreneur
The entrepreneur is the main actor facilitating entrepreneurship. Cantillon was the
first well-known economist to use the term entrepreneur in a precise way (De Klerk &
Kruger, 2002). By doing so he engrained the entrepreneurial function in the field of
Economics. The principle of profit maximization immediately became part of the
definition of an entrepreneur. Cantillon argued that entrepreneurs were directly involved
in the equilibrium of supply and demand.
Say extended Cantillons notion of entrepreneur as risk-bearing and stated that
running limited-risk experiments when introducing new commodities or entering into
new markets is a defining characteristic of entrepreneurship (G. G. Jones & Wadhwani,
2006). According to De Klerk & Kruger (2002), Says theory of the entrepreneur in the
nineteenth century came from his explicit opposition of the zero-sum game economy:
be a loss to another; as if the possessions of abundance of individuals and of
communities could not be multiplied, without the robbery of somebody or other (Say,
1971). Wealth was part of the process and it did not mean that somebody had to suffer.
The entrepreneur performed the application of knowledge to the creation of a
product for human consumption (Say, 1971). This kind of action is necessary to set
industries in motion to satisfy the needs of the community in order to earn wealth for the
country. A country well stocked with intelligent merchants, manufacturers and
agriculturists has more powerful means of attaining prosperity (Say, 1971).
15

Furthermore, Say recognized the managerial role of the entrepreneur who acts as both a
leader and a manager.
Marshall's definition of the entrepreneur included the concept of innovation and
progress (De Klerk & Kruger, 2002). Businessmen who started new enterprises often
died as millionaires but they left society with benefits far beyond their own personal
gains (Marshall, 1930). The entrepreneur continuously seeks opportunities to make a
profit through minimizing costs. He directs production, bears the risks and coordinates
capital and labor. The entrepreneur is both manager and employer and he must be able to
act promptly and adapt quickly to change.
One of the most influential individuals in the field of entrepreneurship has been
economist Joseph Schumpeter. In The Theory of Economic Development, he presented a
theory of entrepreneurship referencing three typologies. The first typology pertains to
entrepreneurial behavior, including the introduction of a new good, new method of
production, opening a new market, conquering a new source of raw materials, and
reorganizing an industry in a new way.
In this work, Schumpeter built on Say and argued that entrepreneurship occurs
when an entrepreneur carries out new combinations of means of production marked with
innovative ideas. The new combinations of means of production, include (1) the
introduction of a new good that is one with which consumers are not yet familiar or of
a new quality of a good. (2) The introduction of a new method of production, that is one
not yet tested by experience in the branch of manufacture concerned, which need by no
means be founded upon a discovery scientifically new, and can also exist in a new way of
handling a commodity commercially. (3) The opening of a new market that is a market
16

into which the particular branch of manufacture of the country in question has not
previously entered, whether or not this market has existed before. (4) The conquest of a
new source of supply of raw materials or half-manufactured goods, again irrespective of
whether this source already exists or whether it has first to be created. (5) The carrying
out of the new organization of any industry, like the creation of a monopoly position or
the breaking up of a monopoly position (Schumpeter, 1936).
Entrepreneurship takes the economy out of equilibrium through what Schumpeter
termed creative destruction. In effect, he believed that entrepreneurs were the cause
and not the effect of long term economic progress.
Like Say, Schumpeter believed entrepreneurship included both management of
the firm and leadership of the firm. Schumpeter regarded the entrepreneur as the decision
maker in a particular cultural context therefore entrepreneurship is a temporary position
for any person, unless he continues to be innovative. He stated that everyone is an
entrepreneur when he actually carries out new combinations, and loses that character as
soon as he has built up his business, when he settles down to running it as other people
run their businesses. Similarly it has been asserted that entrepreneurship is part of
human behavior and is not performed only by a class of specialists. According to Schultz
(1979), no matter what part of the economy is being investigated, we observe that
people are consciously reallocating their resources in response to changes in economic
conditions. Therefore businessmen, farmers, housewives, students, and even university
presidents, deans, and research directors may be entrepreneurs.
Knight's Risk, Uncertainty and Profit published in 1921 viewed the entrepreneur
as one who bears the risk of uncertainty. He takes responsibility for decisions he made.
17

He mixes the factors of production and determines their remuneration. Entrepreneurship
requires the ability to bear uncertainty as well as the availability of enough capital to pay
the remuneration which has been demanded by the owner or other investors. The
entrepreneur bears the risk of changing consumer needs and is held responsible for
economic progress (Knight, 1921).
Kirzner's Competition and Entrepreneurship (1973) summarizes his views of the
entrepreneur. Kirzners contribution to the theory of entrepreneurship was a rediscovery
of the classics (De Klerk & Kruger, 2002). Kirzner stated that entrepreneurs are the
persons in the economy who are alert to discover and exploit profit opportunities.
Entrepreneurs are producers of products or services and an owner of resources.
Furthermore they are entrepreneurs only if they make discoveries and if they also make a
profit out of these discoveries. Kirzner's entrepreneur requires no special ability or
personality to carry out his function; the pure entrepreneur could even hire all the
required labor and business talent.
As one of the contemporary entrepreneurship theorists, Drucker (1985b) defined
an entrepreneur is one who always searches for change, responds to it, and exploits it as
an opportunity.
Even though the terms entrepreneurship and the entrepreneur have been in
existence for some time, understanding of both entrepreneurship and the entrepreneur
remains difficult and challenging (Koh, 1996).
2.3.1 Opportunity Recognition for the Entrepreneur
Entrepreneurship can only exist when the entrepreneur exploits opportunities that
allow new goods, services, raw materials, and organizing methods to be introduced and
18

sold higher cost than their costs of production (Casson, 1982) or when a person can create
or discover a new means-ends relationships (S. Shane & Venkataraman, 2000)
framework for recombining resources that the entrepreneur believes will yield a profit.
Searching for these opportunities involves defining the acts, the entrepreneurial
activities themselves, and imagining the states of nature. (Kaish & Gilad, 1991). Further
inquiry into entrepreneurial opportunity has the potential to unlock one of the greatest
intellectual puzzles of our time (S. D. Sarasvathy, Dew, Velamuri, & Venkataraman,
2003), the creation of new value in society.
While scholars argue that the entrepreneur is either alert to opportunity (Kirzner,
1997) or is able to discover opportunities (Hayek, 1945; Schumpeter, 1975), there is also
evidence that suggests entrepreneurship is not a function of opportunity but rather is a
function of the perception of opportunity (Dana, 1995).
Alternatively, Sarasvathy (2004) argues that instead of entrepreneurs perceiving
entrepreneurial opportunity, that opportunities are predominately the result of people
acting in entrepreneurial ways, including acting upon perceived opportunities. Therefore,
acting upon opportunities is dependent upon an individuals perception. This perception
is the basis for the difference between causal and what Sarasvathy refers to as effectual
reasoning. Sarasvathy states that all entrepreneurs begin with three categories of means:
1. Who they are their traits, tastes and abilities
2. What they know their education, training, expertise, and experience; and,
3. Whom they know their social and professional networks.
Through those means, entrepreneurs imagine and implement possible effects that
can be created with them and that these means favor effectual reasoning over causal
19

reasoning in the early stages of a new venture. Sarasvathy states that entrepreneurs
think effectually and they believe in a yet-to-be-made future that can substantially be
shaped by human action; and they realize that to the extent that this human action can
control the future, they need not expend energies trying to predict it. In fact, to the extent
that the future is shaped by human action, it is not much use trying to predict it it is
much more useful to understand and work with the people who are engaged in the
decisions and actions that bring it into existence. Following this logic, entrepreneurial
opportunities often have to be created. Sarasvathy, Dew et al. (2003) proposed a simple
typology of entrepreneurial actions in terms of supply and demand which calls attention
to opportunity.
1. Opportunity Recognition - If both supply and demand are known, equilibrium has to
be implemented either through an existing firm or a new firm. An entrepreneur does
not have to invent sources of supply, or induce demand for a completely new product.
2. Opportunity Discovery - If either supply or demand exists in a predictable manner,
the other side either does not exist or appears to be non-existent. In this case the non-
existent side has to be "discovered."
3. Opportunity Creation - If neither supply nor demand are known to exist, at least one,
or both will need to be created for the opportunity to come into existence.
Regardless of the perceptions, the process of innovative production is a
cumulative process (R. R. Nelson & Winter, 1982; Rosenberg, 1976). Innovation occurs
at a certain point in time in the process when a right combination of information or
knowledge is realized. Therefore, while recognition of opportunities is a subjective
20

process, the opportunities themselves are objective phenomena that could be known by
all, some or none of the parties at a particular point in time.
2.3.1.1 Entrepreneurial Opportunity
Entrepreneurial opportunities and strategies and can be placed into four
categories, innovation - invention, extension, enhancement, or synthesis (Donald F.
Kuratko & Hodgetts, 2001). So where do these opportunities come from? In one of
Druckers (1985a) seminal articles, The Discipline of Innovation, he stated that in
business, innovation rarely springs from flashes of inspiration. It arises from cold-eyed
analysis of seven kinds of opportunities. Four of these opportunities exist within a
company or industry when there are: unexpected occurrences, incongruities, process
needs, and industry and market changes. Outside of the company, the three remaining
sources of opportunity exist due to social and demographic trends such as demographic
changes, changes in perception, and new knowledge.
By systematizing opportunity, Drucker subtly argued against the commonly held
view that the entrepreneur is a risk taker. He also argued against the notion that bright
ideas are a source of innovation. While Drucker argued that 7 out of every 10 patents are
bright ideas, he claimed they are the riskiest and least successful source of innovation
opportunities which is why millions of worldwide patents sit in patent offices gathering
dust. (Drucker, 1985b) This assertion appears to conflict with the intent of one
component of Porter and Sterns Innovation Index (M. E. Porter & Stern, 1999) which
measures innovative output by international patenting, or patents filed in the United
States as and in another country. Buderi (1999) points out further studies performed
related to patents and their economic value but these studies do not denote which of those
21

patents were created from a spark of creativity such a bright idea or from a bright idea
generated from systematically reviewing opportunities. He also states innovation
itself is still a somewhat mysterious combination of work, skill, inspiration and
environment.
Dertouzos (1999) asserts that perhaps the most important ingredient of
successful innovation is the creative technological idea that serves a pressing human
need. This kind of creativity, in turn, requires a schizophrenic combination of rationality
and insanity thats outside out ordinary experience. He also believes successful
innovators apply their drive and flexibility toward looking for and blending these two
forces wherever they crop up, always striving to zero in on the key ingredienta creative
idea that serves a pressing human need.
2.3.1.2 Knowledge for Decision Making and Opportunity Recognition
Different perceptions of opportunities and decisions related to actions may be
attributed to subjectively held, incomplete and tacit knowledge. Individuals form beliefs
and expectations about future events that are indeterminate for at least three reasons (S.
D. Sarasvathy, et al., 2003). This is because much knowledge is tacit (Polanyi, 1967)
and situations requiring prediction are responded to differently by individuals (Weick,
1979) and finally outcomes are affected because interaction among individuals gives rise
to emergent outcomes, similar to Soros (1987) discussion on reflexivity.
Sustained competitive advantage maintained by entrepreneurs may best be
characterized as a component of tacit, rather than explicit knowledge (Polanyi, 1967).
Since information is often tacitly accumulated, or sticky (von Hippel, 1994), access to
the relevant information for a particular entrepreneurial opportunity and hence innovation
22

may only be available to a few individuals. Furthermore, new information often requires
complimentary resources, such as a prior knowledge to be useful (S. Shane &
Venkataraman, 2000) and this prior knowledge creates the absorptive capacity
necessary for an individual to use the new information (W. M. Cohen & Levinthal, 1990).
Therefore, in addition to an individuals own education and knowledge base, access to
additional sources of knowledge is critical. This has led some researchers to suggest that
the prime determinant of entrepreneurship is whether the entrepreneur has an
advantageous network position from which informational advantages accrue (Burt,
1992).
2.3.2 Motivating the Entrepreneur
From a historical context, Schumpeters identified three forms of entrepreneurial
motivation, the dream and the will to found a private kingdom the will to conquer: the
impulse to fight, to prove oneself superior to others and the joy of creating.
According to Brouwer (2002), Schumpeters entrepreneur is motivated by the joy of
creating and by the pleasure success brings. He is also motivated by improving his social
position (and that of his family). That directly contrasts with Weber who argued that
motivations include rewards beyond the entrepreneurs lifetime. In the original German
publication of The Theory of Economic Development (Theorie der Wirtschaftlichen
Entwicklung), Schumpeters entrepreneurial motivation differed from Knight as well.
Knight considered the greatest motivation the desire to excel and to win at the biggest
game invented. Schumpeters second edition of Theorie der Wirtschaftlichen
Entwicklung, published in 1926, became the basis of the English translation of the 1934
publication. This later publication included changes in his description of entrepreneurial
23

motives. As summarized by Brouwer, while the entrepreneur is still motivated by the
dream to found a private kingdom, the new motives involve the will to conquer, the
impulse to fight, to prove oneself superior to others, to succeed for the sake of success. It
should be noted that Brouwer believed that Schumpeter rephrased these motives to better
align them more with Knights sportsmanship motivation over Schumpeters stress on
creativity in his first edition.
Schumpeter did not explicitly state that material and monetary gain were the main
motivators of the entrepreneur. More recently it has been suggested that entrepreneurs
forego financial benefits in order to engage in entrepreneurship (Kerins, Smith, & Smith,
2004; Moskowitz & Vissing-Jrgensen, 2002) and a study found that the United States
median entrepreneurs earnings after 10 years in business are 35 percent less than the
predicted alternative wage on a paid job of the same duration (Hamilton, 2000). While
this may be due to a preference for non-pecuniary benefits, it can be argued that lower
wages may be the result and not the intent. It is possible that an entrepreneurs over-
confidence relative to non-entrepreneurs leads to wishful thinking (Bernardo and Welch
1998; Arabsheibani, de Meza, Maloney, and Pearson 2000; Cooper, Woo and
Dunkelberg 1988) with higher expectations.
Many academics have tried to explain characteristics and motivations for
entrepreneurial behavior through both economic (Knight, 1921) and psychological
viewpoints (Penrose, 1959). Others have critiqued methods used to examine and
determine entrepreneurial behavior. According to Shane, Locke et al. (2003) research
has been relatively accepting of arguments that people vary in their willingness and
ability to engage in the entrepreneurial process because of non-motivational individual
24

differences such as opportunity cost, financial capital, their social ties to investors, and
their career experience. Building on this, they argued that motivational differences also
influence the entrepreneurial process.
2.3.2.1 Influencing Factors
Understanding the entrepreneurs motivations to start and then sustain their
ventures is a perennial topic in the entrepreneurship literature. Motivations consist of
both intrinsic and extrinsic factors (L. W. Porter & Lawler, 1968). Entrepreneurship
motivation processes may be no different. In a study of 234 entrepreneurs, Kuratko,
Hornsby & Naffziger (1997) sought to describe the entrepreneurs relevant motivational
factors. Through factor analysis, the study identified a structure or set of entrepreneurial
goals explaining why individuals pursue and sustain entrepreneurship. The four
identified factors including both extrinsic and intrinsic rewards as well as
independence/autonomy and family security.
The specific items associated with extrinsic goals in the questionnaire included
those related to wealth including acquiring personal wealth, increasing personal income,
and increasing income opportunities were identified as important goals. These items are
also found in career and academic major selection literature. It should also be noted that
they are not congruent with Schumpeter. The independence/autonomy factor is relevant
to many motivated individuals who seek self-employment because it offers substantial
non-pecuniary benefits, such as being your own boss. This independence may lead to job
satisfaction (Benz & Frey, 2003; Frey & Benz, 2003).
An individuals entrepreneurial motivations are not limited to their long standing
entrepreneurial goals. Entrepreneurs motivations can also be subjected to both push
25

and pull influences that ultimately determine and shape their chosen entrepreneurial
paths (Matlay & Storey, 2003). Like Cantillon, Lee (2001) argues that every individual
in society has two different kinds of opportunities, one entrepreneurial and one non-
entrepreneurial. Lee developed a framework of to explain the two possible cases why
people become entrepreneurs. First, people become entrepreneurs when their levels of
aspiration are higher than the subjective valuations of their available non-entrepreneurial
opportunities. Alternatively a person becomes an entrepreneur when existing
organizations are not able to reflect the true values of people and could not provide
reasonable non-entrepreneurial opportunities. In other words, Lee posits that a person
with more objective or easily verifiable career records will prefer and likely remain in a
non-entrepreneurial career path. Conversely, an individual with excellent yet not easily
verified qualities is more likely to explore an entrepreneurial path. Lee also posited that
individuals with remarkable general skills or knowledge are more likely to choose an
entrepreneurial career whereas individuals with remarkable specific skills or
knowledge are more likely to remain in a non-entrepreneurial career.
Furthermore, Lee posits that aspiration tends to be influenced by abilities, values
and traits (Hollenbeck & Whitener, 1988), past achievements (Bandura, 1982) and the
environment (Herron & Sapienza, 1992; March & Simon, 1958). However, if non-
entrepreneurial options, such as finding a job are able to satisfy the decision makers
aspiration, the potential entrepreneur tends to become more risk averse and will be less
likely to take an entrepreneurial path. Conversely, if the decision makers aspirations are
higher than those found in available non-entrepreneurial opportunities, that individual
26

will search for other opportunities. Lee also posited that the person who has rich social
networks or a high social position is more likely to choose an entrepreneurial career.
While most entrepreneurs pursue an entrepreneurial career in response to pull
factors to fulfill personal needs for change, growth and development (Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development., 1998), it can be seen that there are other
factors which may also effect the pull or push factors to explain why some individuals
choose to become entrepreneurs.
These contextual factors may be socioeconomic and cultural. One of the most
prevalent factors found throughout the literature is that family or parental role models
influence young adults to become self-employed (Henderson & Robertson, 1999; Scott &
Twomey, 1988). This is not surprising as entrepreneurs often come from families with a
self-employed parent (Collins & Moore, 1970). Having entrepreneurial family members
is only one characteristic that has been researched. Studies have also shown that
personality, ethnicity, marital status, educational level, size of family, residence location,
work status, experience, age, gender, socio-economic status, and religion influences the
decision to become an entrepreneur.
2.3.3 Characteristics of the Entrepreneur
Literature has attempted to identify personality traits affecting an individuals
entrepreneurial behavior. A personality trait is defined as a relatively enduring
distinguishing way in which one individual differs from another (Guilford, 1959). Trait
research is expected to be fruitful because entrepreneurs have certain characteristics and
character traits that make them stand out (Burns, 2001). For example, the entrepreneur is
often associated with boldness, daring, imagination, or creativity (Begley & Boyd, 1987;
27

Chandler, 1962; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996), risk aversion (J. B. Miner, Smith, & Bracker,
1994), risk taking and the need for achievement (McClelland, 1961), locus of control
(Rotter, 1966), the desire for autonomy and deviancy (De Vries, 1977), and even
sociopathy (Winslow & Solomon, 1987).
Most research related to the establishment of new businesses has concentrated on
three personal characteristics, 1) Need for achievement, 2) Locus of control, and 3) Risk
taking propensity (R. H. Brockhaus, 1982). In a study comparing entrepreneurs with
non-entrepreneurs need for achievement, risk taking propensity, and locus of control,
Ahmed (1985) examined 133 Bangladeshi immigrants based in London (71 entrepreneurs
and 62 non-entrepreneurs). The results support Brockhous as all three components were
found to be higher in the entrepreneur group.
2.3.3.1 Need for Achievement
Arguably the most pervasive personality trait literature in entrepreneurship is the
concept of the need for achievement (nAch) proposed by McClelland (1961). He argued
that activities or tasks that have a high degree of individual responsibility for outcomes
require individual skill and effort, have a moderate degree of risk, and include clear
feedback on performance would be pursued by individuals with high in nAch.
McClelland's theory of the need for achievement identified three traits associated with
successful entrepreneurs:
1. the desire to solve problems and gain satisfaction from attaining goals that they have
set and prioritized themselves.
2. the ability to take moderate risks after assessing the alternatives; and
3. the need for feedback as a measure of their success.
28

A review of nAch studies concluded that both projective and questionnaire
measures of nAch significantly predict firm founding (Fineman, 1977). More recently, a
review of 23 studies attempting to link achievement motivation and entrepreneurship and
concluded that there is a relationship between nAch and entrepreneurial activity,
specifically nAch distinguished firm founders from non-founders (Johnson, 1990).
2.3.3.2 Locus of Control
Internal locus of control is ones perception of events being contingent upon ones
own characteristics or actions (Rotter, 1966) and external locus of control is ones feeling
of outcome independent of his own actions.
2.3.3.3 Risk Taking
It is often argued that entrepreneurs by definition are risk takers. A literature
review on this subject concluded that evidence strongly suggests entrepreneurs have a
greater propensity for risk than non-entrepreneurs (W. H. Stewart, Jr. & Roth, 2001).
These risky tendencies may be observed because entrepreneurs are overconfident and
prone to oversimplify from limited characteristics or observations (L. W. Busenitz &
Barney, 1997). Baron (1998) echoes this assertion that entrepreneurs often
underestimate risks and overestimate the likelihood of success are well-established facts.
Why these tendencies occur, however, remains uncertain. Regardless of reason, this
popular view of entrepreneurs as risk-takers is still controversial.
As with other components of entrepreneurship, the concept of risks relationships
to the entrepreneurship and the entrepreneur has been debated. According to Becker and
Knudsen (2004), arguments have been made that risk defines individual-level
entrepreneurship (Dess, Lumpkin, & Covin, 1997; Gupta, 1984). Others argue that
29

independent entrepreneurs avoid risk or create risk rather than take risk (Webster, 1976).
Some state that the successful entrepreneur places risk on the customer.
Studies have shown that entrepreneurs can be found over the entire range of the
risk preference spectrum (S. R. H. Brockhaus, 1980; Palich & Bagby, 1995). As such, a
more recent analysis of risk propensity including data from 14 studies not included in the
Stewart and Roth analysis concluded that entrepreneurs are more risk avoidant than risk
takers. (John B. Miner & Raju, 2004)
This controversy may exist because it is possible that entrepreneurs perceive
situations differently (L. Busenitz, W., 1999). These perceptions along with tacit
knowledge lead to psychological processes, biases, and heuristics which may lessen
perception of risk in certain situations. In essence, it would be difficult to determine
actual risk as an individual may have additional or more relevant knowledge than another
individual in the same situation.
Regardless of definition, one key component of the risk/uncertainty discussion is
how one acts when faced with an uncertain or risky situation. Von Neuman and
Morgenstern (1944) developed indifference curve analysis facilitating the analysis of
choices among risky alternatives using the maximization of utility framework.
According to this framework, higher risk options are chosen when they can provide
higher returns to investors because the investors are usually assumed to be risk averse.
However this framework cannot explain the phenomena that people both gamble and
partake in insurance programs (Friedman & Savage, 1948). Criticism of this theory has
led to other theories such as Kahneman and Tverskys (1979) prospect theory, which
states that options are evaluated not relative to absolute scale of wealth or welfare but
30

relative to reference points of decision makers. They stated that our perceptual
apparatus is attuned to the evaluation of changes or differences rather than to the
evaluation of absolute magnitudes the past and present context of experience defines
an adaptation level, or reference point, and stimuli are perceived in relation to this
reference point. In essence, they argue that the risk propensity is dependent on both the
reference point of an individual and the current situation of the individual (Fiegenbaum,
Hart, & Schendel, 1996). Using a group of individuals with similar education and
potentially similar situation, Simon, Houghton, and Aquinos (2000) evaluation of
decision-making characteristics of 191 MBA students, found that regardless of cause of
the reduced risk perception, individuals who perceive lower levels of risks were more
likely to decide to form a venture.
2.3.3.4 Entrepreneurial Psychological Theories
The results of characteristic and trait based studies are often inconclusive (Herron
& Sapienza, 1992; Shaver & Scott, 1991). Baron (2002) noted many researchers had
concluded that efforts to study entrepreneurs their characteristics, their behavior, their
skills, or their aptitudes constituted a dead-end strategy which would ultimately add
little to our understanding. Therefore, even though Schumpeter made his assertions on
entrepreneurial motivations in the early 20
th
century, toward the end of century empirical
research into entrepreneurial motivation may still be lacking (Donald F. Kuratko, et al.,
1997). As Low and MacMillan (1988) commented:
Being innovators and idiosyncratic, entrepreneurs tend to defy aggregation. They tend
to reside at the tails of personality distributions, and though they may be expected to
31

differ from the mean, the nature of these differences are not predictable. It seems that
any attempt to profile the typical entrepreneur is inherently futile.
Lee (2001) highlights one reason the traits approach is often inconclusive. He
asserts that relevant characteristics and opportunities for being an entrepreneur might be
present in all people albeit in varying degrees, but might be elicited in very particular
temporal and local situations, hence traditional search procedures to capture supposed
stable personal characteristics may not provide reliable results. Similarly, existing
entrepreneurs change based on phase of their existing endeavors or number of ventures
already established. However in a review of a number of studies related to entrepreneurs
traits, Gartner (1989) argues that the entire approach is flawed since it sought to separate
the dancer from the dance. This supports the notion that traits approach has fallen out
of favor with many scholars and been largely abandoned (Shaver & Scott, 1991).
However, it has been stated that writers in the popular press, and those who have worked
with entrepreneurs persistently ignore the recent findings that disconfirm the trait
approach and continue to openly assume and act upon the idea that there exists
entrepreneurial uniqueness among individuals (Mitchell et al., 2002).
Regardless of the inconclusive results and difficulties defining specific traits, most
entrepreneurship scholars accept that the individual and individual differences do matter
(Carland, Hoy, & Carland, 1988). Furthermore, research continues with the hopes that
some of those differences can be taught or altered to improve an individuals likelihood
of following an entrepreneurial path or increasing their likelihood of entrepreneurial
success. After identifying certain characteristics from the literature, Adcroft, Dhaliwal,
& Willis (2005) asked, if these are the fundamental ingredients of the successful
32

entrepreneur, does management education have a role in mixing them and blending them
into the finished form?
This focus and other lines of research has led to recent studies examine a more
sophisticated understanding of the cognitive biases of entrepreneurs and their ability to
garner human and social capital as predictors of firm success. It has been suggested a
cognitive perspective building on social cognition theory should be examined as a
replacement for the traits approach (Mitchell, et al., 2002).
2.4 Challenges in the Literature - Self-employment, Small Business
Management, and Entrepreneurship
There is no clear distinction between those who consider themselves to be self-
employed and those who consider themselves to be entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs are
self-employed but not all self-employed are entrepreneurs, because entrepreneurs are
characterized by innovative behavior and have profit and growth as their main goals
(Donald L. Sexton & Bowman, 1984). The critical factor distinguishing small business
and entrepreneurial owners is innovation, with entrepreneurial types showing more
innovative combination of resources to achieve a profit, while small business is focus on
stability (Carland, Hoy, Boulton, & Carland, 1984).
This lack of clear delineation may have contributed to conflicting or inconclusive
results in many facets of entrepreneurship research. For example, a self-employed
individual who runs a company may or may not have employees. Certain self-employed
individuals hope to grow to employ others and others may have no desire to do so. As
such much of the literature does not distinguish between these two cases, unless the
literature specifically examines existing businesses based on number of employees.
33

The contributions of the non-employer firm and the employer firm differ in their
sizes and numbers. Firms with employees are often larger operations, however non-
employers outnumber employer firms by a three-to-one ratio (Headd & Saade, 2008).
Therefore, aggregating data from various sources and making generalizations may result
in conflicting or incorrect interpretations.
In addition to the complexities associated with the concepts of self-employment
and entrepreneurship, a similar issue exists between small business management and
entrepreneurship. A clear distinction should be made between entrepreneurship and
small business ownership (Donald L. Sexton & Bowman, 1984). Gibb distinguished
between entrepreneurship, enterprising behavior and small business management by
dening the entrepreneur in terms of attributes, and the small business owner or manager
in terms of tasks (Henry, Hill, & Leitch, 2005). In addition to the differences between
small businesses and the entrepreneurial business, personal characteristics are purported
to differentiate owner-managers from entrepreneurs.
One of these challenges is highlighted by Stewart, Watson et al. (1999) who
investigated the potential of psychological constructs to predict a proclivity for
entrepreneurship by using small business owner-managers and corporate managers. The
participants completed a questionnaire examining three entrepreneurship themes found in
the literature: achievement motivation, risk-taking propensity, and preference for
innovation. When compared with managers, the small business owners only
demonstrated a significantly higher risk-taking propensity. The results also indicated that
entrepreneurs had higher achievement motivation, risk-taking propensity, and preference
for innovation than the corporate managers and the small business owners.
34

2.5 Career Selection Theory
In trying to determine if theories of career choice and development are moving
toward an integrated theory Osipow (1990) reviewed four major theories explaining
career decision and development behaviors. These theories were developmental, trait
oriented, reinforcement based and personality focused. All four types of theories have
common elements: biological factors, parental influences, outcomes, personality,
methods, and life-stage influences. More recently, Leung (2008), discussed five specific
major career theories: (a) Theory of Work Adjustment, (b) Hollands Theory of
Vocational Personalities in Work Environment, (c) the Self-concept Theory of Career
Development formulated by Super and more recently by Savickas, (d) Gottfredsons
Theory of Circumscription and Compromise, and (e) Social Cognitive Career Theory,
each of which is discussed below.
2.5.1 Theory of Work-Adjustment
The Theory of Work Adjustment (Dawis & Lofquist, 1984) is a career
development theory that describes the relationship of the individual and the individual's
work environment. It is based on person-environment correspondence theory where the
work environment requires certain tasks be performed, and the individual brings skills to
perform the tasks. In exchange, the individual requires compensation for work
performance and conditions. The environment and the individual must continue to meet
each other's requirements for the interaction to be maintained. The degree to which the
requirements of both are met may be called correspondence.
35

2.5.2 Hollands Theory of Vocational Personalities in Work Environment
Holland (1997) postulated that vocational interest is personality based and could
be described in six personality types: R. Realistic, I. Investigative, A. Artistic, S. Social,
E. Enterprising, and C. Conventional. Each person could be classified by a three letter
code denoting a primary, secondary and tertiary personality type. These personality types
were arranged on a hexagon, those adjacent or closer to each other are more similar than
those further apart or on the other side of the hexagon. Generally, people of the same
personality tend to "flock together" and those with the same personality type are expected
to feel more comfortable working together, those who are dissimilar are more likely to
feel dissatisfied. This suggests an individual should select an occupation whose type is
the same as, or similar to, your personality type.
2.5.3 The Self-concept Theory of Career Development
Super (1980; D. W. Super, 1969) suggested career choice is a process of
developing and implementing a persons self-concept. Self-concept develops and is
refined their self-concept(s) over time based on experience which leads to adaptation in
an individuals career choice. He also developed a life-stage framework (1980) with
which denote the principal tasks to be mastered at each of five life career stages: growth
(usually experienced between ages 4 and 13 years), exploration (ages 14-24 years),
establishment (ages 25-44 years), maintenance (ages 45-65 years), and disengagement
(age 65 years and over).
As noted by Leung (2008), the tasks associated with the exploration stage include
vocational developmental tasks of crystallization which is a cognitive process involving
an understanding of ones interests, skills, values, and to pursue goals consistent with that
36

understanding. This further suggests the exploration of undergraduate and pre-college is
the appropriate age for this research.
2.5.4 Gottfredsons Theory of Circumscription and Compromise
According to Gottfredson, the number of occupational choices becomes almost a
burden to youth. Gottfredsons Theory of Circumscription and Compromise (1980; 1996;
2005) consists of four non-sequential developmental processes: Cognitive Growth, Self-
Creation, Circumscription, and Compromise.
The theory suggests children first consider jobs in terms of their masculinity or
femininity characteristics followed closely by their social desirability (prestige). Later
children begin to differentiate jobs against their personal interests. Using
circumscription, individuals progressively eliminate the least favored alternative by
successively ruling out work believed to be unacceptable for someone like themselves.
Circumscription includes four stages,
1. orientation to size and power (ages 3-5)
2. orientation to sex roles (ages 6-8)
3. orientation to social valuation (ages 9-13)
4. orientation to internal, unique self (ages 14 and up) - At this stage youth dont
have experience, vocational testing, or self-assessment to help identify good
career choices. Another risk is that they will commit themselves to a vocational
alternative prematurely.
Once the individual has a set of acceptable occupations, he or she will compromise
based on external constraints to their vocational choices. Most of the preferred
alternatives will be given up for more accessible options.
37

2.5.5 Social Cognitive Career Theory
SCCT provides a framework for understanding mechanisms affecting career
selection and academic major selection through the application of Bandura's (1986) social
cognitive theory to career and educational interest formation, the identification of career
and educational choices, and performance and persistence in career pursuits. SCCT
integrates the role of environmental influences on the development and pursuit of
vocational and educational interests, choices, and performance.
SCCT suggests three person variables are the most influential in regulating
career-related behavior, self-efficacy expectations, outcome expectations, and personal
goals as shown in figure 1. These variables have a constant, complex, and ever-changing
relationship that affects career and academic development and choice (R. W. Lent, et al.,
1994).
In addition to the three person variables, three sets of influences are believed to
indirectly influence interest formation and translation of interests into goals and
achievements: (a) background and proximal contextual influences, including differential
opportunities for task and role model exposure, support for and barriers to engaging in
particular activities, and cultural and gender role socialization processes; (b) person
inputs such as socioeconomic status, gender, and ethnicity; and (c) learning experiences.
These influences are thought to affect interest formation through their direct influences
on self-efficacy expectations, outcome expectations, and personal goals.

38

2.5.5.1 Self-efficacy, Outcome Expectations, and Interest
Self-efficacy can be defined as beliefs in ones capabilities to organize and
execute courses of action required to produce given attainments (Bandura, 1997).
Unlike traits, self-efficacy is relatively fluid and subject to change based on interactions
with other people, the environment, and one's own behaviors. Self-efficacy has been
linked to academic major selection in a range of majors from mathematics to social
sciences as well as career decisions. For example, math self-ecacy has been linked to
the pursuit of a major in math (Betz & Hackett, 1983; Waller, 2006), and self-ecacy
has been linked to engineering as an undergraduate major (Robert W. Lent, Brown, &
Larkin, 1984). Self-efficacy related to career decisions has also been used in
entrepreneurship research to predict self-employment (Segal, Borgia, & Schoenfeld,
2002).
Whereas self-efficacy refers to a person's belief about the ability to accomplish a
particular goal, outcome expectations are beliefs about the likely consequences of
performing specific behaviors. People may prematurely eliminate occupations because
of inaccurate self-efficacy or outcome expectations. These foreclosed occupational
options may be reintroduced and reexamined so that self-efficacy or outcome
expectations may be judged for accuracy (Gibbons & Shoffner, 2004).
According to SCCT, self-efficacy and outcome expectations combine to influence
the development of interests. In turn, interests influence the identification of and planning
for career choice goals and actions. An enduring interest in an activity is formed when
self-efficacy is strong and when it is anticipated that performing the activity will produce
valued outcomes.
39

2.5.5.2 Personal Goals
A goal exists when there are intentions to act in order to achieve a particular end
state. Goals have been shown to be a proximal cause of career outcomes (Hartman,
2006), mediating the effects of interests, efficacy, and expectations. Goals have been
shown to predict course-taking (Lips, 1992) and enrollment in a related major field of
study (Lapan, Shaughnessy, & Boggs, 1996).
2.5.5.3 Contextual Supports and Barriers
Interests evolve into occupational choices when an individual perceives few or no
barriers to success in that occupation. However, perceived barriers play a mitigating role
in SCCT, where they can shape each experience and directly influence interests and
choices (Albert & Luzzo, 1999). These contextual barriers as well as supports contribute
to the discrepancies among career interests, choice goals, and actions. For example,
students are not only isolated from knowledge about different career options, but they are
also isolated from experiencing activities related to career search, job education and
training, and goal planning. Empirical research on career barriers and supports for high
school and college students suggests that supports may influence career decisions greater
than barriers (R. W. Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 2000).
2.6 The Undergraduate Major
Undergraduate students are required to choose an area of concentration for a
portion of their studies. For a given student, the selection of major could be unknown or
change. In the United States, 8 percent of entering freshmen are undecided and 15
percent of entering freshmen believe that there is a good chance they will change their
college major (Chronicle Of Higher Education, 2001).
40

The impact of the students major selection decision has both personal and career
implications. The impact of this selection on a student has been long understood (S. R.
Porter & Umbach, 2006), and lasts long after the initial selection of the field of study
(Feldman & Newcomb, 1969). These impacts affect career opportunities (Pascarella &
Terenzini, 1991) which will effect career income, and potentially lifelong social standing.
For example, in a study of collegiate class of 1993, Moutray (2007) found that business,
management, engineering, math, or science majors were likely to work for someone else
in the for-profit sector. Those majoring in education, health, or biological sciences tended
to work for either the government or the not-for-profit sector. Those who became self-
employed were more likely to have majored in the social sciences or other majors.
With an understanding of the impact of major selection, there is a need to
understand the precursors that influence major selection. While the students interest is
consistently ranking as one of the most influential factors in major selection, specific
factors have been shown to differ between major (Siegall, Chapman, & Boykin, 2007).
2.6.1 Research with Business and Accounting Majors
Research has established that there are many influences involved in a students
choice of a business major (J. Cohen & Hanno, 1993; Kim, Markham, & Cangelosi,
2002; Noel, Michaels, & Levas, 2003; Pritchard, Potter, & Saccucci, 2004; Siegall, et al.,
2007). As noted by Malgwi, Howe et al. (2005), even though reasons differentiating why
students select specific business majors differ (Lowe & Simons, 1997), business school
students appear to be strongly influenced by their interest in the subject, availability of
jobs, their aptitude for the subject, and earnings potential (Kim, et al., 2002; Mauldin,
41

Crain, & Mounce, 2000; Pritchard, et al., 2004) relative to their non-business
counterparts.
Simons, Lowe et al. (2003) reviewed 21 empirical studies in accounting and
business literature related to factors influencing students choice of major. Their
examination of eight accounting major studies allowed the authors to classify factors as:
earnings; career opportunities; career characteristics; characteristics of the major; student
background; important referents; and, cost of education. Each of the studies was
grouped into the following, non-mutually-exclusive, categories: those based on
psychological theory; those assessing the relative importance of selected factors used in
the decision-making process (including those looking at student expectations and student
background variables); those considering the timing of the choice-of-major decision;
those considering the effect of the 150-hour requirement; and those examining gender
effects. While this segmentation helped identify that earnings are typically the first or
second most important factor and availability of employment and interesting/exciting
work is also important especially when researching the accounting major which has been
perceived to be boring (J. Cohen & Hanno, 1993). The authors had difficulties identifying
the relative importance of factors affecting choice of major, performing comparisons
between studies as different studies used different factors, or different names for what
appear to be the same or similar factors.
Malgwi, Howe, et al. (2005) surveyed business college students to examine how
influences involved in major selection differ by gender and stage of the students tenure
at college. They developed a questionnaire to collect data on factors influencing major
selections and tabulated responses by percentage response for the total population for
42

each influencing factor for majors selected by (a) incoming freshmen and (b) for those
students who changed majors. Analysis of their 788 usable responses indicate that the
most influential factor overall was interest in the subject, followed by the potential for
career advancement, and the majors potential job opportunities. They also identified
three other highly rated factors: aptitude in the subject, level of pay in the field, and the
colleges reputation in the field. Since these results are based on surveys business school
students, the generalizability outside of this sample may be questionable. The sample
may already be predisposed to be career oriented or have greater interest in pay than their
non-business school counterparts.
Similarly, Galotti and Kozberg (1987) identified How much I care about the
subject, Something I do well in, Something with good career opportunities, and
What I want to do with this major after college. as the most important in influencing
students when selecting a major. These factors were echoed in another study which
found that interest and enjoyment in an area of study, enjoyment of the working
conditions, and marketability were primary reasons that African American students
selected their major (John-Charles & Walstrom, 2000).
Outside of interest, career factors, such as compensation, often are found to
significantly factor into major selection. In addition to compensation, both near-term and
long-term career beliefs are considered. For example, in the short term there is the factor
whether or not the student believes the major will adequately prepare them for obtaining
an available job (J. Cohen & Hanno, 1993). Students also consider long-term career
beliefs including lateral job (J. Cohen & Hanno, 1993) and hierarchical job mobility
(Adams, Pryor, & Adams, 1994; Malgwi, et al., 2005). Students also consider
43

opportunities for self-employment (J. Cohen & Hanno, 1993; Kim, et al., 2002; Lowe &
Simons, 1997).
In developing an analytic hierarchy process (see figure 3) to analyze the criteria
and decision process for choosing a major, Strasser, Ozgur, et al. (2002) surveyed
students in two senior capstone strategic management classes and two sophomore
business statistics classes to identify factors they considered important in selecting a
major. The authors subjectively divided the factors into three clusters consisting of
fifteen variables which included interest in subject, influence of others and career where
career included compensation, job availability and growth, and job requirements. The
authors noted these variables closely match criteria mentioned in the literature and
provided some validity to the clusters. The authors noted that their sample did not suggest
self-esteem, personality, and job satisfaction as decision criteria, and excluded them from
the model.

Figure 3. Decision Process for Choosing a Major (Strasser, et al., 2002)
For level one, interest in the subject (.503) was found have a higher priority score
than career or influence of others (.131). Level two identified compensation (.135) and
job requirements (.140) as important elements of a students career choice. The third
44

level results led the authors to conclude that interpersonal skills (.096) as more important
than career computer usage (.044).
The fifteen 15 variables included:
Interest in the subject - personal preference, ability in subject matter,
rigor/challenging, enjoyable/fun
Influence of others advisors, parents, peers
Career compensation -earning potential, earning growth
Career availability and growth - employment opportunity, advancement opportunity
Career - job requirement, interpersonal skills - dealing with people, teamwork
Career - job requirement, computer usage - quantitative analysis, working with
computers
The resulting AHP model correctly predicted 88 percent of the students' first
choice of major and their model correctly predicted the exact order of preference of all
five available business majors for 38 percent of the students.
2.7 Choosing to Become Entrepreneur
The decision to become self-employed is essentially a career decision (Segal, et
al., 2002) however, most literature related to young adult views on entrepreneurship tend
to focus on the specific factors influencing someone to start a business rather than
entrepreneurship as a career choice (Henderson & Robertson, 1999)
Entrepreneurship research has attempted to articulate individual factors
influencing people to embark on entrepreneurial careers and social and economic factors
encouraging entrepreneurship. To reconcile parallel paths of research Dyer (1994)
asserts that presents a model articulating four dimensions of theory essential to
45

developing a comprehensive theory of entrepreneurial careers: (1) a theory of career
choice; (2) a theory of career socialization; (3) a theory of career orientation; and (4) a
theory of career progression from entry to exit. For the purposes of this study we are
most concerned about factors related to the first dimension due to the point at which the
subjects are to be surveyed.
In the theory of career choice, Dyer identifies three types of factors that appear to
influence the decision to become an entrepreneur.
1. Individual factors Psychological factors including nAch, need for control,
tolerance for ambiguity, entrepreneurial attitudes, etc. Dyer acknowledges that
linking individual factors to entrepreneurial behavior has not lived up to its early
promise, however he believes they should not be overlooked that they play a role
in the selection of an entrepreneurial career.
2. Social factors Family relationships, family support, community support, role
models
3. Economic factors Lack of alternative careers in existing organizations,
economic growth/business opportunities, availability of resource networks
Similarly, Henderson and Robertson (1999) suggested three approaches to the
choice of enterprise as a career may be identified and may be important in understanding
influences on entrepreneurial careers.
1. Trait theory tries to identify common links among entrepreneurs which bind them
together as a group. McClelland (1961) and Rotter (1966) suggest these include a
high need for achievement, self-belief, propensity to take risks, and independence.
46

However, no single trait has been proved exclusively entrepreneurial and trait
measurement is subject to controversy.
2. The social development approach recognizes that decision makers have access to
limited information and are prone to external influences and constraints at
different stages. Gibb and Ritchie (1982) cite factors such as risk, family
influences, prior education and training, and perceived job opportunities.
However, their model does not account for young entrepreneurs nor, importantly,
other influences such as peer groups and
3. The structure opportunity model rejects the two previous approaches for their
insufficient emphasis on social factors such as family, neighbourhood, school,
peer group and general work situation. The latter important demand-side factor
implies that career choice is influenced by employers' needs and the overall
economic and job climate. Curran (1996) also suggests the prevailing attitudes of
family, friends and neighbours perpetuate a young person's social position so that
value structures and attitudes affect their consciousness.

Research has examined reasons entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs offered for
their career choices (Carter, Gartner, Shaver, & Gatewood, 2003). It was hypothesized
that nascent entrepreneurs have similar reasons for career choice as working age adults in
the general population. To test the hypothesis six categories of reasons why an adult
starts a business were examined.
1. innovation an individuals intention to accomplish something new
47

2. independence - an individuals desire for freedom, control, and flexibility in the
use of ones time
3. recognition - an individuals intention to have status, approval, and recognition
from ones family, friends, and from those in the community;
4. roles - an individuals desire to follow family traditions or emulate the example of
others;
5. financial success - an individuals intention to earn more money and achieve
financial security;
6. self-realization - pursuing self-directed goals.
While these six career choice categories accounted for more than 68% of the
variance, the results only indicated a significant difference between the reasons for career
choices between nascent entrepreneurs and the comparison group for recognition and
roles. In particular nascent entrepreneurs rated reasons concerning roles and recognition
significantly lower than their non-entrepreneur counterparts. No significant difference
was found between the groups in the self-realization, financial success, innovation, and
independence categories. Also, there was not a significant difference between the
weighting of importance of these factors by nascent entrepreneurs and the non-
entrepreneur comparison group. Both groups rated independence, financial success, and
self-realization as more important than recognition, innovation or roles.
2.7.1.1 Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy
Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy (ESE) measures a persons belief in their own
abilities to perform skills necessary to pursue a new venture opportunity. The literature
48

suggests measures of ESE may be able to differentiate between entrepreneurs and non-
entrepreneurs (Chen, Greene, & Crick, 1998; De Noble, 1999).
Chen, et al. (1998) believed that trait research such as locus of control was unable
to distinguish between entrepreneurs and managers. In response, they proposed one of
the first ESE constructs by developing a measure that included individuals assessments
of their marketing, innovation, management, risk-taking, and financial control skills. This
construct was based on the assumption that individuals are more inclined to pursue
entrepreneurship if they believed that they possessed the necessary skills to function in
such an environment. Using two samples, one with students, and the second with
business executives, the proposed ESE construct was tested. The ESE scores within the
first sample differentiated entrepreneurship students from management and
organizational psychology students. Their findings indicated that ESE had a significant
and positive effect on the likelihood of being an entrepreneur. With the second sample,
they tested ESE and locus of control with founders and non-founders of existing
businesses. Confirming their premise, after controlling for both individual and company
background variables, they found the effect of ESE significant whereas the locus of
control was not significant.
De Noble (1999) believed that most literature described the capabilities of
entrepreneurs in terms similar to roles of managers and in response created an enhanced
measure of ESE that includes entrepreneurial skills uniquely different from managerial
skills so often cited in the literature. Using factor analysis, six distinct factors were
found to comprise this improved measure of ESE.
1. developing new product or market opportunities
49

2. building an innovative environment
3. initiating investor relationships
4. defining core purpose
5. coping with unexpected challenges
6. developing critical human resources
However, high ESE alone is not sufficient for entrepreneurial action. De Noble
notes that entrepreneurial intention may be an intervening variable between ESE and
action. Specifically, entrepreneurial skills may lead people to think about or intend to
start a business, however such skills may not be sufficiently strong to persuade someone
to take action.
2.8 Entrepreneurship Education
The purpose of entrepreneurship education is to produce entrepreneurial
founders capable of generating real growth and wealth. (Solomon, Duffy, & Tarabishy,
2002) Charney and Libecap (2000) suggest that entrepreneurship education should
accomplish a broad set of goals including: integrating various courses and disciplines;
providing the foundation for new businesses; improve graduates employment prospects;
promoting the transfer of university-based technology; forging links between the business
and academic communities; and provide an opportunity to experiment with curriculums.
Others have suggested that development of leadership skills should be added to this list
(A. Nelson, Byers, & Gary, 2005).
2.8.1 Entrepreneurship Can be Taught
The distinguishing factor of a successful entrepreneur from other people is
precisely the fact that he does not let himself be guided by what was and is, but arranges
50

his affairs on the ground of his opinion about the future. He sees the past and the present
as other people do; but he judges the future in a different way (Von Mises, 1949).
Furthermore, due to an uncertain future, the entrepreneurs understanding of the future
defies any rules and systematization. It can be neither taught nor learned (Von Mises,
1949). Mises and other such as Chaharbaghi and Willis (1998) have asserted that
entrepreneurs cannot be created but only recognized. The reason for this may be
highlighted by Klein and Bullock (2006), who in their experiences teaching
entrepreneurship to undergraduates believe that while the process of new venture
formation can be studied, it is not generally possible to teach discovery, recognition,
decision-making under genuine uncertainty, and the nature of the entrepreneurial
personality.
It has long been conventional wisdom that some entrepreneurs are born and will
succeed with or without education, providing education to those lacking the
entrepreneurial spirit will not lead to success (C. Jones & English, 2004). Solomon
(2006) notes that if entrepreneurs are born perhaps teaching entrepreneurship should be
limited to those passing a specific blood test. Ironically, business-related behaviors may
be at least in part, explained by our biology (White, Thornhill, & Hampson, 2006). This
debate on whether students can be taught to be successful entrepreneurs has existed for
some time. Most management research assumes business-behaviors are learned and that
the human mind is a blank slate that can be shaped by parents, schools, and culture
(Pinker, 2002).
A survey of 100 chief executives in entrepreneurial firms found that the
respondents believed while personality traits are difficult to influence, the vast majority
51

of knowledge required by entrepreneurs can be taught (Hood & Young, 1993). Based
on a study of 408 entrepreneurship students, Kantor (1988) found that most students
generally believed that both entrepreneurial traits and abilities could be influenced,
however abilities were perceived as more easily influenced. This concurs with the
ndings of Clark, Davis & Harnish (1984), which indicated that teaching
entrepreneurship skills aided the creation and success of new businesses. A ten-year
(1985-1994) literature review performed by Gorman, Hanlon, & King (1997) found that
most of the empirical studies surveyed indicated that entrepreneurship can be taught,
or at least encouraged, by entrepreneurship education.
While Vespers US based study of university professors found that 93 per cent of
respondents indicated that entrepreneurship could be taught (K.H. Vesper, 1982), and the
results favor the idea that entrepreneurship can be taught, the results of a more recent
study of 141 UK HEI entrepreneurship lecturers was less conclusive. One question asked
whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement Entrepreneurship is a learned
competency rather than an innate predisposition or cultural trait, 53% agreed or strongly
agreed it could be taught, 25% disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 22% neither agreed
nor disagreed (Bennett, 2006).
However, there is a growing acceptance that many aspects of entrepreneurship
can be taught and learned (Garavan & O'Cinneide, 1994; Karl H. Vesper & Gartner,
1997), that the question of whether entrepreneurship can be taught is obsolete (Charney
& Libecap, 2000) and that the question is too broad.
Rather the appropriate questions that should be asked include how do we teach
entrepreneurs such that we can increase their likelihood of success? Can we increase a
52

students entrepreneurial aspirations? Are those who have high entrepreneurial
aspirations self-selecting entrepreneurship classes, if so what is the effect? Or to address
Mises, can we teach students to think differently about the future? And since each
person has different tacit and explicit knowledge, can we teach people to think in a way
to exploit their own knowledge and contingency in a way that they will not think
similarly to each other?
2.8.2 Growth of Entrepreneurship Education Offerings
Interest in entrepreneurship has increased exponentially among both graduate and
undergraduate students (Finkle & Deeds, 2001) regardless of their fields of study as the
classes may be seen as serving long-term career goals. Possessing entrepreneurial skills
are important because being an entrepreneur is considered to be a career choice (Douglas
& Shepherd, 2000; Eisenhauer, 1995) and the prospect of a having a portfolio career''
involving periods of salaried work, self-employment and unemployment is becoming
increasingly more common (Henderson & Robertson, 1999).
Entrepreneurship has been promoted as a career choice in many universities
around the world through the introduction of entrepreneurial courses (Postigo, 2002).
Applied education in entrepreneurship has been found to exist as early as 1938 to Shigeru
Fujii, Professor Emeritus, Kobe University, Japan. In a historic context, the emergence
of small business management in the 1940s (D. L. Sexton & Upton, 1984) and the first
entrepreneurship course in the United States is believed to have been introduced in 1958
(McMullan & Long, 1987). Through the 1970s numerous institutions have experimented
with entrepreneurship concentrations. By the mid-1980s ten concentrations or program
equivalents existed between Canada and the United States (H. H. Stevenson, 1986).
53

Entrepreneurship is one of the fastest-growing subjects at U.S. colleges and
universities (Solomon, et al., 2002). Student enrollment in entrepreneurship classes at
five top U.S. business schools increased 92 percent from 1996 to 1999 and the number of
entrepreneurship classes offered increased 74 percent (Foote, 1999). Within a 50-year
period, entrepreneurship education has grown from a single course to opportunities at
more than 1500 colleges and universities around the world (Charney & Libecap, 2000).
It has been estimated that 400 colleges and universities offered entrepreneurship courses
in 1995, up from approximately 16 in 1970 (Karl H. Vesper & Gartner, 1997). Today
entrepreneurship remains one of the fastest-growing subjects at U.S. colleges and
universities (Solomon, et al., 2002) and estimates that this 1995 number tripled to as
many as 1200 in a five year period.
Katz (2003) provides a detailed chronology of entrepreneurship education from
1876. He concludes that since the first university class in 1947, an American
infrastructure has emerged consisting of more than 2200 courses at over 1600 schools,
277 endowed positions, 44 English-language refereed academic journals and over 100
centers. Entrepreneurship courses are taught at nearly every American Assembly of
Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) accredited institution, at over 1400
postsecondary schools with further worldwide growth.
Streeter, Jacquette, & Hovis (2002) attributed growth to both donor-driven and
demand-driven influences, five reasons were detailed by Charney and Libecap (2000):
1. the development of business plans allows students to integrate accounting,
economics, finance, marketing, and other business disciplines.
54

2. entrepreneurship education may promote the founding of new businesses by
graduates or enhance their employment prospects and the success of graduates in
the job market.
3. entrepreneurship education may promote technology transfer from the university
to the market through the development of technology-based business plans.
4. entrepreneurship education forges links between the business and academic
communities. Entrepreneurship education is seen by business leaders as a useful,
applied approach to the study of business and the economy, and they have been
willing to fund entrepreneurship programs and endow professorships within them.
5. because there is no set approach to entrepreneurship education and because
entrepreneurship generally is outside traditional discipline boundaries, it has been
possible to experiment with curriculums.
2.8.3 Maturity in Entrepreneurship Education
It has been argued that entrepreneurship education in US business schools has
reached maturity and that it can be characterized by two widely recognized and consistent
approaches: entrepreneurship courses which focus on wealth-creation and small business
courses which focus on form-creation (Katz, 2003). However, the academic study of
entrepreneurship has also been described as a broad label under which a hodgepodge of
research is housed (S. Shane & Venkataraman, 2000) and a cacophony of results and
ideas (Gartner, 2001). Even through entrepreneurship education has been around for
over half a century, entrepreneurial education research is in its infancy and in an
exploratory stage (Gorman, et al., 1997).
55

This infancy is evidenced by the lack of accepted theories of entrepreneurship
education (Hills, 1988; Donald L. Sexton & Bowman, 1984). Over twelve distinct
conceptual approaches or frameworks within the entrepreneurship literature have been
identified (Morris, Kuratko, & Schindehutte, 2001).
Similarly it has been argued that although small business management and
entrepreneurship courses have experienced remarkable growth, the field is far from
mature (Robinson & Haynes, 1991) as evidenced by relatively few schools with degree
programs in entrepreneurship. This lack of maturity has led some scholars to conclude
entrepreneurial education requires a generalists approach integrating a variety of
functional skills and knowledge (Block & Stumpf, 1992; Hills, 1988). It should be noted
that there has been significant growth in entrepreneurship degree programs since the early
1990s.
It should be no surprise that entrepreneurship curricula vary widely in content and
approach. Part of this diverse curriculum may be due to the blury distinction between
entrepreneurship and small business management. The traditional objective of small
business management programs is to provide students with management know-how
related to managing and operating small, post-startup companies (Solomon, et al., 2002),
including setting goals and objectives, leading, planning, organizing and controlling
from a small business perspective (Fernald & Solomon, 1993). In contrast,
entrepreneurship education focuses on new growth ventures (Guglielmino & Klatt, 1993;
Marchigiano-Monroy, 1993) with an emphasis on high profitability, rapid growth, and
expedient exit strategies (Solomon, Weaver, & Fernald, 1994). This is lack of maturity is
further demonstrated by the level of similarity between small business education and
56

entrepreneurship textbooks (Solomon, 2006) indicating that there is less agreement
among scholars, teachers, and authors of the texts as to the basic cornerstones of the field
and the essential knowledge students need to succeed in an entrepreneurial venture.
While both types of curricula provide opportunities to gain the knowledge and skills
needed to generate a business concept, determine its feasibility, launch and operate a
business, and develop exit strategies (Solomon, et al., 1994), the question has been asked
are we teaching entrepreneurship to small business managers, and small business
management to entrepreneurs? (Solomon, 2006)
2.8.4 For or About Entrepreneurship
Regardless of the maturity, entrepreneurship education has been shown as one of
the crucial factors in fostering entrepreneurial attitude (Gorman, et al., 1997). However
empirical tests of key propositions are in short supply and badly needed as
demonstrations of the efficacy of entrepreneurship education programs. (Hindle &
Cutting, 2002)
Adcroft, Dhaliwal, and Willis (2005) question the purpose of entrepreneurial
education does it take place in order to recognise the activity when it is happens or does
it take place to foster and engender higher levels of the activity? Ultimately this leads
to the question as to whether entrepreneurship education is for entrepreneurs or simply
about them. (Chell, Haworth, & Brearley, 1991) According to Postigo and Tamborini
(2007), Laukkanen (2000) made a similar distinction, that entrepreneurship education can
be divided into two different areas:
57

1. Education about entrepreneurship - develops, constructs and studies the theories
referred to the entrepreneurs, the creation of firms, the contribution to economic
development and the entrepreneurial process.
2. Education for Entrepreneurship: This area addresses current and potential
entrepreneurs to develop and stimulate the entrepreneurial process by providing tools
for the start-up of a new venture both inside and outside existing organizations. This
is similar to Kirby (1992) who suggests that the purpose of entrepreneurial education
is to develop in the student the skills, attributes and behaviours characteristic of the
enterprising individual or Sarasvathy who has proposed to study entrepreneurship as
expertise; a set of skills, models and processes that can be acquired with time and
deliberate practice, and hence believes it can be learned.
Teaching methods used in each of these areas are not the same as the first definition is
based on the construction and transfer of knowledge about the field, while the second one
focuses on the learning experience and the development of competencies, skills, aptitudes
and values (Postigo & Tamborini, 2007).
Since there are two areas of study it is possible that students may indicate interest
in learning about entrepreneurship without indicating interest in pursuing entrepreneurial
endeavors.
2.8.5 Types of courses / Content
Entrepreneurship education can be dissected based on the evolution of course type
and content. The focus of many programs from the 1940s onward has been referred to as
the old school (R. Ronstadt, 1990). These courses are based on action; the business
plan; and exposure to experienced visitors who inspired students through stories and
58

practical advice. That school of entrepreneurship education was based on the premise
that entrepreneurial success was a function of the persons human traits and
characteristics. It also suggested that students obtain work experience before starting an
entrepreneurial venture.
Conversely, the new school relies on personal, technical or industry experience.
It requires critical thinking, ethical assessment and is based on the premise that successful
entrepreneurial activities are a function of human, venture and environmental conditions.
Similar to the concept of the portfolio career (Henderson & Robertson, 1999), this
newer form of entrepreneurship education also focuses on entrepreneurship as a career
process composed of multiple new ventures and the essential skill of networking.
Vesper and Garners (1997) research, which included 233 responses of the 311
from US business schools, that the following entrepreneurship courses were found to be
offered to undergraduates (in decreasing order)
Entrepreneurship or starting new firms
Small business management
Field projects/venture consulting
Starting and running a firm
Venture plan writing
Venture finance
Entrepreneurship for non-business majors
Family business
Venture opportunity finding/screening
Venture marketing
Management of fast-growing firms
Venturing in (arts, nursing, Eastern Europe, Technology or other fields)
Creative thinking
Franchise development
International venturing
Law for entrepreneurs
Innovation evaluation
Technology transfer
Entrepreneurship for (bankers, software writers, biologists, or other fields)
Corporate venturing
59

Business entry via acquisition
Street smarts in business

More recently, Fiet wrote two articles on this topic, the first (2001) suggests that
entrepreneurship theory is the most practical thing that can be taught to entrepreneurship
students. This argument is based off the following assumptions:
These appeals for more theoretical content depend on several assumptions, which
include: (1) the improbability that students can encounter circumstances that
would be similar to anecdotal lessons learned in entrepreneurship school; (2) the
existence of a process that can be explained theoretically; (3) studying ideal types
can be discouraging to aspiring entrepreneurs if they do not fit a special profile;
(4) the high failure rate among entrepreneurs makes suggesting to students that
they ought to pattern their activities after them seem illogical; (5) studying
average profiles, anecdotal recommendations, rules of thumb or war stories can
only lead to average returns, given semi-strong information efficiency; and (6)
leveraging the motivational benefits of studying successful entrepreneurs may
have detrimental, unintended consequences, among others.

Fiet argues that a more refined, cumulative theory is needed to be taught to
students that emphasizes learning by doing. In an analysis of 18 syllabi of
entrepreneurship courses 116 different topics were covered. The six leading topic areas
were:
Strategy/competitive analysis
Managing growth
Discovery/idea generation
Risk and rationality
Financing (mainly business angels)
Creativity

It should be noted, as Fiet did, that with the exception of discovery/idea
generation, these themes are rooted in other non-entrepreneurship disciplines.
2.8.6 Impact and Benefits of Entrepreneurship Education
It has been suggested that entrepreneurship education encourages the likelihood
venturing and increases the success of ventures (Gorman, et al., 1997; Hood & Young,
60

1993; Menzies & Paradi, 2002); McMullan and Vesper 1987; Timmons 1999; Wyckham
and Wedley 1990; Young 1997). However, an examination of benefits that students can
derive from entrepreneurship education found that increased entrepreneurial learning
does not lead toward increased self-employment, however partial support was found that
education could change attitude and increase entrepreneurial tendencies (Souitaris,
Zerbinati, & Al-Laham, 2007). This suggests that while entrepreneurial education
intends to increase the likelihood of success and increase the chances that students will
attempt an entrepreneurial endeavor, the later can be done through inspiration in
entrepreneurial education settings by raising attitude and entrepreneurial intentions.
The later may also be increased by providing a general entrepreneurship
education. While initially researched on the graduate level, Lazear (2003) concluded that
entrepreneurs need to have a diverse set of skills and be jack of all trades to create a
successful business and that students who studied a more general MBA curriculum were
more likely to become entrepreneurs.
Since attitude and intentions do not necessarily result in action, it has been
suggested that entrepreneurial education be measured by socioeconomic impact produced
(Block & Stumpf, 1992; Charney & Libecap, 2000; Clark, et al., 1984; McMullan &
Long, 1987), consideration of the number, types, the growth rate of companies produced,
and the contribution to the economy in terms of employment. However, even with the
growth of entrepreneurship programs, research has not created a clear picture of its
impact. There is difficulty identifying the impact because the payoff of being an
entrepreneur cannot be evaluated immediately as significant time lags between
61

participation in an entrepreneurship program and subsequent related behaviors such as
starting a new venture often exists.
2.8.7 Two Entrepreneurship Education Studies
The following two empirical studies on entrepreneurship program suggest
differences between the students exposed to entrepreneurship education and those who
were not.
2.8.7.1 University of Arizona Study
Charney and Libecap (2000) evaluated the effect of the University of Arizonas
Berger Entrepreneurship Program on graduates by comparing them with a matched
sample of non-entrepreneurship University of Arizona business graduates between the
years 1985 and 1998. At that time, the Berger program consists of a dedicated curriculum
that had been generally uniform for 16 years. Students were admitted to the program
based on grades, recommendations, and an assessment of the students entrepreneurship
potential.
2,484 individuals were surveyed including 2,024 non-entrepreneurship and 460
entrepreneurship graduates. 406 non-entrepreneurship alumni responded and 105
entrepreneurship alumni responded. Evidence indicated that the entrepreneurship
graduates on average are three times more likely to be self-employed (9% vs. 27.2%)
than are the non-entrepreneurship graduates. Controlling for personal characteristics and
other factors, entrepreneurship education increases the likelihood that a graduate alumnus
owns his or her business by 11 percent relative to non-entrepreneurship graduates. The
authors acknowledged further analysis is necessary to determine whether the observed 18
62

percent difference is due to the entrepreneurship program or if the entrepreneurship
graduates had that predisposition before entering the program.
In relation to income, entrepreneurship graduates were found to have an average
annual income that is 27 percent higher than the average annual income of non-
entrepreneurship graduates. When controlling for personal characteristics,
entrepreneurship education increases the income of graduates by $12,561 beyond that of
other business graduates.
When examining firm growth, small firms employing entrepreneurship graduates
were found to have greater sales and employment growth than those employing non-
entrepreneurship graduates. For larger firms, the growth effects of a graduate are more
difficult to detect. Nevertheless, they found larger firms pay entrepreneurship graduates
substantially more than they do non-entrepreneurship graduates. This study also found
that firms owned by entrepreneurship graduates appear to be larger and have more sales
than do those owned by non-entrepreneurship graduates.
Among self-employed entrepreneurship graduates, nearly 23 percent own a high-
technology firm, compared to less than 15 percent of non-entrepreneurship graduates.
Entrepreneurship program graduates also are more apt to be instrumental in developing
new products. Further, entrepreneurship graduates spend more time in R&D, work with
products that have shorter life spans, and are more apt to work in high-tech industries.
2.8.7.2 Entrepreneurship education for Engineering Students
Engineering students may be the most promising cohort from which we would
expect high-technology start-ups due to their in-depth knowledge of technology in a
specific area and their practical work performed in pursuit of their degrees (Menzies &
63

Paradi, 2002). In Menzies and Paradis (2002) 15 year cohort study comparing Canadian
engineering students who took at least one entrepreneurship course versus a control group
of entrepreneurship graduates, the results show statistically significant differences
between the two groups. For example, 34% of the group exposed to entrepreneurship
education were current business owners, compared with 20% of those in the control
group. Similar results were found over the long term as 48% of those with
entrepreneurial education were found to have been a business owner at some time since
graduation compared to 26% in the control group.
Another difference between these two groups relates to the number of years
between graduation and start-up. Their results also suggest that graduates who have
entrepreneurship education tend to venture sooner after graduation as 32% of the those
graduates started a business within two years of their graduation, compared with only 19
percent of control group graduates. However, similar percentages of both groups (33.7%
for those who took an entrepreneurship course versus 31.3% for the control group) started
their ventures three to seven years from graduation. Overall, the difference in the time to
venture appears to be mainly within the first two years from graduation.
Those exposed to entrepreneurship education were more likely to own more than
one business or become serial entrepreneurs.
Based on these findings, it appears entrepreneurship education is an effective way
to increase the venturing rate of engineering graduates and should be an integral part of
engineering education. However, the authors assert that the introduction of required
entrepreneurship courses would provide challenges and that using the students limited
time for such courses may dilute the technical material or overload students with
64

additional course requirements. Furthermore, the authors also acknowledge engineering
students could look elsewhere for this training, such as acquiring these skills following
graduation. In response, they suggest it is important to include a course in
entrepreneurship to increase venturing awareness and readiness and that skills and
knowledge so that they have the ability to venturing relatively soon after graduation.
2.8.8 Radiant and Magnet Entrepreneurship Education
The growth of entrepreneurship education has increased its availability to greater
numbers of students. However at the same time the number of academic choices for
those students is growing as well. Since entrepreneurship education can be taught as its
own major, as a concentration or elective in other majors it is important to understand the
different channels where the education it can be provided and where the education is
offered within the educational institution.
Streeter, Jaquette, and Hovis (2002) describe both focused and university-
wide entrepreneurship programs. A focused program exists when faculty, students, and
staff are located exclusively in the academic area of business or in the combined areas of
business and engineering. In a university-wide program, the type of program can be
further classified into two conceptual categories based on the location of the faculty and
teachers - magnet programs and radiant programs. Magnet programs encourage students
from outside the business major to take entrepreneurship courses offered in the business
school. These entrepreneurship courses often provide a general focus with components
such as business planning, new ventures, and global entrepreneurship, and typically have
no prerequisites. Radiant programs offer entrepreneurship courses outside the business
school that are taught within the specific context of the non-business discipline. These
65

courses are based on the principal that entrepreneurship education is most effective when
linked to a students own discipline.

66

3 Research Methodology
The entrepreneurship literature is dominated with studies describing
characteristics of the entrepreneur and the entrepreneurship education literature often
focuses on anecdotal evidence detailing the effects entrepreneurship education.
However, to date there are few quantitative studies describing why a student mayor may
not be interested in entrepreneurship education or exploring the relationship between
interest in entrepreneurial careers and interest in entrepreneurship education.
This research intends to contribute to the research about the value proposition of
the entrepreneurship major through of the following:
the relationship between academic and entrepreneurial career self-efficacies and
interest in the entrepreneurship major
the expectation of increased entrepreneurial success from undergraduate education.
The results of this research are expected to reveal that students with interest in
the entrepreneurship major are not homogeneous in their background and
entrepreneurship knowledge. This research is also expected to be a first step toward
understanding the needs of entrepreneurially inclined undergraduate students who are not
in formal entrepreneurship programs. In doing so, this research contributes to the body of
research related to entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship education by providing insight
into educational policy and curricula development for both secondary and higher
education. This understanding will help tailor entrepreneurship education to students
different levels of entrepreneurship self-efficacy ultimately leading to increased, higher
quality entrepreneurial activity.
67

This research is based on a model of academic and career interest development
provided by Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) (R. W. Lent, et al., 1994) primarily
focusing on the influence of self-efficacy and outcome expectations of educational
pursuits and career pursuits on their interest in pursuing formal college entrepreneurial
education and career choices.
This chapter provides an overview of the study's methodology, addressing the
research design, sample population and participant selection methods, data collection
methods, and research questions and hypotheses and data analysis.
3.1 Research Design
A mixed methods design will be used since it will allow for gathering of qualitative
information regarding students' thoughts and ideas of the entrepreneur career and
program, and for inferential testing of quantitative information gathered from the survey
instrumentation as well. The importance of the qualitative portion of the research is that
this would provide the ability to use open ended questions to ascertain student's beliefs
about self efficacy and interest in entrepreneurship programs and careers that may not be
ascertained from the survey. Bogdan and Biklen (1992, p. 152) defined qualitative data
analysis as working with data, organizing them, breaking them into manageable units,
synthesizing them, searching for patterns, discovering what is important and what is to be
learned, and deciding what you will tell others.
In addition to qualitative aspects, this research followed the positivist, quantitative
scientific approach of investigation. Quantitative research intends to identify causal
relationships among specified variables by testing hypotheses derived from predictive
theories and inferences drawn from samples to populations (Kerlinger, 1986; Orlikowski
68

& Baroudi, 1991). This type of research generally entails the precise measurement of
variables and data collection through formal standardized conditions from a randomly
selected sample.
3.2 Conceptual Framework
The researchs conceptual model shown is based on SCCT (R. W. Lent, et al., 1994).
SCCT states that interest is developed based on self-efficacy and outcome expectations
and that self-efficacy and outcome expectations are developed through learning
experiences and contextual factors. SCCT is a general theory that can be used to study the
development of career and educational interests. In this case it is being applied to both
entrepreneurial career interest and interest in entrepreneurship education.
3.2.1 Why SCCT is Appropriate
Trait-factor career models (e.g. Hollands typology), tend to view people and their
work environments in trait-oriented terms, emphasizing attributes that are relatively
global, constant and occurring across time (R.W. Lent, 2005). Trait models assume
career behavior is based on interests, abilities, values, and personality dispositions that
are based on genetic endowment and early learning experiences. While SCCT is able to
examine those elements, it is intended to examine relatively dynamic and situation-
specific aspects of both people and their environments. Career and academic choices are
known to change and therefore traits can only account for a portion of the decision.
According to (R.W. Lent, 2005), since SCCT focuses on cognitions, behavior, and other
factors that are relatively malleable and responsive to particular situations and
performance domains, SCCT is complementary to the trait-factor perspective.
69

Furthermore, SCCT is an appropriate choice because interest was found to be the
highest or one of the highest influencing factors in undergraduate major selection in
many studies (Adams, et al., 1994; DeMarie & Aloise-Young, 2003; Kim, et al., 2002;
Malgwi, et al., 2005) and SCCT considers interest a result, not a cause. Since SCCT
asserts that interest is influenced by self-efficacy and outcome expectations, we can
therefore examine all three constructs using this theory. Examining the precursors to
interest would provide greater understanding as we need to understand not only if the
interest exists but why the interest exists.
Components included in SCCT such as self-efficacy have long been studied in
students (Betz & Hackett, 1981, 1983). More recently SCCT has been used to study
various academic areas including computer science (Akbulut & Looney, 2007),
engineering (R. W. Lent et al., 2003; R. W. Lent et al., 2005) and career areas such as
factors influencing high school students careers (Tang, Pan, & Newmeyer, 2008).
3.2.2 SCCT and Entrepreneurship
Krueger et al. (2000) compared models of entrepreneurial intentions to the most
appropriate choice for examining the choice of becoming an entrepreneur. They
suggested that intentions have proven to be the best predictor of planned behavior,
particularly when that behavior is rare, hard to observe, or involves unpredictable time
lags. Thus, social cognitive theory as utilized in the SCCT model may be ideally suited
to the study of entrepreneurs and new businesses. This argument suggests that the
Theory of Planned Behavior (TpB) may be an ideal candidate as well. However, the TpB
emphasizes actions over the development of the interest. Since interest is believed to be a
precursor to action, it would be appropriate to first study interest before action
70

The SCCT model has been used to predict goals for an entrepreneurial career
(Segal, et al., 2002). Segal, Borgia, and Schoenfeld (2007) also performed an exploratory
test of the SCCT model, using a sample of business students to predict interest and goals
for an entrepreneurship as a career choice.
3.3 Population and Sample
The intended sample for this research was first and second year undergraduates
from a large mid-Atlantic private, doctoral research institution who are enrolled in basic
courses in business administration and Science Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) fields.
A sample at the undergraduate level of education is appropriate since
baccalaureate major is a substantial determinant of eventual mode of employment and
since additional education beyond the baccalaureate reduces the likelihood of
entrepreneurship (Moutray, 2008). The selection of first and second year undergraduates
is chosen to focus on those students who have potentially invested less in their academic
major choice. This group was expected to be more open-minded in their consideration of
alternative paths such as entrepreneurship. Furthermore, social cognitive career variables
have been found to change over time, indicating that academic and career development
processes for more advanced students are different from those of less advanced students
(Astin & Astin, 1992; Robert W. Lent, et al., 1984; Whitt, Nora, Edison, Terenzini, &
Pascarella, 1999).
Students interested in STEM fields may be best positioned to become
entrepreneurs in high-technology areas and students in business administration courses
were also included in the sample because is the closest analog for undergraduate students
71

enrolled at schools without entrepreneurship major. When combined, students in these
fields will be used to examine the value proposition of the entrepreneurship major.
The particular institution was selected for the site of data collection because it
offers a broad range of undergraduate major programs and the ability to obtain
participants to complete the questionnaire. Using a sample from a single institution will
eliminate certain potential confounding factors of a multiple institutional study. This
delimitation will enable stronger analysis of the SCCT and reduces the effect of
institutional variables of campus culture, geographical location, and overall
compositional diversity that also may influence differences in students experiences
(Hurtado, et al., 1999). The institution does not offer an entrepreneurship major. The
institution is expected to provide an adequately sized sample to meet the statistical
requirements for conducting analyses, thereby enabling data collection from a single
institution while also maintaining generalizable results.
3.4 Data Collection Instrument
Survey methods collect information from a sample in an efficient systematic
process minimizing the impact of the study on the participants (Norusis & SPSS Inc.,
1990). Therefore, utilizing a survey was a prudent choice for this type of study that
explored dynamic social psychological processes. The survey instrument is divided into
four sections, three of which capture data related to SCCT constructs, interest, self-
efficacy, outcome expectations, and the fourth is demographic information.
The questionnaire included 27 items and each administration took between 20 and
30 minutes. The questionnaire begins with the respondent establishing their current or
most likely major and their intended or most likely occupation. Those questions must be
72

answered before those related to interest, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations. Next,
interest questions are asked. These questions are asked before the self-efficacy and
outcome expectation questions to minimize any influence on the interest responses.
Next, questions related to self-efficacy and outcome expectations are asked. The
questionnaire can be found in Appendix A.
To ensure the questionnaire collects accurate data, assess the length of time
required to complete, and to test comprehension of the instructions and questions, the
survey was examined and completed by graduate students in management programs
within the University and pilot questionnaires were administered to undergraduate
students at the same institution as the sample population. Reliability was measured with
the inclusion of two questions which measured the same concept. Follow up interviews
were performed to confirm the validity of selected measured concepts and the hypothesis
as well as to add to the prior reliability measures.
3.4.1 Likert Scales
One of the primary authors of SCCT has documented the usage of ten point Likert
scales for self-efficacy and outcome expectations to ensure adequate resolution along
with five point interest scales. However a pilot administration of the questionnaire using
ten point scales did not seem to increase response resolution over five point scales and
took significantly longer to administer.
Therefore, this research used five point Likert scales to measure responses for
questions related to the SCCT constructs interest, self-efficacy, and outcome
expectations. The level of interest for each question was identified through a scale from
very low interest through very high interest. Self-efficacy was identified through a scale
73

from no confidence at all through complete confidence. Outcome expectations will
be identified through the use of a scale from strongly disagree through strongly
agree.
3.4.2 Interest
Interest is often found to be the most important determinant why an academic
major or career is chosen (DeMarie & Aloise-Young, 2003; Kim, et al., 2002; Malgwi, et
al., 2005). In SCCT, interest is a result of self-efficacy and outcome expectations. The
questionnaire obtained measures of the students academic interest in 1) their current or
most likely major, 2) an elective course in entrepreneurship, and 3) majoring in
entrepreneurship. The questionnaire also obtained career interests from two questions.
One question asks the respondent to indicate interest in being self-employed or starting a
business within 5 years of graduation.
For the purposes of this research it would have been better to follow Lazears
(2003) convention that an entrepreneur being defined for this study as someone who
responds affirmatively to the question I am among those who initially established the
business. This definition excludes those who are self-employed. However, a pilot study
and informal interviews prior to this research indicated that the sample generally did not
distinguish between being self-employed and an entrepreneur.
3.4.3 Self-efficacy
The questionnaire measures self-efficacy for academic success, career success,
and for having a successful business idea. The questionnaire asks the respondent about
their self-efficacy to complete requirements for the most likely major, as their self-
efficacy for completing an entrepreneurship major as well as their self-efficacy related to
74

providing products and services. The questions related to major were adapted from prior
SCCT research (R. W. Lent, et al., 2003) which asked Engineering students about their
confidence to Complete all of the basic science (i.e., math, physics, chemistry)
requirements for your engineering major with grades of B or better.
The questionnaire also asked the respondent about their self-efficacy to have a
successful career in their intended or most likely occupation as well as being self-
employed or an entrepreneur.
The final self-efficacy question is used to determine the respondents
entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE). As noted by Chen (Chen, et al., 1998) ESE refers to
the strength of an individual's belief that he or she is capable of successfully performing
the roles and tasks of an entrepreneur (Boyd & Vozikis, 1994; Scherer, Adams, Carley, &
Wiebe, 1989). Based on this definition, ESE can be used in relation to both career and
academic endeavors.
While specific instruments exist to measure ESE, as well as entrepreneurship
inclinations such as the nascent entrepreneurship index, these instruments were either
long or the questions were found to not be completely understood by the respondents,
both of which would lead to reduced response quality. Ultimately, the instrument for this
research is based on the students perception that he or she is confident in their ability to
create products or services that fulfill customers unmet needs. The selected question is
was also intended to be a proxy for possessing a business idea. Possession of a business
idea is believed to pull an individual toward entrepreneurship and it may be the strongest
influence on such career aspirations (Scott & Twomey, 1988). The follow-up interviews
75

were used as an opportunity to confirm the relationship between the question and
possession of a business idea.
3.4.4 Outcome Expectations
Two of the primary goals of an entrepreneurship major are to improve students
likelihood of venturing and to improve their likelihood of success. This focused on the
later because it is our belief that education should not be a cheerleader alone and because
students expect not only increased confidence but also to learn in educational settings.
Since formal entrepreneurship education is not required to become an entrepreneur,
outcome expectation questions were asked about the effect of academic pursuits relative
to entrepreneurial success. Therefore, this research measured the outcome expectation of
how much the student agreed that entrepreneurship education would increase their
likelihood of success as an entrepreneur.
3.4.5 Demographic Information
Demographic information and contextual factors were collected to obtain
additional information regarding the targeted sample, to help understand which variables
may be correlated with the independent variables, and to help determine future areas of
research. Students year in college, age, country of birth, race, and sex were included in
the research to allow for the examination of trends for future research. Respondents were
also asked if they held a job during their senior year of high school. This job experience
may influence the students desire to become their own boss or start their own business.
Obtaining information about the students expected level of debt upon graduation was
requested as this variable may affect a student's career choice in relation to a traditional
career path versus starting a business.
76

In addition to those demographic variables above, this research captured
information regarding whether or not the student has a relative or friend who is an
entrepreneur. A pilot questionnaire asked additional information including the number of
friends and relatives but the results were difficult to compare or not complete. Therefore
the final questionnaire was limited to yes or no responses. Students who have either a
friend or relative who is an entrepreneur were expected to indicate higher interest in
entrepreneurial careers than those students. Having a parental entrepreneurial role model
increases expectancy for entrepreneurial careers (Scherer, et al., 1989). Business majors
appear more affected by their parents occupation and socioeconomic status than non-
business majors (Leppel, Williams, & Waldauer, 2001). There is a higher likelihood of
self-employment among the children of the self-employed (Lentz & Laband, 1990).
3.5 Data Collection Process
Questionnaire administration occurred during the Spring semester of 2010.
Students in two introductory marketing classes, one technology management course, and
two introductory computer science courses were asked to complete the questionnaire.
Of the 163 students who completed the questionnaire, 149 students were included
in the final dataset. Students who were older than 25 years old were removed from the
sample as that was a pre-established cut off to most accurately match the targeted
population of students and who have not had significant full-time work experience.
Once data analysis was completed, students were sampled for their participation
in a follow up interview based on a sampling formula of =

()

, which is
appropriate for small samples (Yamane, 1967). In the formula, N is the number of those
students who wish to be considered for a follow up interview and e is the level of
77

confidence (.10). The student eligible to be sampled included those who indicated very
high and very low responses to interest in the entrepreneurship major, elective, or career
as an entrepreneur. Of the 59 eligible students, 37 were contacted for an interview of
which 14 were completed between the Spring and Fall 2010 semesters for a 37.8%
response rate.
3.6 Data Analysis
This study makes use of individual Likert response items during quantitative
analysis. Parametric techniques such as t-tests and simple regression were considered for
analysis; however the use of these parametric techniques singular Likert response items is
controversial. Therefore, non-parametric, distribution free tests were performed on all
hypotheses. Tests included (a) chi-square goodness of fit test (hypotheses la and 5a); (b)
Wilcoxon signed-rank test (hypothesis 1b, 5b, 5d, and 5e); (c) Spearman's rank order
correlation (hypotheses 2, 3a, 3b, 4a, and 4b), and (d) Mann Whitney U test for
hypothesis 5c. A total of 12 hypotheses address 5 overarching research questions. The
research questions and associated statistical hypotheses and tests are presented according
to research question.
3.7 Research Questions and Hypotheses
Research Question 1: What is the relationship between interest in a career as an
entrepreneur and interest in entrepreneurship education?
1a. Undergraduate students on average have at least a medium level of interest in
becoming self-employed or being a founding member of a new business.
Null Hypothesis: The proportion of undergrads with a response of 3 or more is
less than or equal to the proportion of undergrads with a response of less than 3 as relates
78

to Question 6.
Alternative Hypothesis: The proportion of undergrads with a response of 3or
more is greater than the proportion of undergrads with a response of less than 3 as relates
to Question 6.
The chi-Square goodness of fit test was planned for use with hypothesis la. If
assumptions of the chi-square test (more than 20% of cell values with a count less than 5,
or any cell with count less than 1) then an exact permutation test will be used. The chi-
square goodness of fit test makes use of counts in which observed counts from the sample
are compared with the expected outcomes. In this test, expected outcomes percentages
will be set as follows: (a) undergrads with a response of less than 3 (answered 1 or 2) on
Question 6, 50%; and (b) undergrads with a response of 3 or more (answered 3, 4, or 5)
on Question 6, 50%.
1b. Students have higher levels of interest in becoming self-employed or being a
founding member of a new business than majoring in entrepreneurship.
Null Hypothesis: The median of participant responses to Question 6 as relates to
interest in being self-employed or a founding member of a new company within 5 years
of college graduation is less than or equal to the median of participant responses to
Question 5 as relates to majoring in entrepreneurship.
Alternative Hypothesis: The median of participant responses to Question 6 as
relates to interest in being self-employed or a founding member of a new company within
5 years of college graduation is greater than the median of participant responses to
Question 5 as relates to majoring in entrepreneurship.
Two items from the questionnaire can be used to test Hypothesis 1b, (a) Question
79

5 as relates to interest in majoring in entrepreneurship, and (b) Question 6 as relates to
interest in being self employed or a founding member of a new company within 5 years
of college graduation. The outcomes on the two questions will most likely be correlated
for each participant, so a paired test of the mean scores on Questions 5 vs. 6 should be
used. Therefore, the non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be used for analysis.
This test does not use mean, but rather median (Mdn) values.
Research Question 2: What is the relationship between self-efficacy for successfully
completing an entrepreneurship major and interest in majoring in entrepreneurship?
Null Hypothesis: Self-efficacy for successfully completing an entrepreneurship
major is not related or negatively related to interest in majoring in entrepreneurship.
Alternative Hypothesis: Self-efficacy for successfully completing an
entrepreneurship major is positively related to interest in majoring in entrepreneurship.
The non-parametric Spearman's rank order correlation will be used to test
Hypothesis 2. The two variables included in the analysis will be Question 5 and Question
8. Spearman's rank order correlation makes use of the statistic, rho (). A statistically
significant value of rho indicates that higher scores on Question 5 are significantly
directly associated (positively associated) with higher scores on Question 8, and vice
versa (lower scores on Q5 are associated with lower scores on Q8). Statistical
significance indicates that higher interest in majoring in entrepreneurship is associated
with higher confidence in completing the requirement for majoring in entrepreneurship.
Research Question 3: What is the relationship between self-efficacy for having a
successful career as an entrepreneur and interest in entrepreneurship education?
3a. Self-efficacy for having a successful career as an entrepreneur is positively
80

related to interest in majoring in entrepreneurship.
Null Hypothesis: Self-efficacy for having a successful career being self-employed
or as a founding member of a new company is not correlated or negatively correlated
with interest in majoring in entrepreneurship.
Alternative Hypothesis: Self-efficacy for having a successful career being self
employed or as a founding member of a new company is positively correlated with
interest in majoring in entrepreneurship.
The non-parametric Spearman's rank order correlation will be used to test
Hypothesis 3a. The two variables included in the analysis will be Question 5 and
Question 10. Spearman's rank order correlation makes use of the statistic, rho (). A
statistically significant value of rho indicates that higher scores on Question 5 are
significantly directly associated (positively associated) with higher scores on Question
10, and vice versa (lower scores on Q5 are associated with lower scores on Q10).
Statistical significance indicates that higher interest in majoring in entrepreneurship is
associated with higher confidence in having a successful career being self-employed or as
a founding member of a new company.
3b. Self-efficacy for having a successful career as an entrepreneur is positively
related to interest in taking an entrepreneurship elective for non-entrepreneurship
majors.
Null Hypothesis: Self-efficacy for having a successful career being self-
employed or as a founding member of a new company is not correlated or negatively
correlated with interest in taking an elective course in entrepreneurship related to
participant's current major.
81

Alternative Hypothesis: Self-efficacy for having a successful career being self-
employed or as a founding member of a new company is positively correlated with
interest in taking an elective course in entrepreneurship related to participant's current
major.
The non-parametric Spearmans rank order correlation will be used to test
Hypothesis 3b. The two variables included in the analysis will be Question 10 and
Question 4. Spearman's rank order correlation makes use of the statistic, rho (). A
statistically significant value of rho indicates that higher scores on Question 10 are
significantly directly associated (positively associated) with higher scores on Question 4,
and vice versa (lower scores on Q10 are associated with lower scores on Q4). Statistical
significance indicates that higher interest in taking an elective course in entrepreneurship
related to a participant's current major is associated with higher confidence in having a
successful career being self-employed or as a founding member of a new company.
Research Question 4: Are students who possess a business idea more likely to have
interest in entrepreneurship education students who do not possess a business idea?
4a. The possession of a business idea is positively related to interest in majoring
in entrepreneurship.
Null Hypothesis: Self-efficacy for a participant's ability to create products or
services that fulfill customer's unmet needs is not correlated or negatively correlated with
interest in majoring in entrepreneurship.
Alternative Hypothesis: Self-efficacy for a participant's ability to create products
or services that fulfill customer's unmet needs is positively correlated with interest in
majoring in entrepreneurship.
82

The non-parametric Spearman's order correlation will be used to test Hypothesis
4a. The two variables included in the analysis will be Question 5 and Question 11.
Spearman's rank order correlation makes use of the statistic, rho (). A statistically
significant value of rho indicates that higher scores on Question 5 are significantly
directly associated (positively associated) with higher scores on Question 11, and vice
versa (lower scores on Q5 are associated with lower scores on Q11). Statistical
significance indicates that higher interest in majoring in entrepreneurship is associated
with higher confidence in ability to create products of services that fulfill customer's
unmet needs (possession of a business idea).
4b. The possession of a business idea is positively related to interest in taking an
entrepreneurship elective.
Null Hypothesis: Self-efficacy for a participant's ability to create products or
services that fulfill customer's unmet needs is not correlated or negatively correlated with
interest in taking an elective course in entrepreneurship related to participant's current
major.
Alternative Hypothesis: Self-efficacy for a participant's ability to create products
or services that fulfill customer's unmet needs is positively correlated with interest in
taking an elective course in entrepreneurship related to participant's current major.
The non-parametric Spearman's rank order correlation will be used to test
Hypothesis 4b. The two variables included in the analysis will be Question 11 and
Question 4. Spearman's rank order correlation makes use of the statistic, rho (). A
statistically significant value of rho indicates that higher scores on Question 11 are
significantly directly associated (positively associated) with higher scores on Question 4,
83

and vice versa (lower scores on Q11 are associated with lower scores on Q4). Statistical
significance indicates that higher interest in taking an elective course in entrepreneurship
is related to a participant's confidence in their ability to create products or services that
fulfill customer's unmet needs.
Research Question 5: Do students perceive the entrepreneurship major as improving
their opportunity for entrepreneurial success?
5a. Students perceive the entrepreneurship major as increasing their likelihood
of success as an entrepreneur.
Null Hypothesis: The proportion of undergrads with a response of 4 or more is
less than or equal to the proportion of under grads with a response of less than 4 as relates
to Question 15.
Alternative Hypothesis: The proportion of undergrads with a response of 4 or
more is greater than the proportion of undergrads with a response of less than 4 as relates
to Question 15.
The chi-square goodness of fit test will be used to test hypothesis 5a. Observed
counts from the sample are compared with the expected outcomes. In this test, the
percentage of expected outcomes for each of the two undergraduate groups will be as
follows: (a) undergrads with a response of less than or equal to 3 (answered 1, 2, or 3) on
Question 15, 50%; and (b) undergrads with a response of greater than 3 (answered 4 or 5)
on Question 15, 50%.
If assumptions of the chi-square test (more than 20% of cell values with a count
less than 5, or any cell with count less than 1) then an exact permutation test will be used.
5b. Students with very low to medium levels of self-efficacy for having a
84

successful career as an entrepreneur perceive that majoring in entrepreneurship
will improve their likelihood of success an entrepreneur greater than their
most likely (non-entrepreneurship) major.

Null Hypothesis: For the sub-sample of participants with no to some confidence
in having a successful career being self employed or a founding member of a new
company (Q10, responses of 1-3 inclusive), the median score for agreement to Question
15 Majoring in entrepreneurship would increase my likelihood of success is equal to or
lower than the median score for agreement to Question 14 My current or most likely
major would increase my likelihood of entrepreneurial success.
Alternative Hypothesis: For the sub-sample of participants with no to some
confidence in having a successful career being self employed or a founding member of a
new company (Q10, responses of 1-3 inclusive), the median score for agreement to
Question 15 Majoring in entrepreneurship would increase my likelihood of
entrepreneurial success is significantly greater than the median score for agreement to
Question 14 My current or most likely major would increase my likelihood of
entrepreneurial success.
A Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be used to test hypothesis 5b. The test is to be
set up as follows:
1. A sub-sample of participants will be used. Only participants with a score of 1 to 3 on
Question 10 will be tested in hypothesis 5b. These are perceived to be the students with
very low to medium levels of self efficacy for having a successful career as an
entrepreneur and are assumed to be most likely to benefit from entrepreneurship training.
2. The median scores on Question 14 and Question 15 will be used for comparison. It is
85

believed that higher median scores will be found on Question 15 than on Question 14 for
this sub-sample (Lower self-efficacy on entrepreneurial success).
The outcomes on the two questions will most likely be correlated for each
participant, so a paired test of the mean scores on Questions 14 vs. 15 should be used.
Thus, the non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be used for analysis. This test
does not use mean, rather median (Mdn) values.
5c. Students with high or very high levels of self-efficacy for having a successful
career as an entrepreneur are more likely to perceive that their most likely (non-
entrepreneurship) major would improve their likelihood of entrepreneurial
success than students with very low to medium levels of self-efficacy.
Null Hypothesis: Participants who scored from 4 to 5 on Question 10 will have
lower or equal median scores than participants who scored from 1-3 on Question 10 as
relates to their responses to Question 14, My current or most likely major would
increase my likelihood of entrepreneurial success.
Alternative Hypothesis: Participants who scored from 4 to 5 on Question 10 will
have significantly higher median scores than participants who scored from 1-3 on
Question 10 as relates to their responses to Question 14, My current or most likely major
would increase my likelihood of entrepreneurial success.
The use of a t-test is not prudent for this analysis due to the ordinal nature of the
Likert item-responses. The comparison groups are independent; therefore the non-
parametric Mann Whitney U test will be used for Hypothesis 5c. The test is to be set up
as follows:
1. The sample will be divided into two independent groups (a) participants who scored
86

from 1 to 3 on Question 10, and (b) participants who scored from 4 to 5 on Question 10.
2. The two groups will be compared on the dependent variable outcome to Question 14,
My current or most likely major would increase my likelihood of entrepreneurial
success. It is believed that participants in the high self efficacy group will have
significantly higher scores than participants in the low self efficacy group.
5d. Students with high or very high levels of self-efficacy for having a successful
career as an entrepreneur perceive that majoring in entrepreneurship would
improve their likelihood of success as an entrepreneur similar to that of their
most likely (non-entrepreneurship) major.
Null Hypothesis: For the sub-sample of participants with high to very high
confidence in having a successful career being self employed or a founding member of a
new company (Q10, responses of4 or 5), the median score for agreement to Question 15
Majoring in entrepreneurship would increase my likelihood of entrepreneurial success
is equal to the median score for agreement to Question 14 current or most likely major
would increase my likelihood of entrepreneurial success.
Alternative Hypothesis: For the sub-sample of participants with high to very high
confidence in having a successful career being self employed or a founding member of a
new company (Q10, responses of 4 or 5), the median score for agreement to Question 15
Majoring in entrepreneurship would increase my likelihood of entrepreneurial success
is not equal to the median score for agreement to Question 14 current or most likely
major would increase my likelihood of entrepreneurial success.
For Hypothesis 5d, the research question is worded so that we wish to not reject
the null hypothesis. We want to see equality between the median scores to questions 14
87

and 15 for this sub-sample. Due to possible correlation of responses on questions 14 and
15, a Wilcoxon signed rank test will be used for comparison of the sub-sample. The test
is to be set up as follows:
1. A sub-sample of participants will be used. Only participants with a score of 4 or 5 on
Question 10 will be tested in Hypothesis 5d. These are assumed to be the students with
high to very high levels of self efficacy for having a successful career as an entrepreneur
and are assumed to not think they will benefit much from entrepreneurship training.
2. The median scores on Question 14 and Question 15 will be used for comparison. It is
believed that similar scores will be found on Question 15 and Question 14 for this sub-
sample (Higher self-efficacy on entrepreneurial success). The outcomes on the two
questions will most likely be correlated for each participant, so a paired test of the mean
scores on Questions 14 vs. 15 should be used. Therefore, the non-parametric Wilcoxon
signed-rank test will be used for analysis. This test does not use mean, rather median
(Mdn) values.
5e. Students with high or very high levels of self-efficacy for having a successful
career as an entrepreneur are more likely to indicate that an elective in
entrepreneurship would improve their success as an entrepreneur than majoring
in entrepreneurship.
Null Hypothesis: For the sub-sample of participants with high to very high
confidence in having a successful career being self employed or a founding member of a
new company (Q10, responses of 4 or 5), the median score for agreement to Question 16
Taking an entrepreneurship elective would increase my likelihood of entrepreneurial
88

success is equal to or lower than the median score for agreement to Question 15
Majoring in entrepreneurship would increase my likelihood of entrepreneurial success.
Alternative Hypothesis: For the sub-sample of participants with high to very high
confidence in having a successful career being self employed or a founding member of a
new company (Q10, responses of 4 or 5), the median score for agreement to Question 16
Taking an entrepreneurship elective would increase my likelihood of entrepreneurial
success is significantly greater than the median score for agreement to Question 15
Majoring in entrepreneurship would increase my likelihood of entrepreneurial success.
Due to possible correlation of responses on questions 15 and 16, a Wilcoxon
signed rank test will be used for comparison of the sub-sample. The test is to be set up as
follows:
1. A sub-sample of participants will be used. Only participants with a score of 4 or 5 on
Question 10 will be tested in Hypothesis 5e. These are assumed to be the students with
high to very high levels of self efficacy for having a successful career as an entrepreneur.
2. The median scores on Question 15 and Question 16 will be used for comparison. It is
believed that higher median scores will be found on Question 16 than on Question 15 for
this sub-sample (Higher self-efficacy on entrepreneurial success).
3.7.1 Bonferroni Correction
In most studies of this kind, the level of significance for hypothesis testing is set
at = .05. However, repeated inferential analyses on the same set of data can cause
inflated Type I error (i.e., falsely rejecting the null hypothesis when it is, in fact, true). In
order to adjust for seeing significance that may not be truly in the data, a Bonferroni
correction was implemented to adjust the alpha level to a smaller value to compensate for
89

the possible Type I error inflation. Simply stated, the Bonferroni correction takes the
original level (.05) and divides this value by the actual number of tests performed on
the data. The new value of is then used as the determining number of the p value, which
is used to determine if the null hypothesis should be rejected. This study contained 5
hypotheses but 11 actual inferential analyses in which one wishes to reject the null
hypothesis. For Hypothesis 5d it was desired to retain the null hypothesis, and the
Bonferroni adjusted alpha level was not used (instead, the p-value of .05 for rejection of
the null was utilized). Therefore, the alpha level for rejection of the null hypotheses in
this study (with the exception of Hypothesis 5d) was adjusted to = (.05/11) = .005.
3.7.2 Power Analysis and Study Sample Size
Non-parametric, distribution free tests were performed on all hypotheses. Tests
included, (a) chi-square goodness of fit test (hypotheses la and 5a); (b) Wilcoxon signed-
rank test (hypothesis 1b, 5b, 5d, and 5e); (c) Spearman's rank order correlation
(hypotheses 2, 3a, 3b, 4a, and 4b), and (d) Mann Whitney U test for hypothesis 5c.
An a priori power analysis was performed to determine the required sample size
for this study. GPOWER v3.1 software was used in this determination. For the chi-
square goodness of fit tests, the analysis was performed with the adjusted alpha level of
.005, power of .80, medium effect size of = .30, and a 1 degree of freedom. Results
indicated that a sample of 148 participants is required to achieve power at 80%. Power is
(1-) where is the chance of Type II error (when one accepts the null hypothesis when
it is, in fact, false) at a power of .80; one has an 80% chance of seeing significance that is
truly in the data.
Apriori power for the Wilcoxon signed rank test (matched pairs) was performed
90

with an adjusted alpha level of .005, power of .80, effect size of dz =.50, one sided test.
The total sample size required for the Wilcoxon signed rank test is 54 participants.
Apriori power for Spearman's rank order correlation was performed with an
adjusted alpha level of .005, power of.80, and a medium effect size of | | = .30. The total
sample size required for the Spearman's rank order correlation is 139 participants.
Apriori power for the Mann Whitney U test was performed with an adjusted alpha
level of .005, power of .80, and a medium effect size of d = .55, one-tailed test. The total
sample size required for the Mann Whitney U test is 160 participants, eighty per group.
The sample size of 149 students is sufficient for all analyses in this study except
for the Mann Whitney U test of hypothesis 5c. With the actual sample sizes of the two
groups as n=69 and n=79 respectively, post hoc power using the same parameters as the
apriori estimate returned an estimated power of 76%, which is close to the desired 80%
level of power.
3.8 Discussion
The first question is intended to establish baseline levels of interest for both
entrepreneurial career paths and interest in the entrepreneurship major. According to the
Gallup poll, high school students on average have an interest in starting a business. The
first hypothesis will examine if this interest still exists within college undergraduates.
The second hypothesis tests whether the interest in an entrepreneurial career path is
greater than interest in majoring in entrepreneurship. Since majoring in entrepreneurship
is not a prerequisite to start a business, it is expected that the average interest in
entrepreneurship career paths will be higher than the average interest in majoring in
entrepreneurship.
91

If each of these hypotheses were to be supported, it would suggest that
undergraduate students are interested in entrepreneurial career paths but are less
interested in majoring in entrepreneurship than pursing an entrepreneurial career path.
This expected lower level of interest in the entrepreneurship major may be due to the vast
number of academic majors from which to the student may choose.
SCCT states that both self-efficacy and outcome expectations influence interest.
Research question two focuses exclusively on the influence of self-efficacy for
successfully completing an entrepreneurship major on interest in majoring in
entrepreneurship. Self-efficacy for successfully completing an entrepreneurship major is
expected to have a positive influence on interest in majoring in entrepreneurship. If this
positive influence is found between this type of self-efficacy, the strength of the
relationship can be compared to other influences on interest. However, since a student
may develop high levels of self-efficacy for successfully completing many different
majors, he or she may not have developed high interest in all of those potential majors.
While interest in the entrepreneurship major is expected to be influenced by self-
efficacy for successfully completing the major; that relationship is expected to be weak
compared to other types of self-efficacy. Since I expect students interested in the
entrepreneurship major are primarily seeking careers as entrepreneurs, it may be more
appropriate to examine the effect of self-efficacy of having a successful entrepreneurship
career on interest in entrepreneurship education. As such, it is reasonable to expect
students first develop their self-efficacy for having a successful entrepreneurship career
before evaluating whether they want to pursue related education. I expect that this type
of self-efficacy would be a stronger influence than self-efficacy for successfully
92

completing entrepreneurship education on interest in entrepreneurship education. This
will be tested by comparing the correlations in research question two and research
question three.
Research question four examines another type of self-efficacy, whether or not a
student believes he/she possesses a viable business idea. Students who believe they
possess a business idea and have relatively high levels of this type of self-efficacy are
also expected to express higher interest in the entrepreneurship education. However, the
results are expected to be weaker than those of self-efficacy for having a successful
career.
Self-efficacy is not the only influence on the development of interest in majoring
in entrepreneurship and high levels of interest in entrepreneurship does not guarantee
enrollment in the major. According to SCCT, another influence, outcome expectations,
which itself is influenced by self-efficacy, affects interest development and/or actions.
These outcome expectations are examined in research question five.
The entrepreneurship major is expected to increase the students likelihood of
entrepreneurial success. However, the entrepreneurship major does not exist in a
vacuum; undergraduate students have many majors from which to choose. Selecting any
major must offer the student a benefit. I believe that one of the largest benefits is that the
major would increase the students likelihood of success as an entrepreneur. Therefore
the expected results from research question five are that students perceive that enrollment
of an entrepreneurship major would improve their likelihood of success as an
entrepreneur. However, not all students are interested in being entrepreneurs or pursuing
such education.
93

White I expect students will agree that entrepreneurship education would increase
their likelihood of success as an entrepreneur; I also believe that levels of agreement
would differ based on the students level of self-efficacy for having a successful career as
an entrepreneur.
Amongst students who possess low to medium levels of self-efficacy for having a
successful career as an entrepreneur, it is expected that they would agree that the
entrepreneurship major would improve their likelihood of success as an entrepreneur over
an alternative non-entrepreneurship major.
Students with higher levels of self-efficacy for having a successful career as an
entrepreneur are expected be more likely to agree that their current or most likely (non-
entrepreneurship) major would improve their likelihood of success as an entrepreneur
than their colleagues with lower levels of self-efficacy.
Those students with higher levels of self-efficacy are also expected to perceive
their current or most likely (non-entrepreneurship) major to increase their likelihood of
success as an entrepreneur similar to majoring in entrepreneurship. If this were true, one
possible explanation is that a non-entrepreneurship major could provide additional
domain specific knowledge related to their potential entrepreneurial endeavors.
While it is expected that a non-entrepreneur major would also increase students
likelihood of success as an entrepreneur, the knowledge learned is different than that of
formal entrepreneurship education. Therefore, it is expected that if the student could take
a non-entrepreneurship major along with an entrepreneurship elective they would benefit
from both types of education than majoring in entrepreneurship alone.
94

4 Data Analysis and Results
This quantitative descriptive and correlational was undertaken to learn more about
the value proposition of the entrepreneurship major through examination of the
following:
The relationship between a students entrepreneurial career interest and their interest
in the entrepreneurship major.
The relationship between entrepreneurial career and academic self-efficacy and
interest in the entrepreneurship major.
The expectation of increased entrepreneurial success through entrepreneurship
education.
In addition to descriptive measures, this study involves performance of inferential
analyses to address each of the following five research questions:
1. What is the relationship between interest in a career as an entrepreneur and interest in
entrepreneurship education?
2. What is the relationship between self-efficacy for successfully completing an
entrepreneurship major and interest in majoring in entrepreneurship?
3. What is the relationship between self-efficacy for having a successful career as an
entrepreneur and interest in entrepreneurship education?
4. Are students who possess a business idea more likely to have interest in
entrepreneurship education than students who do not possess a business idea?
5. Do students perceive the entrepreneurship major as improving their opportunity for
entrepreneurial success?
95


Chapter 4 is divided into three sections (a) population and demographic findings,
(b) investigation of assumptions as relates to inferential analysis, and (c) inferential
analysis as relates to the five research questions of this study. The chapter concludes
with a summary of results. SAS v 15.0 was used for all descriptive and inferential
analyses.
4.1 Population and Demographic Findings
The sample for this research included first and second year undergraduates from a
large mid-Atlantic private, doctoral research institution who are enrolled in basic courses
in business administration and Science Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
(STEM) fields (N = 149). Table 2 presents sample frequencies and percentages derived
from the demographic findings derived from students answers to the demographic
questionnaire (Part II of the study instrumentation).

96

Table 2

Frequencies and Percentages of Demographic Information for Study Participants

Question/Variable

Frequency

Percentage

1.

I was very knowledgeable about entrepreneurships before
I entered college.

Strongly disagree 5 3.4
Disagree 27 18.1
Unsure 31 20.8
Agree 65 43.6
Strongly agree 11 7.4
Missing 10 6.7

2.

Years(s) in college of university

1 year 11 7.4
2 years 83 55.7
3 years 41 27.5
4 years 14 9.4

3.

Age (in years)

18-21 years 136 91.2
22-25 years 13 8.7

4.

Country of birth

United States 100 67.1
Other than United States 47 31.5
Missing 2 1.3

5.

Race or ethnic group(s)

White/Caucasian 90 60.4
African American 5 3.4
Hispanic 7 4.7
Asian 31 20.8
Other 16 10.7

6.

Sex

Male 85 57.0
Female 63 42.3

7.

I held a job during my final year of high school.

Yes 76 51.0
No 68 45.6
Missing 5 3.4

97

Table 2 (contd)


Question/Variable

Frequency

Percentage

8.

I expect to have the following levelof debt upon college
graduation.

$0 73 49.0
$1-25k 24 16.1
$25k-$50k 32 21.5
$50k-$75k 10 6.7
$75k+ 7 4.7
Missing 3 2.0

9.

One of more of my relatives (parents, siblings, or other
close relative) is an entrepreneur.

Yes 77 51.7
No 72 48.3

10.

One of more of my friends is an entrepreneur.

Yes 59 39.6
No 88 59.1
Missing 2 1.3

11.

In a scale of 1 to 5, which 1 is the lowest and 5 is the
highest, what is your level of interest in majoring in
entrepreneurship?

1 (lowest) 13 8.7
2 47 31.5
3 52 34.9
4 24 16.1
5 (highest) 12 8.1
Missing 1 0.7


98


The students ranges in age from 18 to 25 years (M = 20.11 years, SD = 1.17
years), with 85 males (57% of participants) and 63 females (42.3% of participants). The
majority of students were born in the United States (100 students, 67.1% of students),
White/Caucasian (90 students, 60.4%), and were in their second or third year of school
(124 students, 83.2% of students). Sixty-five students (43.6%) agreed that they were
very knowledgeable about entrepreneurship before they entered college. Seventy-seven
students (51.7%) have one or more relatives who are entrepreneurs, but fewer students
have friends who are entrepreneurs (59 students, 39.6% of students). On a scale of 1-5 as
relates to interest in majoring in entrepreneurship, 99 students (66.4%) chose a rating of 2
or 3.
4.2 Inferential Analysis
4.2.1 Instrumentation
Items from Part I of the instrumentation were utilized for inferential analysis. Part
I of the instrumentation included a total of 16 items. Two items were open ended
questions pertaining to a students current or most likely academic major (even if they
were undecided at the time of the study), and the students intended occupation (even if
they were unsure at the time of the study). A total of 57 unique responses were given for
students current or most likely major. A total of 107 unique responses were given for
students intended or most likely occupation. The 57 unique responses or each students
current or most likely major were groups into three categories; (1) Marketing (n=113),
Computer Science (n=27), and Information systems (n=9).
99

Following the two open ended questions, students were asked to complete a 14
item Likert-scaled questionnaire (scaled 1 to 5 with 1 being lowest score per item, 5
being the highest score per item) regarding their academic interest in, and confidence in,
completing an academic entrepreneurship program and/or their ability to have a
successful career as an entrepreneur. Students were also queried on their knowledge of
entrepreneurship before and since entering college, as well as their perceptions regarding
if their current major, majoring in entrepreneurship, or taking an entrepreneurship
elective would increase their likelihood of entrepreneurial success. Table 3 presents the
14 Likert questions (questions 3 through 16) with frequencies of item-responses for Part I
of the questionnaire as well as the measures of central tendency for each of the 14 items.
With the exception of questionnaire item 12, Before entering college, my level of
knowledge related to entrepreneurship was low. (M = 2.67, SD = 0.92, Mdn = 2) all
items had a median of 3 or 4. Mean values for each of the response items were all above
3 with the exception of items 5, How much interest do you have in majoring in
entrepreneurship? (M = 2.89, SD = 1.8, Mdn = 3.0), and item 12.

100

Table 3

Frequencies and Measures of Central Tendency for Item-Responses to Part I, Questions
3 through 16, of the Study Instrumentation

Survey Item/Response

Freq.

%

M

SD

Mdn

3.

How much interest do you have in majoring in
your current or most likely major?


---


---


4.17


0.78


4.0
1 = Very low Interest --- ---
2 = Low interest 2 1.3
3 = Medium interest 28 18.8
4 = High interest 61 40.9
5 = Very high interest 58 38.9

4.

How much interest do you have in taking an
elective course in entrepreneurship related to
your current major?



---



---



3.81



0.88



4.0
1 = Very low Interest --- ---
2 = Low interest 11 7.4
3 = Medium interest 42 28.2
4 = High interest 61 40.9
5 = Very high interest 35 23.5

5.

How much interest do you have in majoring in
entrepreneurship?


---


---


2.89


1.08


3.0
1 = Very low Interest 8 5.4
2 = Low interest 57 38.3
3 = Medium interest 40 26.8
4 = High interest 29 19.5
5 = Very high interest 14 9.4
Missing 1 0.7

6.

How much interest do you have in being self
employed or a founding member of a new
company within 5 years of college graduation?



---



---



3.70



1.12



4.0
1 = Very low Interest 3 2.0
2 = Low interest 21 14.1
3 = Medium interest 40 26.8
4 = High interest 37 25.5
5 = Very high interest 46 30.9
Missing 1 0.7





101

Table 3 (contd)


Survey Item/Response

Freq.

%

M

SD

Mdn

7.

How much confidence do you have in your
ability to complete the requirement for your
current or most likely major (with an average
GPA of B or better)?




---




---




4.32




0.73




4.0
1 = No confidence at all --- ---
2 = Low confidence 1 0.7
3 = Some confidence 20 13.4
4 = High confidence 58 38.9
5 = Complete confidence 70 47.0

8.

How much confidence do you have in your
ability to complete the requirements for
majoring in entrepreneurship (with an average
of B or better)?




---




---




3.82




0.91




4.0
1 = No confidence at all 1 0.7
2 = Low confidence 7 4.7
3 = Some confidence 50 33.6
4 = High confidence 49 32.9
5 = Complete confidence 5 26.8
Missing 2 1.3

9.

How much confidence do you have in your
ability to have a successful career in your
intended or most likely occupation?



---



---



4.26



0.71



4.0
1 = No confidence at all --- ---
2 = Low confidence 1 0.7
3 = Some confidence 20 13.4
4 = High confidence 67 45.0
5 = Complete confidence 60 40.3
Missing 1 0.7

10.

How much confidence do you have in your
ability to have a successful career being self-
employed or as a founding member of a new
company?




---




---




3.60




0.89




4.0
1 = No confidence at all --- ---
2 = Low confidence 15 10.1
3 = Some confidence 55 55
4 = High confidence 54 54
5 = Complete confidence 25 25


102

Table 3 (contd)


Survey Item/Response

Freq.

%

M

SD

Mdn

11.

If you were to start your own business today,
how much confidence do you have in your
ability to create products or services that fulfill
customers unmet needs?




---




---




3.32




0.87




3.0
1 = No confidence at all 1 0.7
2 = Low confidence 23 15.4
3 = Some confidence 67 45.0
4 = High confidence 44 29.5
5 = Complete confidence 14 9.4

12.

Before entering college my level of knowledge
related to entrepreneurship was low.


---


---


2.67


0.92


2.0
1 = Strongly disagree 7 4.7
2 = Disagree 63 42.3
3 = Unsure 43 28.9
4 = Agree 21 14.1
5 = Strongly agree 5 3.4
Missing 10 6.7

13.

Since entering college I have increased my
level of knowledge in entrepreneurship.


---


---


3.49


1.05


4.0
1 = Strongly disagree 3 2.0
2 = Disagree 30 20.1
3 = Unsure 22 14.8
4 = Agree 64 43.0
5 = Strongly agree 20 13.4
Missing 10 6.7

14.

My current or likely major would increase my
likelihood of entrepreneurial success.


---


---


3.68


0.817


4.0
1 = Strongly disagree --- ---
2 = Disagree 12 8.1
3 = Unsure 44 29.5
4 = Agree 71 47.7
5 = Strongly agree 21 14.1
Missing 1 0.7






103

Table 3 (contd)


Survey Item/Response

Freq.

%

M

SD

Mdn

15.

Majoring in entrepreneurship would increase
my likelihood of entrepreneurial success.


---


---


3.89


0.95


4.0
1 = Strongly disagree 1
2 = Disagree 11
3 = Unsure 37
4 = Agree 54
5 = Strongly agree 45
Missing 1 0.7


16.


Taking an entrepreneurship elective would
increase my likelihood of entrepreneurial
success.




---




---




3.93




0.71




4.0
1 = Strongly disagree --- ---
2 = Disagree 3 2.0
3 = Unsure 34 22.8
4 = Agree 82 55.0
5 = Strongly agree 29 19.5
Missing 1 0.7

Note. Freq. = Frequency; % = Percentage of Sample; M = Mean; SD = Standard
Deviation; Mdn = Median;

Possible range for all items is 1 through 5, with 1 indicating least interest, confidence, or
agreement; and 5 indication the most interest, confidence or agreement.


104

4.2.2 Assumptions for Inferential Analysis
Questionnaire Part I response items 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 16 were used for
all inferential analyses.
This study makes use of four types of non-parametric inferential analyses, (a) chi-
square goodness of fit test (Hypotheses 1a and 5a), (b) Wilcoxon signed-rank test
(Hypotheses 1b, 5b, 5d, and 5e), (c) Spearmans rank order correlation (Hypotheses 2, 3a,
3b, and 4a), and (d) Mann Whitney U test (Hypothesis 5c). In addition to the desire to
have minimum or no missing values or outliers, statistical assumptions for inferential
analysis using these techniques vary according to test and are addressed in this section.
Response items 5, 6, 14, and 15 were each missing one datum. Response item 8
was missing data for two records. It is common in survey research to have missing data
for certain respondents and certain questions, so some remedial methods are necessary to
treat the missing values (Fink, 2003). Pairwise and listwise deletions of missing values
are common ways to deal with this problem (Fink, 2006), and are easily administered
with SPSS software. These methods are sometimes criticized because of the dubious
underlying assumption that the data are missing randomly. Another common technique
used to account for missing data is imputation of the missing values. The researcher did
not consider the use of imputation for this dataset because the percentage of missing
values on any one of the item-responses was quite small (< 1.5%). Additionally,
replacing missing values with imputed values has the potential to bias the results of the
inferential analyses (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).
Pairwise deletion excludes cases only from any calculations involving variables
for which they have missing data. Pairwise deletion is considered viable if the missing
data is missing completely at random (MCAR). A statistical rule of thumb suggests that
105

missing data can be considered MCAR if the missing observations for given variable is
close to 5% or less (McKnight, 2007). Therefore, it was decided that the inferential
analyses would be done utilizing pairwise deletion of missing data, so that as much data
as possible, in their true condition, could be retained for the analysis.
Outliers in a dataset have the potential to distort results of an inferential analysis.
A check of boxplots for outcomes of the eight response-items used for analysis indicated
only one outlier for response-item 11 (a value of 1 on the scale of 1 to 5). Results for
response-item 11 were standardized to see if the outlier was extreme (z-score of +/- 3.3).
The outlier was not extreme and since it was also within the acceptable range of scores
for the response item, it was determined that the outlier was not affecting the dataset
(McKnight, 2007).
Assumptions for the chi square goodness of fit test are that the records are
independent (are included in only one cell) and that each cell in the table has at least one
observation with at least 20% of the cells containing 5 or more observations. These
assumptions were not violated.
Assumptions for the Wilcoxon signed-rank test are that pairs of values are
independent and that at are at least ordinal in nature. These assumptions were met.
Spearmans rank order correlation is similar to the parametric Pearsons product
moment correlation except it does not require interval or ratio data or a linear relationship
between the two compared variables. Spearmans rank order correlation requires the
assumptions of at least ordinal data, and a monotonic relationship between variables.
These assumptions were met.
106

The assumptions of the Mann Whitney U test are independence of groups on the
independent variable and at least an ordinal scale of measurement. These assumptions
were met.
4.2.2.1 Significance Level and Bonferroni Correction
In most studies of this kind, the level of significance for hypothesis testing is set
at = .05. However, repeated inferential analyses on the same set of data can cause
inflated Type I error (i.e., falsely rejecting the null hypothesis when it is, in fact, true). In
order to adjust for seeing significance that may not be truly in the data, a Bonferroni
correction was implemented to adjust the alpha level to a smaller value to compensate for
the possible Type I error inflation. This correction, while leading to conservative
conclusions and reducing Type I errors, may increase the likelihood of Type II errors
(i.e., not rejecting the null hypothesis despite being false).
Simply stated, the Bonferroni correction takes the original level (.05) and
divides this value by the actual number of tests performed on the data. The new value of
is then used as the determining number of the p value, which is used to determine if the
null hypothesis should be rejected. This study contained 5 hypotheses but 11 actual
inferential analyses in which one wishes to reject the null hypothesis. For Hypothesis 5d
it was desired to retain the null hypothesis, and the Bonferroni adjusted alpha level was
not used (instead, the p-value of .05 for rejection of the null was utilized). Therefore, the
alpha level for rejection of the null hypotheses in this study (with the exception of
Hypothesis 5d) was adjusted to = (.05/11) = .005.
107

4.3 Hypothesis Testing According to Research Questions
This study included a total of five research questions and 12 hypothesis tests.
Results of the inferential analyses will be presented according to research question. A
summary table of results will be presented following the results of all analyses.
Hypothesis Testing as Relates to Research Question 1 What is the relationship
between interest in a career as an entrepreneur and interest in entrepreneurship
education?
Hypothesis 1a. Undergraduate students on average have at least a medium level
of interest in becoming self-employed or being a founding member of a new business.
Null Hypothesis: The proportion of undergrads with a response of 3 or more is
less than or equal to the proportion of undergrads with a response of less than 3 as relates
to Question 6.
Alternative Hypothesis: The proportion of undergrads with a response of 3 or
more is greater than the proportion of undergrads with a response of less than 3 as relates
to Question 6.
The use of parametric techniques such as the one-sample t-test with an individual
Likert response-item as the dependent variable is controversial. Therefore a non-
parametric alternative, the chi-square goodness of fit test, was utilized to determine
whether the two student groups were proportionally similar as related to Question 6,
How much interest do you have in being self-employed or a founding member of a new
company within 5 years of graduation? Under the null hypothesis, the expected
outcomes were set to be 50% (74 students) for the undergraduate student groups of (a)
undergrads with a response of less than 3 (answered 1 or 2) on Question 6, (Group A);
108

and (b) undergrads with a response of 3 or more (answered 3, 4, or 5) on Question 6
(Group B), respectively. Results were statistically significant
2
(1, N=148) =67.57, p <
.0005. Observed values indicated that 24 students were classified into Group A and 124
students into Group B. Therefore, reject Null Hypothesis 1a. It can be determined that the
groups do differ in their responses to Question 6, with a lower than expected proportion
of students in Group A and a higher than expected proportion of students in Group B.
Hypothesis 1b. Students have higher levels of interest in becoming self-employed
or being a founding member of a new business than majoring in entrepreneurship.
Null Hypothesis: The median of participant responses to Question 6 as relates to
interest in being self-employed or a founding member of a new company within 5 years
of college graduation is less than or equal to the median of participant responses to
Question 5 as relates to Majoring in entrepreneurship.
Alternative Hypothesis: The median of participant responses to Question 6 as
relates to interest in being self-employed or a founding member of a new company within
5 years of college graduation is greater than the median of participant responses to
Question 5 as relates to Majoring in entrepreneurship.
Two items from the questionnaire were used to test Hypothesis 1b, (a) Question 5
as relates to interest in majoring in entrepreneurship, How much interest do you have in
majoring in entrepreneurship? (M = 2.89, Mdn = 3.0), and (b) Question 6 as relates to
interest in being self employed or a founding member of a new company within 5 years
of college graduation, How much interest do you have in being self-employed or a
founding member of a new company within 5 years of graduation? (M = 3.70, Mdn =
4.0). Since the outcomes on the two questions were most likely correlated for each
109

participant, and the questions were comprised of ordinal, Likert scale items, the non-
parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for analysis. Results were statistically
significant (Z = -7.24, p < .0005; N = 148). Therefore, reject Null Hypothesis 1b. There
is sufficient evidence to indicate that median scores on Question 6 were greater than
median scores on Question 5.
Hypothesis Testing as Relates to Research Question 2 What is the relationship
between self-efficacy for successfully completing an entrepreneurship major and
interest in majoring in entrepreneurship?
Null Hypothesis: Self-efficacy for successfully completing an entrepreneurship
major is not related or negatively related to interest in majoring in entrepreneurship.
Alternative Hypothesis: Self-efficacy for successfully completing an
entrepreneurship major is positively related to interest in majoring in entrepreneurship.
The non-parametric Spearmans rank order correlation was used to test
Hypothesis 2. Statistical significance indicates that higher interest in majoring in
entrepreneurship is associated with higher confidence in completing the requirement for
majoring in entrepreneurship, and vice versa (lower interest is associated with lower
confidence in majoring in entrepreneurship).
The two variables included in the analysis were Question 5, How much interest
do you have in majoring in entrepreneurship? and Question 8, How much confidence
do you have in your ability to complete the requirements for majoring in entrepreneurship
(with an average GPA of B or better)? Results were not statistically significant at the
Bonferroni adjusted level of .005, ( = .228, p = .006, N = 146). Therefore, do not reject
Null Hypothesis 2. There is not sufficient evidence to indicate an association between
110

self-efficacy for successfully completing an entrepreneurship major and interest in
majoring in entrepreneurship.
Hypothesis Testing as Relates to Research Question 3 What is the relationship
between self-efficacy for having a successful career as an entrepreneur and interest in
entrepreneurship education?
Hypothesis 3a. Self-efficacy for having a successful career as an entrepreneur is
positively related to interest in majoring in entrepreneurship.
Null Hypothesis: Self-efficacy for having a successful career being self-
employed or as a founding member of a new company is not correlated or negatively
correlated with interest in majoring in entrepreneurship.
Alternative Hypothesis: Self-efficacy for having a successful career being self-
employed or as a founding member of a new company is positively correlated with
interest in majoring in entrepreneurship.
The non-parametric Spearmans rank order correlation was used to test
Hypothesis 3a. The two variables included in the analysis were Question 10, How much
confidence do you have in your ability to have a successful career being self-employed or
as a founding member of a new company? and Question 5, How much interest do you
have in majoring in entrepreneurship? Results were statistically significant ( = .401, p
<.0005, N = 148). Therefore, reject Null Hypothesis 3a. There is sufficient evidence to
indicate a direct association between self-efficacy for successfully completing an
entrepreneurship major and interest in majoring in entrepreneurship.
111

Hypothesis 3b. Self-efficacy for having a successful career as an entrepreneur is
positively related to interest in taking an entrepreneurship elective for non-
entrepreneurship majors.
Null Hypothesis: Self-efficacy for having a successful career being self-
employed or as a founding member of a new company is not correlated or negatively
correlated with interest in taking an elective course in entrepreneurship related to a
participants current major.
Alternative Hypothesis: Self-efficacy for having a successful career being self-
employed or as a founding member of a new company is positively correlated with
interest in taking an elective course in entrepreneurship related to a participants current
major.
The non-parametric Spearmans rank order correlation was used to test
Hypothesis 3b. The two variables included in the analysis were Question 10, How much
confidence do you have in your ability to have a successful career being self-employed or
as a founding member of a new company? and Question 4, How much interest do you
have in taking an elective course in entrepreneurship related to you current major?
Results were statistically significant ( = .349, p <.0005, N = 149). Therefore, reject Null
Hypothesis 3b. There is sufficient evidence to indicate a direct association between self-
efficacy for having a successful career being self employed or as a founding member of a
new company and interest in taking an elective course in entrepreneurship related to a
participants major.
112

Hypothesis Testing as Relates to Research Question 4 Are students who possess a
business idea more likely to have interest in entrepreneurship education than students
who do not possess a business idea?
Hypothesis 4a. The possession of a business idea is positively related to interest
in majoring in entrepreneurship.
Null Hypothesis: Self-efficacy for a participants ability to create products or
services that fulfill customers unmet needs is not correlated or negatively correlated with
interest in majoring in entrepreneurship.
Alternative Hypothesis: Self-efficacy for a participants ability to create products
or services that fulfill customers unmet needs is positively correlated with interest in
majoring in entrepreneurship.
The non-parametric Spearmans rank order correlation was used to test
Hypothesis 4a. The two variables included in the analysis were Question 11, If you
were to start your own business today, how much confidence do you have in your ability
to create products or services that fulfill customers unmet needs? and Question 5, How
much interest do you have in majoring in entrepreneurship? Results were statistically
significant ( = .371, p <.0005, N = 148). Therefore, reject Null Hypothesis 4a. There is
sufficient evidence to indicate a direct association between self-efficacy for a
participants ability to create products or services that fulfill customers unmet needs and
interest in majoring in entrepreneurship.
Hypothesis 4b. The possession of a business idea is positively related to interest
in taking an entrepreneurship elective.
113

Null Hypothesis: Self-efficacy for a participants ability to create products or
services that fulfill customers unmet needs is not correlated or negatively correlated with
interest in taking an elective course in entrepreneurship related to participants current
major.
Alternative Hypothesis: Self-efficacy for a participants ability to create products
or services that fulfill customers unmet needs is positively correlated with interest in
taking an elective course in entrepreneurship related to participants current major.
The non-parametric Spearmans rank order correlation was used to test
Hypothesis 4b. The two variables included in the analysis were Question 11, If you
were to start your own business today, how much confidence do you have in your ability
to create products or services that fulfill customers unmet needs? and Question 4, How
much interest do you have in taking an elective in entrepreneurship related to your
current major? Results were statistically significant ( = .256, p =.002, N = 149).
Therefore, reject Null Hypothesis 4b there is sufficient evidence to indicate that self-
efficacy for a participants ability to create products or services that fulfill customers
unmet needs is positively correlated with interest in taking an elective course in
entrepreneurship related to participants current major.
Hypothesis Testing as Related to Research Question 5, Do students perceive the
entrepreneurship major as improving their opportunity for entrepreneurial success?
Hypothesis 5a. Students perceive the entrepreneurship major as increasing their
likelihood of success as an entrepreneur.
114

Null Hypothesis: The proportion of undergrads with a response of 4 or more is
less than or equal to the proportion of undergrads with a response less than 4 as relates to
Question 15.
Alternative Hypothesis: The proportion of undergrads with a response of 4 or
more is greater than the proportion of undergrads with a response of less than 4 as relates
to Question 15.
As previously mentioned, the use of parametric techniques such as the one-sample
t-test with an individual Likert response-item as the dependent variable is controversial.
Therefore a non-parametric alternative, the chi-square goodness of fit test, was utilized to
determine whether the two student groups were proportionally similar as related to
questionnaire item 15, Majoring in entrepreneurship would increase my likelihood of
entrepreneurial success. Under the null hypothesis, the expected outcomes were set to
be 50% (74 students) for the undergraduate student group of (a) undergrads with a
response of less than 4 (answered 1, 2, or 3) on Question 15, (Group A); and (b)
undergrads with a response of 4 or more (answered 4, or 5) on Question 15 (Group B),
respectively. Results were statistically significant
2
(1, N=148) = 16.89, p < .0005.
Observed values indicated that 49 students were in Group A and 99 students in Group B.
Therefore, reject Null Hypothesis 5a. It can be determined that the groups do differ in
their responses to Question 15, with a lower than expected proportion of students in
Group A and a higher than expected proportion of students in Group B.
Hypothesis 5b. Students with very low to medium levels of self-efficacy for
having a successful career as an entrepreneur perceive that majoring in
115

entrepreneurship will improve their likelihood of success as an entrepreneur greater than
their most likely (non-entrepreneurship) major.
Null Hypothesis: For the sub-sample of participants with no to some confidence
in having a successful career being self employed or a founding member of a new
company (Q10, responses of 1-3 inclusive), the median score for agreement to Question
15 Majoring in entrepreneurship would increase my likelihood of entrepreneurial
success is equal to or lower than the median score for agreement to Question 14 My
current or most likely major would increase my likelihood of entrepreneurial success.
Alternative Hypothesis: For the sub-sample of participants with no to some
confidence in having a successful career being self employed or a founding member of a
new company (Q10, responses of 1-3 inclusive), the median score for agreement to
Question 15 Majoring in entrepreneurship would increase my likelihood of
entrepreneurial success is significantly greater than the median score for agreement to
Question 14 My current or most likely major would increase my likelihood of
entrepreneurial success.
Only participants with a score of 1 to 3 on Question 10, How much confidence
do you have in your ability to have a successful career being self employed or as a
founding member of a new company? were tested for Hypothesis 5b (n=69). This sub-
sample of students responded with scores ranging from very low to medium levels of self
efficacy for having a successful career as an entrepreneur and was perceived to be most
likely to benefit from entrepreneurship training.
Use of a paired-sample t-test in single Likert response-items is not prudent
because of the ordinal nature of the data. Additionally, the outcomes on the two
116

questions were considered to likely be correlated for each participant, therefore, the non-
parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test was be used for analysis. This test does not use
mean, but rather median (Mdn) values. Therefore the median scores on Question 14, My
current or most likely major would increase my likelihood of entrepreneurial success.
and Question 15, Majoring in entrepreneurship would increase my likelihood of
entrepreneurial success was used for comparison of the sub-sample. Results were not
statistically significant (Z = -2.537, p = .006; n = 69). Therefore, do not reject Null
Hypothesis 5b. There is not sufficient evidence to indicate that median scores on
Question 15 were greater than median scores on Question 14.
Hypothesis 5c. Students with high or very high levels of self-efficacy for having a
successful career as an entrepreneur are more likely to perceive that their most likely
(non-entrepreneurship) major would improve their likelihood of entrepreneurial success
than students with very low to medium levels of self-efficacy.
Null Hypothesis: Participants who scored 4 or 5 on Question 10 will have lower
or equal median scores than participants who scored from 1-3 on Question 10, as relates
to their responses to Question 14, My current or most likely major would increase my
likelihood of entrepreneurial success.
Alternative Hypothesis: Participants who scored 4 or 5 on Question 10 will have
significantly higher median scores than participants who scored from 1-3 on Question 10,
as relates to their responses to Question 14, My current or most likely major would
increase my likelihood of entrepreneurial success.
The use of an independent samples t-test is not prudent for this analysis due to the
ordinal nature of the Likert item-responses. Therefore the Mann Whitney U test was
117

used to compare the two independent groups of (a) participants who scored from 1 to 3
on Question 10,(Group A, low self-efficacy group, n=69); and (b) participants who
scored from 4 to 5 on Question 10, (Group B, high self-efficacy group, n=79). The two
groups were compared on the dependent variable outcome as relates to Question 14, My
current or most likely major would increase my likelihood of entrepreneurial success. It
was believed that participants in the high self efficacy group will have significantly
higher scores than participants in the low self efficacy group. Results were statistically
significant for the independent variable of student group (The mean ranks of Group A
and Group B were 63.18 and 84.39 respectively; U = 1944.5, Z = -3.237, p = .0006).
Therefore, reject null hypothesis 5c. There is sufficient evidence to indicate that students
in Group B have significantly higher median scores than participants in Group A, as
relates to their responses to Question 14, My current or most likely major would
increase my likelihood of entrepreneurial success.
Hypothesis 5d. Students with high or very high levels of self-efficacy for having a
successful career as an entrepreneur perceive that majoring in entrepreneurship would
improve their likelihood of success as an entrepreneur similar to that of their most likely
(non-entrepreneurship) major.
Null Hypothesis: For the sub-sample of participants with high to very high
confidence in having a successful career being self employed or a founding member of a
new company (Q10, responses of 4 or 5), the median score for agreement to Question 15
Majoring in entrepreneurship would increase my likelihood of entrepreneurial success
is equal to the median score for agreement to Question 14 My current or most likely
major would increase my likelihood of entrepreneurial success.
118

Alternative Hypothesis: For the sub-sample of participants with high to very high
confidence in having a successful career being self employed or a founding member of a
new company (Q10, responses of 4 or 5), the median score for agreement to Question 15
Majoring in entrepreneurship would increase my likelihood of entrepreneurial success
is not equal to the median score for agreement to Question 14 My current or most likely
major would increase my likelihood of entrepreneurial success.
For Hypothesis 5d, the research question is worded so that we wish to not reject
the null hypothesis. We want to see equality between the median scores to questions 14
and 15 for this sub-sample of students who scored 4 or 5 on Question 10 (n=79).
The use of a paired t-test is not prudent for this analysis due to the ordinal nature
of the Likert item-responses. Therefore the Wilcoxon signed-ranks test was used as the
outcomes on the two questions were most likely correlated for each participant. Students
in the sub-sample used for this hypothesis are perceived to be the students with high to
very high levels of self efficacy for having a successful career as an entrepreneur and are
therefore assumed to not think they will benefit much from entrepreneurship training.
The median scores on Question 14 and Question 15 were used for comparison. It
was believed that similar scores will be found on Question 15 and Question 14 for this
sub-sample (Higher self-efficacy on entrepreneurial success). Results were not
statistically significant (Z = -0.170, p = .865; n = 79). Therefore, do not reject Null
Hypothesis 5d. There is not sufficient evidence to indicate that median scores on
Question 15 differed from the median scores on Question 14 for this sub-sample of
students.
119

Hypothesis 5e. Students with high or very high levels of self-efficacy for having a
successful career as an entrepreneur are more likely to indicate that an elective in
entrepreneurship would improve their success as an entrepreneur than majoring in
entrepreneurship.
Null Hypothesis: For the sub-sample of participants with high to very high
confidence in having a successful career being self employed or a founding member of a
new company (Q10, responses of 4 or 5), the median score for agreement to Question 16
Taking an entrepreneurship elective would increase my likelihood of entrepreneurial
success is equal to or lower than the median score for agreement to Question 15
Majoring in entrepreneurship would increase my likelihood of entrepreneurial success.
Alternative Hypothesis: For the sub-sample of participants with high to very high
confidence in having a successful career being self employed or a founding member of a
new company (Q10, responses of 4 or 5), the median score for agreement to Question 16
Taking an entrepreneurship elective would increase my likelihood of entrepreneurial
success is significantly greater than the median score for agreement to Question 15
Majoring in entrepreneurship would increase my likelihood of entrepreneurial success.
The use of a paired t-test is not prudent for this analysis due to the ordinal nature
of the Likert item-responses. Therefore the Wilcoxon signed-ranks test was used to test
Hypothesis 5e. Only participants with a score of 4 or 5 on Question 10 were be tested
(n=79). These were perceived to be the students with high to very high levels of self
efficacy for having a successful career as an entrepreneur. The median scores on
Question 15 and Question 16 were used for comparison. I was believed that higher
median scores would be found on Question 16 than on Question 15 for this sub-sample
120

(students with higher self-efficacy on entrepreneurial success). Results were not
statistically significant (Z = -0.780, p = .218; n = 79). Therefore, do not reject Null
Hypothesis 5e. There is not sufficient evidence to indicate that for the sub-sample of
participants with high to very high confidence in having a successful career being self
employed or a founding member of a new company (Q10, responses of 4 or 5), the
median score for agreement to Question 16 Taking an entrepreneurship elective would
increase my likelihood of entrepreneurial success is significantly greater than the
median score for agreement to Question 15 Majoring in entrepreneurship would increase
my likelihood of entrepreneurial success.
4.4 Interview Results
Fourteen interviews were completed during the Spring and Fall 2010 semesters.
The interviews were primarily intended to determine if the above conclusions could be
further supported as well as provide additional insight related to the self-efficacy,
outcome expectations or interest variables examined in the research.
Research Question 1 - What is the relationship between interest in a career as an
entrepreneur and interest in entrepreneurship education?
The conclusion reached from hypothesis 1a was not assessed during the
interviews as determining whether students on average have at least a medium level of
interest in becoming self-employed or being a founding member of a new business was
not revisited due to the lack of perceived value of the subjectiveness of this question. For
hypothesis 1b, determining whether students have higher level of interest in becoming
self-employed or being a founding member of a new business than majoring in
121

entrepreneurship was supported by the questionnaire data and this conclusion was also
confirmed from each of the interviews.
Research Question 2 - What is the relationship between self-efficacy for successfully
completing an entrepreneurship major and interest in majoring in
entrepreneurship?
The relationship between self-efficacy for successfully completing an
entrepreneurship major and interest in majoring in entrepreneurship was not found to be
significant from the questionnaire data. While this hypothesis was not supported, the
interviews provided additional insight. Each interviewed student stated they would not
pursue a major which they were not confident they could successfully complete. Also,
most students interviewed with higher levels of self-efficacy indicated they had similar
levels of self-efficacy for successfully completing many other possible majors.
Research Question 3 - What is the relationship between self-efficacy for having a
successful career as an entrepreneur and interest in entrepreneurship education?
The conclusions that self-efficacy for having a successful career as an
entrepreneur is positively related to interest in majoring in entrepreneurship and an
elective in entrepreneurship were supported by the questionnaire data.
During the interviews each student was also asked about the relative influence of
their self-efficacy for successfully completing an entrepreneurship major and self-
efficacy for having a successful career as an entrepreneur on their interest in an
entrepreneurship major. Eleven of the fourteen students indicated that both influenced
their interest in the major, however they also unanimously indicated the later was more
important as they were confident in their ability to complete the major.
122

Research Question 4 - Are students who possess a business idea more likely to have
interest in entrepreneurship education than students who do not possess a business
idea?
While questionnaire data supports the conclusions that possession of a business
idea is positively related to interest in majoring in entrepreneurship as well as an
entrepreneurship elective, one interview raised a concern that the instrument itself may
have been flawed.
The question if you were to start your own business today, how much confidence
do you have in your ability to: Create products or services that fulfill customers unmet
needs was used as a proxy for having a business idea. The question was worded as a
self-efficacy construct to fit into the SCCT framework.
Each interviewed student was asked if they currently possessed a business idea.
Each of the six students who initially responded with low confidence or some
confidence in the questionnaire indicated that they did not currently possess a business
idea. Seven of the eight students who responded with high confidence or complete
confidence had at least one business idea. The one student with high confidence who
did not possess an idea indicated that she was confident she could quickly start and run a
successful business but did not currently possess an idea. These result support the use of
this question as a proxy, however future research would be better suited to directly ask
the question without the use of a proxy.
Research Question 5 - Do students perceive the entrepreneurship major as
improving their opportunity for entrepreneurial success?
123

Hypothesis 5a concluded that students perceive the entrepreneurship major as
increasing their likelihood of success as an entrepreneur. During the interview,
respondents were asked whether an entrepreneurship major would increase their
likelihood of success as an entrepreneur. Responses matched the conclusion and were
aligned with their respective values provided in the questionnaire.
From the data analysis, hypothesis 5b was unable to conclude that students with
very low to medium levels of self-efficacy for having a successful career as an
entrepreneur perceive that majoring in entrepreneurship will improve their likelihood of
success as an entrepreneur greater than their current or most likely major. Five students
who had low to medium level of self-efficacy were interviewed. Four of the five students
had higher values for the entrepreneurship major than their most likely major. When
asked about to elaborate of this difference, each of those students indicated that by they
would expect to obtain specific entrepreneurship training in an entrepreneurship major.
However, when asked what type of training, students were either unable to provide
specifics or stated they believed the major would be virtually identical to a general
management curriculum. These interview results suggest that hypothesis 5b may have
been a result of a Type II error. Hypothesis 5b had a p-value (.006) which was not
significant after the Bonferroni adjustment. Further research may be warranted.
While data supported hypothesis 5c, which stated that students with high or very
high levels of self-efficacy for having a successful career as an entrepreneur are more
likely to agree that a non-entrepreneurship major would improve their likelihood of
entrepreneurial success than students with very low to medium levels of self-efficacy, no
interview questions were asked related to this question.
124

The data supported hypothesis 5d, which stated students with high or very high
levels of self-efficacy for having a successful career as an entrepreneur perceive their
current or most likely major would improve their likelihood of entrepreneurial success
similar to majoring in entrepreneurship. Nine students with high or very high levels of
self-efficacy were interviewed to obtain additional understanding. Six of the nine had
equal levels of agreement that an entrepreneurship major and their most likely major
would increase their likelihood of success as an entrepreneur. Four of those students
indicated that they would learn different entrepreneurship-related skills in their most
likely major compared to an entrepreneurship major. These students also believed that
they could succeed as entrepreneurs regardless of their major but would prefer to learn
domain specific knowledge that could be applied or other skills which were perceived as
allowing them to improve their likelihood of obtaining traditional employment. It should
be noted these six students were unable to identify what was in an entrepreneurship
curriculum.
Three students who responded that their most likely major would increase their
likelihood of success as an entrepreneur more than majoring in entrepreneurship were
asked if they could elaborate on these values, the students had similar responses. These
students, one likely to major in information systems, one in computer science, and the
third in finance, stated they believed their most likely major would be necessary to start a
business in those areas. These students were also asked if they knew what was in an
entrepreneurship curriculum. Two of the three students identified courses that would be
commonly found in entrepreneurship curricula.
125

Questionnaire data did not support hypothesis 5e that students with high or very-
high levels of self-efficacy for having a successful career as an entrepreneur are more
likely to indicate that an elective in entrepreneurship would improve their success as an
entrepreneur than majoring in entrepreneurship.
Of the nine students interviewed who possessed with high or very high level of
self-efficacy, three indicated equal values between the entrepreneurship major and an
entrepreneurship elective and four indicated higher levels for the entrepreneurship
elective and one student had a lower value for the entrepreneurship elective.
Students who indicated higher levels of interest in the entrepreneurship elective
stated that this would allow them to continue to have their current major and learn basic
entrepreneurship skills. The student who indicated a lower interest for the
entrepreneurship elective than the entrepreneurship major responded that way because he
did not realize that the elective question involved taking their most likely major and an
entrepreneurship elective. The question was then asked with the clarification comparing
his most likely major along with an entrepreneurship elective option versus an
entrepreneurship major alone. The student then indicated a higher level of agreement that
his most likely major with the entrepreneurship elective would be more likely to increase
his success as an entrepreneur over the entrepreneurship major alone. This result
suggests the concluded result may need further investigation.
4.4.1 Other Interview Information

The interviewed students were also asked a number of questions related to
entrepreneurship. Some of the most interesting responses included:
126

Student perception whether entrepreneurs were born or made also ranged across the
spectrum, however most believed that some were made but others could learn enough
to become successful entrepreneurs. In regard to the debate of nature vs. nurture, it
should be noted that none of the interviewed students believe they were inherently
born an entrepreneur or with entrepreneurial skills, but perceived others may have
been.
For those with a high level of interest in being an entrepreneur, each interviewed
student believed formal entrepreneurship education would increase their likelihood of
success as an entrepreneur; however none of the students believed formal
entrepreneurship education was necessary. There was even a slight preference for
learning by doing.
Some student already had entrepreneurial experience through their own small
ventures or worked in friends or family members companies to obtain experience.
Most students who indicated they wanted to become an entrepreneur did not expect to
do so upon graduation.
Those with higher interest in the entrepreneurship major did so because they
perceived it would allow them to focus on an existing business idea or to identify and
business idea and reduce risk when they start their business.
Students also said that knowing other entrepreneurs, whether their age or older,
before college would have increased their interest in careers as entrepreneurs and
potentially entrepreneurship education.

However I believe the most pertinent information obtained from the interviews
was not to support hypotheses but rather that few students knew that an entrepreneurship
127

major existed before starting college. As such the interviews suggest possible reasons for
selecting a non-entrepreneurship major include:
a lack of knowledge about the existence or curricula of an entrepreneurship major
a perception that potential employers would similarly not know what is in an
entrepreneurship curricula,
that a general management related major would provide similar skills and be more
marketable to prospective employers;
and that learning more domain specific technical knowledge would be needed and
that entrepreneurship education is secondary or could be learned elsewhere or on the
job.
4.5 Summary
Chapter 4 began with a description of the demographics of the participants in the
study. A brief definition of the inferential analysis instrumentation followed the report of
demographics. The chapter also included the presentation and discussion of information
pertaining to required assumptions for the inferential analyses. Following the
demographic and assumption sections, a total of 12 inferential analyses addressing five
research questions were performed. Significance was found for all hypotheses tests with
the exception of Hypotheses 2, 5b, 5d, and 5e. However, the non-significance on
Hypotheses 5d supported the research question. Table 4 presents a summary of findings
for each of the hypotheses tests, including the individual research and statistical
hypotheses, tests performed, and the test statistics and p-values obtained for each
analysis.

128

Table 4

Summary Table of Study Results as Relates to Research Hypothesis Tested


Research Question/Statistical Hypotheses

Analysis
Performed

Test
Statistic


p-
value


Sig?

1a

Undergraduate students on average
have at least a medium level of interest
in becoming self-employed or being a
founding member of a new business.

Chi-square
goodness of fit

2
= 67.57

<
.0005

Yes

1b

Students have higher levels of interest
in becoming self-employed or being a
founding member of a new business
than majoring in entrepreneurship.

Wilcoxon
signed-ranks test

Z = -7.244

<
.0005

Yes

2

What is the relationship between self-
efficacy for successfully completing an
entrepreneurship major and interest in
majoring in entrepreneurship?

Spearmans rank
order correlation

= .228

.006

No

3a

Self-efficacy for having a successful
career as an entrepreneur is positively
related to interest in majoring in
entrepreneurship.

Spearmans rank
order correlation

= .401

<.0005

Yes

3b

Self-efficacy for having a successful
career as an entrepreneur is positively
related to interest in taking an
entrepreneurship elective for non-
entrepreneurship majors.

Spearmans rank
order correlation

= .349

<.0005

Yes

4a

The possession of a business idea is
positively related to interest in majoring
in entrepreneurship.

Spearmans rank
order correlation

= .371

<.0005

Yes

4b

The possession of a business idea is
positively related to interest in taking an
entrepreneurship elective.

Spearmans rank
order correlation

= .256

.002

Yes

5a

Students perceive the entrepreneurship
major as increasing their likelihood of
success as an entrepreneur.

Chi-square
goodness of fit

2
= 16.89

<
.0005

Yes




129



Table 4 (contd)



Research Question/Statistical Hypotheses

Analysis
Performed

Test
Statistic


p-
value


Sig?

5b

Students with very low to medium
levels of self-efficacy for having a
successful career as an entrepreneur
perceive that majoring in
entrepreneurship will improve their
likelihood of success as an entrepreneur
greater than their most likely (non-
entrepreneurship) major.

Wilcoxon
signed-ranks test

Z = -2.537

.006

No

5c

Students with high or very high levels
of self-efficacy for having a successful
career as an entrepreneur are more
likely to perceive that their most likely
(non-entrepreneurship) major would
improve their likelihood of
entrepreneurial success than students
with very low to medium levels of self-
efficacy.

Mann Whitney
U test

U =1944.5
Z = -3.237

.0006

Yes

5d

Students with high or very high levels
of self-efficacy for having a successful
career as an entrepreneur perceive that
majoring in entrepreneurship would
improve their likelihood of success as
an entrepreneur similar to that of their
most likely (non-entrepreneurship)
major.

Wilcoxon
signed-ranks test

Z = -0.170

.865

No


5e

Students with high or very high levels
of self-efficacy for having a successful
career as an entrepreneur are more
likely to indicate that an elective in
entrepreneurship would improve their
success as an entrepreneur than
majoring in entrepreneurship.

Wilcoxon
signed-ranks test

Z = -0.780

.218

No



130

5 Conclusions
This chapter provides conclusions for each Research Question followed by a
summary. The chapter will conclude with a discussion on the research implications,
contributions and suggestions for future research.
Research Question 1
This research finds that students have at least a medium level of interest being an
entrepreneur (H1a), however it should be noted those students have a lower level of
interest in majoring in entrepreneurship (Mdn =3) than being an entrepreneur (Mdn =4)
(H1b). It should be noted that 17 of the 149 students indicated a higher level of interest
in an entrepreneurship major over a career as an entrepreneur. In one follow up
interview, the student indicated that their desire to major in entrepreneurship was based
upon the expectation that an entrepreneurship major consisted of a general management
curricula along with additional courses to help recognize opportunities and that it would
be valuable as applied to a career within an existing organization. However, the vast
majority of students interviewed were more interested in another major, even if they
wanted to become an entrepreneur.
Research Question 2
The relationship between self-efficacy for successfully completing an
entrepreneurship major and interest in majoring in entrepreneurship was not confirmed
(H2a). This resulting p-value (.006) was very low but was not significant after the
Bonferroni correction. This result may need to be explored in future research to ensure
this result was not due to a Type II error.
Research Question 3
131

The relationship between self-efficacy for having a successful career as an
entrepreneur and interest in majoring in entrepreneurship has been confirmed (H3a). The
correlation ( = .401) was stronger than the (non-significant) value found between self-
efficacy for successfully completing an entrepreneurship major ( = .228) (H2a)
Similarly, the relationship between self-efficacy for having a successful career as
an entrepreneur and interest in taking an entrepreneurship elective for non-
entrepreneurship majors has also been confirmed (H3b). The correlation ( = .349) was
weaker than the relationship between that type of self-efficacy and interest in an
entrepreneurship major.
Research Question 4
Positive relationships were confirmed between possession of a business idea and
interest in majoring in entrepreneurship (H4a) and possession of a business idea and
interest in an entrepreneurship elective (H4b). The relationships between possession of a
business idea and interest in the entrepreneurship was stronger than that between
possession of a business idea and interest in an entrepreneurship elective ( = .371 and
=0.256).
Research Question 5
While students, in general, perceive the entrepreneurship major as improving their
opportunity for success (H5a), the detailed results are mixed.
Amongst those students with very low to medium levels of self-efficacy for
having a successful career as an entrepreneur, it is perceived that majoring in
entrepreneurship not be more likely to improve their likelihood of success as an
entrepreneur than their most likely major (H5b).
132

These results differ by the students level of self-efficacy for having a successful
career as an entrepreneur. Students with high or very high levels of self-efficacy for
having a successful career as an entrepreneur are more likely to perceive that their most
likely major would improve their likelihood of entrepreneurial success than students with
very low to medium levels of self-efficacy (H5c).
Furthermore, students with high to very high levels of self-efficacy for having a
successful career as an entrepreneur are likely to have similar levels of agreement that
their most likely major or majoring in entrepreneurship would improve their likelihood of
success as an entrepreneur (H5d).
However, results suggest those students also perceived that taking an
entrepreneurship elective along with a non-entrepreneurship major would be just a likely
to improve their likelihood of success as an entrepreneur as majoring in entrepreneurship
(H5e).
5.1 Interpretation and Summary of Conclusions
The premise of this research was that high school students were interested in
becoming entrepreneurs; however in general, they possessed little knowledge of
entrepreneurship. One way to address this gap is through post-secondary
entrepreneurship education. This research was intended to gain an understanding of who
is and who is not interested in two post-secondary education options, the undergraduate
entrepreneurship major and entrepreneurship electives.
Using a SCCT framework, this study examined the effects of two types of self-
efficacy on interest in entrepreneurship education and also examined one primary
outcome expectation of entrepreneurship education, the expectation of improved
133

likelihood of success as an entrepreneur, to compare alternative education options for the
potential entrepreneur.
The sample of undergraduate students, primarily studying in management and
computer related fields, indicated high levels of interest in having careers as
entrepreneurs and high levels of interest in taking an entrepreneurship elective with a
non-entrepreneurship major but had medium levels of interest in the entrepreneurship
major.
To better understand the interest in entrepreneurship education, this research
examined the relationship between two types of self-efficacy, academic and career, on
interest in the entrepreneurship major as well as career self-efficacy on the
entrepreneurship elective.
The results found that high self-efficacy for successfully completing the
entrepreneurship major, on average, does not necessarily lead to high levels of interest in
the major. This research found that self-efficacy associated with having a successful
career as an entrepreneur is more closely related to interest in entrepreneurship education
than self-efficacy for successfully completing the education.
This result suggests that we do not need to increase students confidence that they
can successfully complete the entrepreneurship education but rather increase their
confidence that they could have successful careers as entrepreneurs to increase interest in
such education.
Extending the result in a SCCT framework, the results suggest that the more a
student knows about entrepreneurship, the more confident he or she will be toward
having a successful career as an entrepreneur and hence would have greater interest in
134

entrepreneurship education. This result was also supported in the subsequent interviews.
Those students interviewed who indicated high levels of interest in an entrepreneurship
major generally possessed some knowledge of entrepreneurship through conversations
with relatives or friends who were entrepreneurs, self-exploration, or work experience in
entrepreneurial organizations. Those students expected further learning would help to
reduce perceived risk of being an entrepreneur whether by helping the student identify a
business idea, refine a particular existing business idea, or to learn as much as possible
about the startup and management process.
This research also found that possession of a business idea also positively
influences students interest in entrepreneurship education. Students who possessed a
business idea indicated higher levels of interest in both the entrepreneurship major and
entrepreneurship elective options.
However, as noted by SCCT, interest alone does not lead to action. Even students
with elevated interest in entrepreneurship education may not necessarily enroll as each
student has many interests and many options if they want to become entrepreneurs.
Therefore the final research question examined outcome expectations to further explain
who is and is not interested in entrepreneurship education. The outcome expectation
construct was based on one of the primary goals of entrepreneurship education, to
improve students likelihood of success as an entrepreneur.
On average, students indicated high levels of agreement that completing an
entrepreneurship major would increase their likelihood of entrepreneurial success. While
this level of agreement and congruence may be great news for proponents of
entrepreneurship education, it would be incorrect to assume that most of these students
135

are interested or even likely to pursue such education. Therefore, this research focused
on the outcome expectations of entrepreneurship education relative to alternative
undergraduate education options available to the prospective entrepreneur.
For the student who possesses very low to medium levels of self-efficacy for
having a successful career as an entrepreneur, this research found that the
entrepreneurship major is not perceived to increase their likelihood of success if they
were to become an entrepreneur over that of an alternative non-entrepreneurship major,
however this conclusion may be due to a Type II error. Even if the entrepreneurship
major was perceived to improve their likelihood of success as an entrepreneur, it may be
a moot point. Due to the positive relationship between self-efficacy and interest in
entrepreneurship education, these students have little interest in such education compared
to alternative areas of study.
The interviews provide some support that this was a Type II error. The interviews
also found that students with lower self-efficacy may not readily consider
entrepreneurship opportunities that could arise from their most likely areas of study.
When presented with the entrepreneurship major, it was expected to increase their
likelihood of success primarily due to its name, not because they had any idea what
would be learned in such a curricula.
However, an examination of students with high to very high levels of self-efficacy
found different results. While students who possessed high or very high levels of self-
efficacy for having a successful career as an entrepreneur (perhaps due to possession of
some level of entrepreneurship education), had elevated interest in entrepreneurship
education, they perceived that a non-entrepreneurship major would increase their
136

likelihood of success as an entrepreneur similar to majoring in entrepreneurship.
Therefore it would not be surprising that even though they possess higher levels of
interest in an entrepreneurship major than their lower level of self-efficacy colleagues,
many of these students would be expected to choose an alternative major.
For those students who already had high levels of self-efficacy this research also
found that the addition of an entrepreneurship elective was not perceived to increase the
students likelihood of entrepreneurial success over the level of a non-entrepreneurship
major.
This result is surprising because it appears there is little difference in perceived
likelihood of success amongst the three education options for those students with high
entrepreneurial career self-efficacy. This leads to the question, why would someone who
possesses high levels of this self-efficacy consider the major or even an elective if it is
not to improve their likelihood of success?
These results call to question the value proposition of the entrepreneurship
education options. Why do these students perceive a non-entrepreneurship major would
increase their likelihood of success as an entrepreneur similar to that of an
entrepreneurship major? Is it because major does not matter? Is it because a non-
entrepreneurship major offer domain specific education related to an area of potential
entrepreneurial pursuits?
To summarize, the key findings of this research are that:
Self-efficacy for having a successful entrepreneurship career increases interest in
entrepreneurship majors and electives.
Possession of business idea is positively related to interest in entrepreneurship
137

education.
Students in general, regardless of their levels of self-efficacy, perceived both the
entrepreneurship major and elective as increasing their likelihood of success as an
entrepreneur.
Students with lower levels of self-efficacy agreed at similar levels that an
entrepreneurship major or a non-entrepreneurship major along with an
entrepreneurship elective would both increase their likelihood of success as an
entrepreneur.
Students with higher levels of self-efficacy agreed at similar levels that an
entrepreneurship major or a non-entrepreneurship major would both increase their
likelihood of success as an entrepreneur. However, these students did not perceive
an entrepreneurship elective would increase their likelihood of success as an
entrepreneur over a non-entrepreneurship major alone.
The results above suggest:
The perceived value proposition of the entrepreneurship major among students
with lower levels of self-efficacy appears weak. While these students find value
in the entrepreneurship education, they expressed lower levels of interest relative
to other options. These students may be open to enrollment in an
entrepreneurship elective, however the elective itself is competing against other
options for the students limited time.
The perceived value proposition of the entrepreneurship major or the
entrepreneurship elective among students with high levels of self-efficacy appears
weak. Alternative majors are perceived to increase students likelihood of success
138

as an entrepreneur while potentially providing other benefits. For example,
potential benefits could include the accumulation of domain specific knowledge
which could be used in an entrepreneurial endeavor or the perception of increased
employability or increased income associated with an alternative major if they
were to select a non-entrepreneurship career path.
Students with higher levels of self-efficacy and interest in becoming entrepreneurs
may deliberately choose to pass over enrollment in undergraduate
entrepreneurship education.
The interviews found that students in general, even amongst students enrolled in
management courses, have limited awareness of the existence of the
entrepreneurship major or how the curricula would differ from a more broadly
applicable and known general management curricula.

5.2 Implications of this Research

This research can be the starting point for scholars, practitioners and policy
makers alike. While scholars can build on the results of this research to obtain a better
understanding of the mechanisms associated with interest in entrepreneurship education,
the implications are most applicable to practitioners of education and policy makers
especially as most students need some level of encouragement or nurturing for interest in
careers as entrepreneurs or interest in entrepreneurship education.
The primary value of this research for practitioners includes an understanding of
how interest in entrepreneurship education could be increased. While the research
suggests that increased self-efficacy alone does not lead to high levels of interest in the
139

major, it is a primary component. Therefore if one wanted to increase interest in
entrepreneurship education both academics and policy makers alike should seek to
increase students self-efficacy.
Similarly, this research found that students who possess a business idea indicated
higher levels of interest in both the entrepreneurship major and entrepreneurship elective
options. As such, another way to increase interest in college level entrepreneurship
education, could include efforts to help students identify business ideas.
This research also suggests increasing high school students awareness and basic
knowledge of entrepreneurship as both a career and an area for post-secondary study
could lead to increased their levels of self-efficacy for entrepreneurship careers regardless
of their intended field of study. The interviews suggested this increased self-efficacy
could be developed by the learning experiences created when students meet
entrepreneurs, have friends who are entrepreneurs, and just as important, becoming aware
that such education exists prior to college, thereby allowing students to explore such
opportunities before making initial school or major selection.
The interviews suggest that students included in the sample have not even
contemplated the value of their non-entrepreneurial major as applied to an entrepreneurial
endeavor. As such, practitioners could actively focus on these students and develop
tailored programs allowing them to benefit from entrepreneurship education or even
awareness of such opportunities in their chosen major.
Finally, this research provides practitioners empirical data to support the notion
that many prospective entrepreneurs believe they would benefit from not majoring in
entrepreneurship. This data suggests practitioners should explore other non academic
140

major mechanisms to provide students the benefits of entrepreneurship education. The
interviews suggest these some students would benefit from tailored electives focused on
their specific levels of entrepreneurship knowledge, self-efficacy, or even their
possession of a business idea.
5.3 Contributions of this Research
Existing research has demonstrated that entrepreneurship can be taught, identified
and debated appropriate entrepreneurship education curricula, where entrepreneurship
education should take place within a university, and how successful students who
participate in entrepreneurship programs are compared to their peers. Similarly, there is
vast research on the entrepreneur, examining his or her traits and other characteristics of
compared to their less-entrepreneurial peers.
With the abundance of research for both entrepreneurship education and the
entrepreneur, little, if any, has examined the value proposition of entrepreneurship
education for the prospective entrepreneur, or the primary variables which affect his or
her interest in entrepreneurship education. This research provides a first step towards
understanding that value proposition.
5.4 Future Research
This research provides a foundation for both incremental and more extensive
future research. For example this research could be expanded to account for additional
controlling variables, such as whether or not a student has a relative who is an
entrepreneur or a friend who is an entrepreneur, to account for additional variance not
included in the above research. Similarly the model and instruments could be improved
to account for additional information such as the students specific number of relatives or
141

the number of friends, or whether or not a student has already started their own
businesses or been involved in the nascent stages in someone elses business as was
found in three interviews.
Outside of the incremental improvements above, I have identified at a minimum
three potential areas of further research. First, this research could be expanded to
examine who is enrolled in various entrepreneurship programs and understand how
entrepreneurship education could be segmented to better serve undergraduate students.
For example, from the broader research there appear to be students enrolled in non-
entrepreneurship majors who have a basic understanding of entrepreneurship and want an
elective to focus on identifying or developing a business idea, whereas others already
possess an idea or ideas and want to understand how to reduce their risk. There are also
students who have little interest in the operations but would rather learn how to locate
business partners or raise money. Identifying the various segments should allow students
to better use their time and not be subject to a one-size-fits-all approach.
Second, this research can be refined and a more comprehensive model to study
interest development in entrepreneurship education could be developed which accounts
for career and academic interests as well as learning experiences. One such model is
shown in figure 4. It has the potential to capture additional variance which was one
drawback of the existing model for this research. The proposed model would include
concepts related to interest in entrepreneurship careers and how increased interest in
entrepreneurship education develops though learning experiences.
142


Figure 4. Entrepreneurship Career and Academic Model
Finally, additional variables could be added to the existing or proposed model to
specifically account for different types of learning experiences, and additional outcome
expectations. Such a model would allow for more targeted interventions to better
understand how to increase entrepreneurship and ultimately promote economic growth.
I believe there are many more opportunities to further investigate the question
about who is interested in entrepreneurship education and encourage others to continue
this research to improve entrepreneurship education both within existing entrepreneurship
programs and ones yet to be developed.






143

References
Acs, Z. J. (1992). Small Business Economics: A Global Perspective. Challenge
(05775132), 35(6), 38-44.
Adams, S. J., Pryor, L. J., & Adams, S. L. (Writers). (1994). Attraction and Retention of
High-Aptitude Students in Accounting: An Exploratory Longitudinal Study
[Article], Issues in Accounting Education: American Accounting Association.
Adcroft, A., Dhaliwal, S., & Willis, R. (2005). Is there any value in entrepreneurship
education? Retrieved from www.strategie-aims.com/actesateliers/Accomp-
Mai2005/Papiers/Adcroft_Dhaliwal_Willis.pdf
Ahmed, S. U. (1985). nAch, risk-taking propensity, locus of control and
entrepreneurship. Personality and Individual Differences, 6(6), 781-782.
Akbulut, A. Y., & Looney, C. A. (2007). Inspiring students to pursue computing degrees.
Communications of the Acm, 50(10), 67-71.
Albert, K. A., & Luzzo, D. A. (Writers). (1999). The Role of Perceived Barriers in Career
Development: A Social Cognitive Perspective [Article], Journal of Counseling &
Development: American Counseling Association.
Astin, A. W., & Astin, H. S. (1992). Undergraduate Science Education: The Impact of
Different College Environments on the Educational Pipeline in the Sciences. Final
Report.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist,
37(2), 122-147.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action : a social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy : the exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Baron, R. A. (1998). Cognitive mechanisms in entrepreneurship: Why and when
entrepreneurs think differently than other people. Journal of Business Venturing,
13(4), 275-294.
Baron, R. A. (2002). OB and entrepreneurship: The reciprocal benefits of closer
conceptual links. Research in Organizational Behavior, 24, 225-269. doi: Doi:
10.1016/s0191-3085(02)24007-1
Becker, M. C., & Knudsen, T. (2004). The role of entrepreneurship in economic and
technological development: Schumpeters contribution to understanding
entrepreneurship. Paper presented at the DRUID Summer Conference 2004 on
Industrial Dynamics, Innovation and Development, Elsinore, Denmark.
Begley, T., & Boyd, D. (1987). Psychological Characteristics Associated with
Performance inEntrepreneurial Firms and Smaller Businesses. Journal of
Business Venturing, 2, 79-93.
Bennett, R. (2006). Business lecturers' perceptions of the nature of entrepreneurship.
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 12(3), 165-
188.
Benz, M., & Frey, B., S. . (2003). The Value of Autonomy: Evidence from the Self-
Employed in 23 Countries: Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - IEW.
Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1981). The relationship of career-related self-efficacy
expectations to perceived career options in college women and men. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 28(5), 399-410.
144

Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1983). The relationship of mathematics self-efficacy
expectations to the selection of science-based college majors. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 23(3), 329-345.
Birch, D. L. (1987). Job creation in America : how our smallest companies put the most
people to work. New York, London: Free Press; Collier Macmillan.
Block, Z., & Stumpf, S. (1992). Entrepreneurship education research: Experience and
challenge. In D. L. Sexton & J. Kasarda (Eds.), The state of the art of
entrepreneurship (pp. 17-42). Boston, MA: PWS-Kent Publishing.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education : an introduction
to theory and methods (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Boyd, N. G., & Vozikis, G. S. (1994). The Influence of Self-Efficacy on the
Development of Entrepreneurial Intentions and Actions. Entrepreneurship:
Theory & Practice, 18(4), 63-77.
Brockhaus, R. H. (Ed.). (1982). The psychology of the entrepreneur. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Brockhaus, S. R. H. (1980). Risk Taking Propensity of Entrepreneurs. Academy of
Management Journal, 23(3), 509-520.
Brouwer, M. T. (2002). Weber, Schumpeter and Knight on Entrepreneurship and
Economic Development. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 12, 83-105.
Buderi, R. (1999). In search of innovation. Technology Review, 102(6), 42.
Burns, P. (2001). Entrepreneurship and small business. Houndmills, Basingstoke,
Hampshire ; New York: Palgrave.
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: the social structure of competition. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Busenitz, L., W. (1999). Entrepreneurial risk and strategic decision making: It's a matter
of perspective. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35(3), 325.
Busenitz, L. W., & Barney, J. B. (1997). Differences between entrepreneurs and
managers in large organizations: Biases and heuristics in strategic decision-
making. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(1), 9-30.
Byers, T., Keeley, R., Leone, A., Parker, G., & Autio, E. (2000). The Impact of a
Research University in Silicon Valley: Entrepreneurship of Alumni and Faculty.
The Journal of Private Equity, Winter, 7-15.
Bygrave, W. D., & Hofer, C. W. (1991). Theorizing about entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(2), 13-22.
Bygrave, W. D., & Timmons, J. A. (1992). Venture capital at the crossroads. Boston,
Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.
Camp, S. M. (2005). The innovation-entrepreneurship NEXUS: a national assessment of
entrepreneurship and regional economic growth and development. Small Business
Research Summary No. 256. Retrieved from
Carland, J. W., Hoy, F., Boulton, W. R., & Carland, J. A. C. (Writers). (1984).
Differentiating Entrepreneurs from Small Business Owners: A Conceptualization
[Article], Academy of Management Review: Academy of Management.
Carland, J. W., Hoy, F., & Carland, J. A. C. (1988). "Who is an Entrepreneur?" Is a
Question Worth Asking. American Journal of Small Business, 12(4), 33-39.
Carter, N. M., Gartner, W. B., Shaver, K. G., & Gatewood, E. J. (2003). The career
reasons of nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 13-39.
145

Casson, M. (1982). The entrepreneur : an economic theory. Totowa, N.J.: Barnes &
Noble Books.
Chaharbaghi, K., & Willis, R. (1998). Beyond entrepreneurship: new market values.
Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Sixth Annual High Technology Small
Firms Conference, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and structure: chapters in the history of the industrial
enterpise. Cambridge,: M.I.T. Press.
Charney, A., & Libecap, G. D. (2000). The Impact of Entrepreneurship Education: An
Evaluation of the Berger Entrepreneurship Program at the University of Arizona,
1985-1999: SSRN.
Chell, E., Haworth, J. M., & Brearley, S. (1991). The entrepreneurial personality :
concepts, cases, and categories. London ; New York: Routledge.
Chen, C. C., Greene, P. G., & Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy
distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing, 13(4),
295-316.
Clark, B. W., Davis, C. H., & Harnish, V. C. (1984). Do courses in entrepreneurship aid
in new venture creation? Journal of Small Business Management, 22(2), 26-31.
Cohen, J., & Hanno, D. M. (Writers). (1993). An Analysis of Underlying Constructs
Affecting the Choice of Accounting as a Major [Article], Issues in Accounting
Education: American Accounting Association.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on
Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152.
Cole, A. H. (1968). Meso-economics: A contribution from entrepreneurial history.
Explorations in entrepreneurial history, 6(1), 3-33.
Collins, O. F., & Moore, D. G. (1970). The organization makers; a behavioral study of
independent entrepreneurs. New York,: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Curran, A. (1996). Tall oaks from little acorns grow unpublished MSc in entrepreneurial
studies dissertation. University of Stirling.
Dana, L.-P. (1995). Entrepreneurship in a Remote Sub-Arctic Community.
Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 20(1), 57-72.
Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment : an
individual-differences model and its applications. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
De Klerk, G. J., & Kruger, S. (2002). The driving force behind entrepreneurship: An
exploratory perspective. Retrieved from
http://www.kmu.unisg.ch/rencontres/band2002/F_04_deKlerk.pdf
De Noble, A., D Jung and S Ehrlich. (1999). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: The
development of a measure and its relationship to entrepreneurial action. Frontiers
of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College, Boston, MA.
De Vries, M. F. R. K. (1977). The Entrepreneurial Personality: A Person at the
Crossroads. Journal of Management Studies, 14(1), 34-57.
DeMarie, D., & Aloise-Young, P., A. (2003). College students' interest in their major.
College Student Journal, 37(3), 462.
Dertouzos, M. (1999). Four pillars of innovation. Technology Review, 102(6), 31.
146

Dess, G. G., Lumpkin, G. T., & Covin, J. G. (1997). Entrepreneurial Strategy Making and
Firm Performance: Tests of Contingency and Configurational Models Strategic
Management Journal, 18(9), 677-695.
Dosi, G. (Writer). (1988). Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation
[Article], Journal of Economic Literature: American Economic Association.
Douglas, E. J., & Shepherd, D. A. (2000). Entrepreneurship as a utility maximizing
response. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(3), 231-251.
Drucker, P. F. (1985a). The discipline of innovation. Harvard Business Review, 63(3),
67-72.
Drucker, P. F. (1985b). Innovation and entrepreneurship : practice and principles (1st
ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
Drucker, P. F. (1995). Managing in a time of great change. New York: Truman Talley
Books/Dutton.
Dyer, W. G. J. (1994). Toward a Theory of Entrepreneurial Careers. Entrepreneurship:
Theory & Practice, 19(2), 7-21.
Eisenhauer, J. G. (1995). The Entrepreneurial Decision: Economic Theory and Empirical
Evidence. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 19(4), 67-79.
Feldman, K. A., & Newcomb, T. M. (1969). The impact of college on students ([1st ed.).
San Francisco,: Jossey-Bass.
Fernald, L. W., & Solomon, G. T. (1993). Assessing the need for small business
management/entrepreneurship courses at the university level. Paper presented at
the Proceedings of the 17th National Small Business Consulting Conference-
SBIDA.
Fiegenbaum, A., Hart, S., & Schendel, D. (1996). Strategic Reference Point Theory.
Strategic Management Journal, 17(3), 219-235.
Fiet, J. O. (2001). The theoretical side of teaching entrepreneurship. Journal of Business
Venturing, 16(1), 1-24.
Fineman, S. (1977). The achievement motive construct and its measurement: Where are
we now? British Journal of Psychology, 68(1), 1.
Fink, A. (2003). How to ask survey questions (2nd ed. Vol. 2). Thousand Oaks, Calif.:
Sage Publications.
Fink, A. (2006). How to conduct surveys : a step-by-step guide (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.
Finkle, T. A., & Deeds, D. (2001). Trends in the market for entrepreneurship faculty,
1989-1998. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(6), 613-630.
Florida, R. L. (2004). The rise of the creative class : and how it's transforming work,
leisure, community and everyday life. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Foote, D. (1999, April 19). Show us the money! Newsweek, 43-44.
Fortner, M. L. (2006). Entrepreneurs and their Social Networks: Motivations,
Expectations and Outcomes. PhD Doctoral, The George Washington University,
Washington, DC.
Frey, B. S., & Benz, M. (2003). Being Independent is a Great Thing: Subjective
Evaluations of Self-Employment and Hierarchy. Paper presented at the CESifo
Working Paper No. 959. http://ssrn.com/paper=359822
Friedman, M., & Savage, L. J. (1948). The utility analysis of choices involving risk.
Journal of Political Economy, 56, 279-304.
147

Galotti, K., & Kozberg, S. (1987). Older adolescents' thinking about academic/vocational
and interpersonal commitments. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16(4), 313-
330.
Garavan, T. N., & O'Cinneide, B. (1994). Entrepreneurship Education and Training
Programmes: : A Review and Evaluation - Part 1. Journal of European Industrial
Training, 18(8), 3-12.
Gartner, W. B. (1989). "Who Is an Entrepreneur?" Is the Wrong Question.
Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 13(4), 47-68.
Gartner, W. B. (Writer). (2001). Is There an Elephant in Entrepreneurship? Blind
Assumptions in Theory Development [Article], Entrepreneurship: Theory &
Practice: Blackwell Publishing Limited.
Gibb, A., & Ritchie, J. (1982). Understanding the processes of starting small businesses.
International Small Business Journal, 6, 70-80.
Gibbons, M., M., & Shoffner, M., F. (2004). Prospective First-Generation College
Students: Meeting Their Needs Through Social Cognitive Career Theory.
Professional School Counseling, 8(1), 91.
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.
Guglielmino, P. J., & Klatt, L. A. (1993). Entrepreneurs as self-directed learners. Paper
presented at the Proceedings of the International Council for Small Business.
Guilford, J. P. (1959). Personality. New York,: McGraw-Hill.
Gupta, A. K. (1984). Contingency Linkages between Strategy and General Manager
Characteristics: A Conceptual Examination. The Academy of Management
Review, 9(3), 399-412.
Hamilton, B. H. (2000). Does entrepreneurship pay? An empirical analysis of the returns
to self-employment. Journal of Political Economy, 108(3), 604-631.
Hartman, R. O. (2006). The Five-Factor Model And Career Self-Efficacy: General and
Domain-Specific Relationships. PhD, The Ohio State University.
Hayek, F. A. (1945). The Use of Knowledge in Society. American Economic Review,
35(4), 519.
Headd, B., & Saade, R. (2008). Do Business Definition Decisions Distort Small Business
Research Results? [Working Paper]. U.S. Small Business Administration, Office
of Advocacy.
Henderson, R., & Robertson, M. (1999). Who wants to be an entrepreneur? Young adult
attitudes to entrepreneurship as a career. Education & Training, 41(4/5), 236.
Henry, C., Hill, F., & Leitch, C. (2005). Entrepreneurship education and training: can
entrepreneurship be taught? Part II. Education + Training, 47(3), 158-169.
Herron, L., & Sapienza, H. J. (1992). The Entrepreneur and the Initiation of New Venture
Launch Activities. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 17(1), 49-55.
Hills, G. E. (1988). Variations in University entrepreneurship education: An empirical
study of an evolving field. Journal of Business Venturing, 3(2), 109-122.
Hindle, K., & Cutting, N. (2002). Can Applied Entrepreneurship Education Enhance Job
Satisfaction and Financial Performance? An Empirical Investigation in the
148

Australian Pharmacy profession. Journal of Small Business Management, 40(2),
162-167.
Hisrich, R. D., & Peters, M. P. (1989). Entrepreneurship : starting, developing, and
managing a new enterprise. Homewood, IL: BPI, Irwin.
Hisrich, R. D., & Peters, M. P. (1998). Entrepreneurship (4th ed.). Boston: Irwin
McGraw-Hill.
Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices : a theory of vocational personalities
and work environments (3rd ed.). Odessa, Fla.: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Hollenbeck, J. R., & Whitener, E. M. (1988). Reclaiming Personality Traits for Personnel
Selection: Self-Esteem as an Illustrative Case. Journal of Management, 14(1), 81-
91. doi: 10.1177/014920638801400108
Hood, J. N., & Young, J. E. (1993). Entrepreneurship's requisite areas of development: A
survey of top executives in successful entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Business
Venturing, 8(2), 115-135.
Hurtado, S., Milem, J., Clayton-Pedersen, A., & Allen, W. (1999). Enacting Diverse
Learning Environments: Improving the Climate for Racial/Ethnic Diversity in
Higher Education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 26(8).
Johannison, B., & Senneseth, K. (1993). Paradoxes of entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship
and Business Development (pp. 3-18). Avebury.
John-Charles, G., & Walstrom, K. A. (2000). Influencing African Americans' decisions
to select an information technology major. Journal of Computer Information
Systems, 41(1), 56-60.
Johnson, B. R. (Writer). (1990). Toward a Multidimensional Model of Entrepreneurship:
The Case of Achievement Motivation and the Entrepreneur [Article],
Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice: Blackwell Publishing Limited.
Jones, C., & English, J. (2004). A contemporary approach to entrepreneurship education.
Education + Training, 46(8-9), 416-423.
Jones, G. G., & Wadhwani, D. (2006). Schumpeter's Plea: Rediscovering History and
Relevance in the Study of Entrepreneurship. HBS Working Paper Number: 06-
036. Retrieved from
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under
Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
Kaish, S., & Gilad, B. (1991). Characteristics of opportunities search of entrepreneurs
versus executives: Sources, interests, general alertness. Journal of Business
Venturing, 6(1), 45-61.
Kantor, J. (1988). Can Entrepreneurship: Be Taught? A Canadian Experiment. Journal of
Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 5(4), 12-19.
Katz, J. A. (2003). The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American
entrepreneurship education: 1876-1999. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2),
283-300.
Kerins, F., Smith, J. K., & Smith, R. (2004). Opportunity Cost of Capital for Venture
Capital Investors and Entrepreneurs. Journal of Financial and Quantitative
Analysis, 39(2), 385-405.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research (3rd ed.). New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
149

Kim, D., Markham, F. S., & Cangelosi, J. D. (Writers). (2002). Why Students Pursue the
Business Degree: A Comparison of Business Majors Across Universities
[Article], Journal of Education for Business: Heldref Publications.
Kinicki, A. a. B. K. W. (2003). Management, A Practical Introduction. New York:
McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Kirby, D. (1992). Developing Graduate Entrepreneurs: The UK Graduate Enterprise
Programme. Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Change, 1(2).
Kirzner, I. M. (1973). Competition and Entrepreneurship. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Kirzner, I. M. (1997). Entrepreneurial Discovery and the Competitive Market Process:
An Austrian Approach. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(1), 60-85.
Klein, P. G., & Bullock, J. B. (2006). Can Entrepreneurship Be Taught? Journal of
Agricultural and Applied Economics, 38(2), 429-439.
Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. Boston, New York,: Houghton Mifflin
Company.
Koh, H. C. (1996). Testing hypotheses of entrepreneurial characteristics A study of Hong
Kong MBA students. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 11(3), 12.
Krueger, N. F., Reilly, M. D., & Carsrud, A. L. (2000). Competing models of
entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5-6), 411-432.
Kuratko, D. F. (2004). Entrepreneurship education in the 21st century: from
legitimization to leadership. Paper presented at the 2004 Coleman White Paper on
Entrepreneurship Education. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the U.S.
Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
Kuratko, D. F., & Hodgetts, R. M. (2001). Entrepreneurship: a contemporary approach
(5th ed.). Fort Worth: Harcourt College Publishers.
Kuratko, D. F., Hornsby, J. S., & Naffziger, D. W. (1997). An Examination of Owner's
Goals in Sustaining Entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management,
35(1), 24-33.
Lapan, R. T., Shaughnessy, P., & Boggs, K. (1996). Efficacy Expectations and
Vocational Interests as Mediators between Sex and Choice of Math/Science
College Majors: A Longitudinal Study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49(3),
277-291.
Laukkanen, M. (2000). Exploring alternative approaches in high-level entrepreneurship
education: creating micromechanisms for endogenous regional growth.
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 12(1), 25 - 47.
Lazear, E. P. (2002). Entrepreneurship. NBER Working Paper #9109 Retrieved from
http://ssrn.com/paper=324051.
Lazear, E. P. (2003). Entrepreneurship. SSRN eLibrary.
Lee, J.-H. (2001). Three essays in entrepreneurship. Retrieved from
Leibenstein, H. (1969). A theory of economic-demographic development. New York,:
Greenwood Press.
Lent, R. W. (2005). A social cognitive view of career development and counseling. In S.
D. Brown, Lent, R.W. (Ed.), Career Development and Counseling: Putting
Theory and Research to Work (pp. 101-127). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.
150

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive
theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 45(1), 79-122.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (2000). Contextual supports and barriers to
career choice: a social cognitive analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
47(1), 36-49.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Larkin, K. C. (1984). Relation of self-efficacy expectations
to academic achievement and persistence. Journal of Counseling Psychology July,
31(3), 356-362.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Schmidt, J., Brenner, B., Lyons, H., & Treistman, D. (2003).
Relation of contextual supports and barriers to choice behavior in engineering
majors: Test of alternative social cognitive models. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 50(4), 458-465. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.50.4.458
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Sheu, H. B., Schmidt, J., Brenner, B. R., & Gloster, C. S.
(2005). Social cognitive predictors of academic interests and goals in engineering:
Utility for women and students at historically black universities. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 52(1), 84-92. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167-52.1.84
Lentz, B. F., & Laband, D. N. (1990). Entrepreneurial Success and Occupational
Inheritance among Proprietors. The Canadian Journal of Economics / Revue
canadienne d'Economique, 23(3), 563-579.
Leppel, K., Williams, M., & Waldauer, C. (2001). The Impact of Parental Occupation
and Socioeconomic Status on Choice of College Major. Journal of Family and
Economic Issues, 22(4), 373-394.
Leung, S. A. (2008). The big five career theories. In J. A. E. Athanasou, R. Van (Eds.)
(Ed.), International Handbook of Career Guidance (pp. 115-132): Springer.
Lips, H. M. (1992). Gender- and science-related attitudes as predictors of college
students' academic choices. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 40(1), 62-81.
Louw, L., van Eeden, S. M., Bosch, J. K., & Venter, D. J. L. (2003). Entrepreneurial
traits of undergraduate students at selected South African tertiary institutions.
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 9(1), 5-26.
Low, M. B., & MacMillan, I. C. (1988). Entrepreneurship: Past Research and Future
Challenges. [Article]. Journal of Management, 14, 139-161.
Lowe, D. R., & Simons, K. (1997). Factors influencing choice of business majors--some
additional evidence: a research note. Accounting Education, 6(1), 39.
Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the Entrepreneurial Orientation
Construct and Linking it to Performance. Academy of Management Review, 21,
135-172.
Malgwi, C. A., Howe, M. A., & Burnaby, P. A. (2005). Influences on Students' Choice of
College Major. Journal of Education for Business, 80(5), 275-282.
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York,: Wiley.
Marchigiano-Monroy, T. (1993). Realities and emerging realities of adapting to
changing global economic conditions: Rethinking the role of SBII/SBIDA in
entrepreneurial education. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 17th
National Small Business Consulting Conference-SBIDA.
Marshall, A. (1930). Principles of economics, an introductory volume (8th ed.). London,:
Macmillan.
151

Matlay, H., & Storey, D. J. (2003). Should you become an entrepreneur? Positive and
negative factors affecting individual career choices. Paper presented at the Merica
Fest, Warwick University, Coventry.
Mauldin, S., Crain, J. L., & Mounce, P. H. (2000). The Accounting Principles Instructor's
Influence on Students' Decision to Major in Accounting. Journal of Education for
Business, 75(3), 142.
McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton, N.J.,: Van Nostrand.
McKnight, P. E. (2007). Missing data : a gentle introduction. New York: Guilford Press.
McMullan, W. E., & Long, W. A. (1987). Entrepreneurship education in the nineties.
Journal of Business Venturing, 2(3), 261-275.
Menzies, T. V., & Paradi, J. C. (2002). Encouraging technology-based ventures :
entrepreneurship education and engineering graduates. New England Journal of
Entrepreneurship, 5(2), 8.
Miner, J. B., & Raju, N. S. (2004). Risk Propensity Differences Between Managers and
Entrepreneurs and Between Low- and High-Growth Entrepreneurs: A Reply in a
More Conservative Vein. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 3-13.
Miner, J. B., Smith, N. R., & Bracker, J. S. (1994). Role of entrepreneurial task
motivation in the growth of technologically innovative firms: Interpretations from
follow-up data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 627-630.
Mitchell, R. K., Busenitz, L., Lant, T., McDougall, P. P., Morse, E. A., & Smith, J. B.
(2002). Toward a Theory of Entrepreneurial Cognition: Rethinking the People
Side of Entrepreneurship Research. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 27(2),
93.
Morris, M. H., Kuratko, D. F., & Schindehutte, M. (2001). Towards integration:
understanding entrepreneurship through frameworks. The International Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 2, 35-49.
Moskowitz, T. J., & Vissing-Jrgensen. (2002). The Returns to Entrepreneurial
Investment: A Private Equity Premium Puzzle? American Economic Review, 92,
745-778.
Moutray, C. (2007). Educational Attainment and Other Characteristics of the Self-
Employed: An Examination Using Data from the Panel Study of Income
Dynamics. [Working Paper]. U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of
Advocacy.
Moutray, C. (2008). Baccalaureate Education and the Employment Decision: Self-
Employment and the Class of 1993 [Working Paper]. U.S. Small Business
Administration, Office of Advocacy.
Nelson, A., Byers, T., & Gary, D. L. (2005). Organizational Modularity and Intra-
University Relationships between Entrepreneurship Education and Technology
Transfer Advances in the Study of Entrepreneurship, Innovation, & Economic
Growth (Vol. Volume 16, pp. 275-311): JAI.
Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change.
Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Noel, N. M., Michaels, C., & Levas, M. G. (2003). The Relationship of Personality Traits
and Self-Monitoring Behavior to Choice of Business Major. Journal of Education
for Business, 78(3), 153.
152

Norusis, M. J., & SPSS Inc. (1990). SPSS advanced statistics user's guide. Chicago, Ill.:
SPSS.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (1998). Fostering
entrepreneurship. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development.
Orlikowski, W., & Baroudi, J. (1991). Studying information technology in organizations:
Research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems Research, 2, 1-28.
doi: citeulike-article-id:4360939
Osipow, S. H. (1990). CONVERGENCE IN THEORIES OF CAREER CHOICE AND
DEVELOPMENT - REVIEW AND PROSPECT. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 36(2), 122-131.
Palich, L. E., & Bagby, R. D. (1995). Using cognitive theory to explain entrepreneurial
risk-taking: Challenging conventional wisdom. Journal of Business Venturing,
10(6), 425-438.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students : findings and
insights from twenty years of research (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. New York,: Wiley.
Pinker, S. (2002). The blank slate : the modern denial of human nature. New York:
Viking.
Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. London,: Routledge & K. Paul.
Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance.
Homewood, Ill.,: R. D. Irwin.
Porter, M. E., & Stern, S. (1999). The New Challenge to Americas Prosperity: Findings
from the Innovation Index. Washington, DC.
Porter, S. R., & Umbach, P. D. (2006). College major choice: An analysis of person-
environment fit. Research in Higher Education, 47(4), 429-449.
Postigo, S., & Tamborini, M. F. (2007). University Entrepreneurship Education in
Argentina: A decade of analysis. NCGE Working Papers. Retrieved from
http://www.ncge.com/files/biblio1077.pdf
Pritchard, R., E. , Potter, G., C. , & Saccucci, M., S. . (2004). The Selection of a Business
Major: Elements Influencing Student Choice and Implications for Outcomes
Assessment. Journal of Education for Business, 79(3), 152.
Pryor, J. H., & Reedy, E. J. (2009). Trends in Business Interest Among U.S. College
Students. Retrieved from
Robinson, P., & Haynes, M. (1991). Entrepreneurship Education in America's Major
Universities. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 15(3), 41-52.
Ronstadt, R. (1990). The educated entrepreneurs: a new era of entrepreneurial education
evolves. In C. A. E. Kent (Ed.), Entrepreneurship Education (pp. 69-88). New
York, NY: Quorum Books.
Ronstadt, R. C. (1984). Entrepreneurship: Text, Cases, and Notes. Dover, MA: Lord
Publishing.
Rosenberg, N. (1976). Perspectives on technology. Cambridge [Eng.] ; New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement. Psychol Monogr, 80(1), 1-28.
153

Sarasvathy, S. D. (2004). Constructing corridors to economic primitives: Entrepreneurial
opportunities as demand-side artifacts In J. Butler, E. (Ed.), Opportunity
Identification and Entrepreneurial Behavior (pp. 291-312). Greenwich, CT:
Information Age Publishing, Inc. .
Sarasvathy, S. D., Dew, N., Velamuri, S. R., & Venkataraman, S. (2003). Three views of
entrepreneurial opportunity. A testable typology of entrepreneurial opportunity. In
Z. J. Acs & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurship research. An
interdisciplinary survey and introduction (pp. 141-160). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer.
Say, J.-B. (1971). A Treatise on Political Economy. New York: Augustus M. Kelley.
Scherer, R. F., Adams, J. S., Carley, S. S., & Wiebe, F. A. (1989). Role Model
Performance Effects on Development of Entrepreneurial Career Preference.
Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 13(3), 53-71.
Schramm, C. J. (2004). Building Entrepreneurial Economies. Foreign Affairs, 83(4), 104.
Schultz, T. W. (1979). Concepts of Entrepreneurship and Agricultural Research. Kaldor
Memorial Lecture. Iowa State University.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1936). The theory of economic development; an inquiry into profits,
capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle (Second ed.). Cambridge, Mass.,:
Harvard University Press.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1975). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy (1st Harper Colophon
ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
Schumpeter, J. A., & Opie, R. (1934). The theory of economic development; an inquiry
into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. Cambridge, Mass.,:
Harvard University Press.
Scott, M. G., & Twomey, D. F. (1988). The Long-Term Supply of Entrepreneurs:
Students' Career Aspirations in Relation to Entrepreneurship. Journal of Small
Business Management, 26(4), 5.
Segal, G., Borgia, D., & Schoenfeld, J. (2002). Using social cognitive career theory to
predict self-employment goals. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, 5(2),
10.
Segal, G., Schoenfeld, J., & Borgia, D. (2007). Which classroom-related activities
enhance students' entrepreneurial interests and goals?: A Social Cognitive Career
Theory perspective. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 13(2).
Sexton, D. L., & Bowman, N. B. (1984). Entrepreneurship educationL suggestions for
increasing effectiveness. Journal of Small Business Management, 22(2), 18-25.
Sexton, D. L., & Upton, N. E. (1984). Entrepreneurship education: Suggestions for
increasing effectiveness. Journal of Small Business Management, 22(4), 18-25.
Shane, S., Locke, E. A., & Collins, C. J. (2003). Entrepreneurial motivation. Human
Resource Management Review, 13(2), 257-279.
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of
research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217-226.
Shaver, K. G., & Scott, L. R. (1991). Person, Process, Choice: The Psychology of New
Venture Creation Kelly G. Shaver. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 16(2),
23-45.
Siegall, M., Chapman, K. J., & Boykin, R. (2007). Assessment of Core Courses and
Factors that Influence Choice of a Major: Evidence of a Major Bias? Retrieved
from http://www.westga.edu/~bquest/2007/bias7.pdf
154

Simon, M., Houghton, S. M., & Aquino, K. (2000). Cognitive biases, risk perception, and
venture formation: How individuals decide to start companies. Journal of
Business Venturing, 15(2), 113-134.
Simons, K. A., Lowe, D. R., & Stout, D. E. (2003). Comprehensive Literature Review:
Factors Influencing Choice of Accounting as a Major. Paper presented at the
Proceedings of the 2003 Academy of Business Education Conference.
Solomon, G. T. (2006). Are we teaching Small Business Management to Entrepreneurs
and Entrepreneurship to Small Businesses? Paper presented at the United States
Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
Solomon, G. T., Duffy, S., & Tarabishy, A. (2002). The State of Entrepreneurship
Education in the United States: A Nationwide Survey and Analysis. International
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 1, 1-22.
Solomon, G. T., Weaver, K. M., & Fernald, L. W., Jr. (1994). A Historical Examination
of Small Business Management and Entrepreneurship Pedagogy. Simulation
Gaming, 25(3), 338-352. doi: 10.1177/1046878194253003
Soros, G. (1987). The alchemy of finance : reading the mind of the market. New York:
Simon and Schuster.
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. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(4), 566-
591. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2006.05.002
Stevenson, H. H. (1986). Harvards experience with a new entrepreneurship program. In
D. L. S. a. R. W. Smilor (Ed.), The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship (pp. 389-
402). Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger.
Stevenson, H. H., & Sahlman, W. A. (1989). The entrepreneurial process. In P. B. J.
Dewhurst (Ed.), Small Business and Entrepreneurship (pp. 94-157). Basingstoke:
Macmillan.
Stevenson, H. H., Roberts, M. J., Grousbeck, H. I., & Liles, P. R. (1985). New business
ventures and the entrepreneur (2nd ed.). Homewood, Ill.: R.D. Irwin.
Stewart, W. H., Jr., & Roth, P. L. (2001). Risk Propensity Differences Between
Entrepreneurs and Managers: A Meta-Analytic Review. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86(1), 145-153.
Stewart, W. H., Watson, W. E., Carland, J. C., & Carland, J. W. (1999). A proclivity for
entrepreneurship: A comparison of entrepreneurs, small business owners, and
corporate managers. Journal of Business Venturing, 14(2), 189-214.
Stoner, J. A. F., & Freeman, R. E. (1992). Management (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice Hall.
Strasser, S. E., Ozgur, C., & Schroeder, D. L. (2002). Selecting a Business College
Major: An Analysis of Criteria and Choice Using the Analytical Hierarchy
Process. American Journal of Business, 17(2), 47-56.
Streeter, D. H., J. P. Jaquette, J., & Hovis., K. (2002). University-wide Entrepreneurship
Education: Alternative Models and Current Trends. Department of Applied
Economics. Ithaca, NY.
Super, D. E. (1980). A life-span, life-space approach to career development. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 16(3), 282-298.
155

Super, D. W. (1969). Vocational development theory. The Counseling Psychologist, 1, 2-
30.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston:
Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Tang, M., Pan, W., & Newmeyer, M. (2008). An explorative study to examine career
aspiration of high school students. Professional School Counseling, 11, 285-295.
Van Praag, M., & Versloot, P. H. (2007). What is the Value of Entrepreneurship? A
Review of Recent Research: SSRN.
Vesper, K. H. (1982). Research on education for entrepreneurship. In C. A. e. a. Kent
(Ed.), Encyclopaedia of Entrepreneurship. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Vesper, K. H. (1986). New developments in entrepreneurship education. In D. L. S. R.
W. Smilor (Ed.), The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship (pp. 379-387).
Cambridge: Ballingeresper.
Vesper, K. H., & Gartner, W. B. (1997). Measuring progress in entrepreneurship
education. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(5), 403-421.
von Hippel, E. (1994). "Sticky Information" and the Locus of Problem Solving:
Implications for Innovation. Management Science, 40(4), 429-439.
Von Mises, L. (1949). Human action: a treatise on economics. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior.
Princeton,: Princeton university press.
Wagner, J. (2007). What a Difference a Y makes-Female and Male Nascent
Entrepreneurs in Germany. Small Business Economics, 28(1), 1.
Waller, B. (2006). Math interest and choice intentions of non-traditional African-
American college students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(3), 538-547.
Walstad, W. B. (1994). Entrepreneurship and Small Business in the United States: A
Gallup Survey Report on the Views of High School Students, the General Public,
and Small Business Owners and Managers.
Webster, F. A. (1976). A Model for New Venture Initiation: A Discourse on Rapacity
and the Independent Entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review, 1(1), 26-37.
Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2d ed.). Reading, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
White, R. E., Thornhill, S., & Hampson, E. (2006). Entrepreneurs and evolutionary
biology: The relationship between testosterone and new venture creation.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100(1), 21-34.
Whitt, E., J. , Nora, A., Edison, M., I., Terenzini, P., T. , & Pascarella, E., T. . (1999).
Women's perceptions of a "chilly climate" and cognitive outcomes in college:
Additional evidence. Journal of College Student Development, 40(2), 163.
Winslow, E. K., & Solomon, G. T. (1987). Entrepreneurs Are More than Non-
Conformists They Are Mildly Sociopathic. Journal of Creative Behavior, 21(3),
202-213.
Yamane, T. (1967). Elementary sampling theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.,: Prentice-Hall.



156

Appendix A Data Collection Instrument


157


158

Appendix B Informed Consent


159