Master Thesis
Which factors influence the relationship between following a minor entrepreneurship program and (1) the self-perceived intention to not follow a master and focus on being an entrepreneur- and (2) the self-perceived effect to
follow a master but a more entrepreneurial-oriented one.
Name: Daan Matthijs Frederik Sutorius
Student number: 10908021 (UvA) 19959660 (VU) Date of submission: 01-07-2015
Version: Final Master Thesis Track: Entrepreneurship First supervisor: F. Meddens Second supervisor: P. Koellinger
Statement of originality:
This document is written by Daan Matthijs Frederik Sutorius who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Table of Content
1. Introduction
5
1.1 Theoretical and Managerial contribution 8
2. Literature review and hypotheses development
11
2.1 Defining entrepreneurial education 11
2.1.1 Entrepreneurship education research 11
2.1.2 Defining Minor Entrepreneurship “University of Amsterdam (UvA) and Minor Entrepreneurship “Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR) 13
2.2 Factors that possibly influence the relationship between following a minor entrepreneurship program and (1) the self-perceived effect of minor
entrepreneurship students to not follow a master and focus on being an entrepreneur- and (2) the self-perceived effect of minor entrepreneurship students to follow a
master, but a more entrepreneurial-oriented one. 16
3. Methods
39
3.1. Research design 39
3.2. Measures 39
3.2.1 Dependent variables 39
3.2.2 Independent variables 40
3.3 Data collection and participants 42
3.3.1 Participants 42 3.3.2 Procedure 43 3.3.3 Study Materials 44
4. Results
45
4.1 Descriptive statistics 45 4.1 Reliability analysis 46 4.2 Correlation 47 4.3 Hypothesis testing 505. Conclusion and discussion
53
5.1 Conclusion and discussion of the results 53
5.2 Implications 56
5.2.1 Theoretical implications 56
5.2.2 Managerial implications 57
5.3 Limitations and future research 59
Abstract
Present researched aimed to provide insights in the relationship between
entrepreneurial education programs and the entrepreneurial education programs outcomes (1) the self-perceived effect of minor entrepreneurship students to not follow a master and focus on being an entrepreneur (i.e. “No Master”) - and (2) the self-perceived effect of minor entrepreneurship students to follow a master, but a more entrepreneurial one (“Related Master”). The main aim of the study, however, was to address factors that potentially influence this relationship. Eventually, 12 factors were tested, namely, entrepreneurial intentions, conscientiousness, openness to experience, emotional stability, extraversion, agreeableness, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, the grade of the quality of the minor, the obtainment of a propedeuse within one academic year, choice of university, faculty of main study and gender. Results demonstrated that entrepreneurial intentions, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and choice of university significantly influenced “No Master”. Results also demonstrated that entrepreneurial intentions significantly influenced “Related Master”.
1. Introduction
Entrepreneurship has emerged as arguably the most powerful economic force the world has ever experienced (Raposo & Do Paco, 2011). The importance of entrepreneurship to our economy is largely recognized with tons of research that emphasize the role of entrepreneurial firms as key drivers of economic growth
(Rideout & Gray, 2013). Entrepreneurial firms generate a fundamental contribution to the market economics and captivate an indispensable role in the innovations that cause technological change and productivity growth (Elmuti, Khoury & Omran, 2012). In addition, policymakers, economists and scholars generally believe that the higher the level of entrepreneurship in a country, the greater its level of economic growth and innovation. Academic research, as a consequence, has shown the serious need to establish a worldwide business climate whereby entrepreneurship captivates a significant role (Sanchez, 2013).
In order to establish a worldwide business climate whereby entrepreneurship captivates a significant role, it is asserted that entrepreneurship education can play a fundamental role (Martin et al, 2013). Conceivably for this reason a strong revival in terms of entrepreneurship education is globally witnessed (Sanchez, 2013). It has quickly climbed on the political agenda and many Higher Education Institutions (HEI) have responded to this growing interest in entrepreneurial education by offering entrepreneurship courses (Matlay and Jones, 2011). Earlier research, accordingly, emphasized the necessity of offer specific entrepreneurship courses to teach about entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship education is considered to enhance “awareness of entrepreneurship as an alternative career path to employment” (Slavtchev, Laspita and Patzelt, 2012, p.3). It is assumed that entrepreneurship education is more strongly
Charney and Libecap (2000) also emphasize the importance of entrepreneurship education to learn about (and for) entrepreneurship. They found that graduates from entrepreneurship education programs are three times more likely to start a new business than graduates from non-entrepreneurship programs. From this perspective, it is evident that entrepreneurship education is a more effective driver of
entrepreneurial intentions than non-entrepreneurship education.
Unfortunately, as multiple scholars demonstrated, many studies found
inconsistent and equivocal evidence about the effective influence of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intentions (Martin et al, 2013). There are substantiated doubts whether entrepreneurship education positively affects entrepreneurial
intentions. In fact, Oosterbeek et al (2010), for example, show that entrepreneurship education may be sometimes negatively related with entrepreneurial intentions. Their study researched the relationship between entrepreneurial intentions and
entrepreneurial education by measuring entrepreneurial intentions among
undergraduate university students before and after they finished an entrepreneurship course. Fayolle and Gailly (2009) measured the relationship between entrepreneurial education and entrepreneurial intentions among samples of undergraduate and graduate students in France and actually found no relationship. On the other hand, Bae et al (2014) demonstrate that entrepreneurship education is positively associated with entrepreneurial intentions, although it must be noted that after controlling for pre-education entrepreneurial intentions, the relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intention lost its significance. Martin et al (2013) also measured the relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions. Based on a meta-analysis of 42 independent samples (N=16,657) they found a statistical significant relationship between entrepreneurship education and
entrepreneurial intentions. Additionally, Sanchez (2013) measured the intention to become self-employed of a sample of 710 secondary school students. He found a significant effect that indicated that students had higher intentions to become self-employed at the end of the program than they had at the beginning of the program. These studies, whether they found a positive, a negative or no effect regarding the relationship between entrepreneurial education and entrepreneurial intentions, however, provided little insights into the factors that influence this relationship as well as they overlooked an important possible outcome of entrepreneurship education.
In order to fill this gap, present study looks into several factors that influence the relationship between entrepreneurship education and two specific outcomes. Firstly, it introduces the self-perceived effect to not follow a master and focus on being an entrepreneur as an outcome of entrepreneurship education. As a second outcome of entrepreneurship education, current study offers the self-perceived effect to actually follow a master, but a more entrepreneurial-oriented master.
By introducing these two possible outcomes of entrepreneurial education, this study responds to the growing importance to understand the role of entrepreneurship education in entrepreneurship. Although globally countless different entrepreneurship education programs (single/additional entrepreneurship courses, entrepreneurship minors, entrepreneurship bachelors and entrepreneurship masters i.e.) are taught to students in schools and universities (Weaver et al, 2010), to my knowledge no study has focused on the self-perceived effect to not follow a master and focus on being an entrepreneur and the self-perceived effect to follow a master but a more
entrepreneurial-oriented master.
Present study will focus on entrepreneurship minors of Dutch universities and Dutch universities of applied sciences. It aims to put forward multiple factors that influence
the relationship between these entrepreneurship minors of Dutch universities and Dutch universities of applied sciences and the self-perceived effect to not follow a master and focus on being an entrepreneur- and the self-perceived effect to follow a master but a more entrepreneurial-oriented master.
By answering these research questions, the main aim is to enhance our knowledge about which factors influence the relationship between entrepreneurship education programs and the self-perceived effect to not follow a master and focus on being an entrepreneur- and the self-perceived effect to follow a master but a more entrepreneurial-oriented master.
1.1 Theoretical and Managerial contribution
Current research will contribute to entrepreneurial research in various ways. From a theoretical perspective, present study will create understanding about a
non-researched area of entrepreneurial education. Although many studies have examined the relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions (Bae et al, 2014; Martin et al, 2013; Sanchez, 2013), research failed to point out which factors influence this relationship. In addition, research declined the self-perceived effect of students to not follow a master and focus on being an entrepreneur- and the self-perceived of students to follow a master, but a more entrepreneurial-oriented master as a potential outcome of entrepreneurship education as possible outcomes of entrepreneurship education. Present study is the first to approach entrepreneurship education from this particular perspective.
By doing so, even more importantly, this study provides useful managerial contributions. Universities will contribute by current research as it offers new insights
that are extremely relevant for universities, universities of applied sciences and other instances that offer entrepreneurial education programs. More specifically,
universities, universities of applied sciences and other instances that offer
entrepreneurship education programs will be able to learn about the role of minor entrepreneurship programs in their educational system. Does minor entrepreneurship programs function as a precursor for the self-perceived effect of students to follow a master, but a more entrepreneurial-oriented one, or are they more effective in order to enhance the self-perceived effect of students to not follow a master and focus on being an entrepreneur? Or, is there maybe no effect at all?
By all means, managers of universities, universities of applied sciences and other educational instances will be provided with useful information about their entrepreneurial educational programs. Moreover, present study introduces multiple factors that may be influencing outcomes of entrepreneurship education. For example, does it matter from which faculty minor entrepreneurship students come? Does the fact whether or not minor entrepreneurship students achieved their “propedeuse” in one year affects entrepreneurship education outcomes?
Correspondingly, this study will enable managers of universities, universities of applied sciences and other instances that offer educational programs to correctly and effectively adapt their entrepreneurship programs and teaching methods in order to achieve their desired educational results, whatever their desired educational goals may be.
Present study, lastly, by addressing the introduced two possible outcomes of entrepreneurship education and the factors that possibly influence these outcomes, directs future research towards a new area of entrepreneurship education research.
Namely, it provides recommendations for future researchers in this field regarding (1) the factors that influence entrepreneurship education outcomes. Thereby, it provides recommendations for future researchers with regards to the introduced non-researched outcome of entrepreneurship education in this study. This is in line with future
research suggestions that note the need for an examination of other potential benefits of entrepreneurship courses (Sanchez, 2013) As it could be argued that a potential benefit of minor entrepreneurship programs is the fact that students of minor entrepreneurship programs are “pushed” towards following a more-entrepreneurial master, this is consistent with raised suggestions of scholars regarding other benefits of entrepreneurship education.
In the first section, relevant literature in the field of entrepreneurial education and the perceived intention to focus on being an entrepreneur- and the self-perceived intention for further education is discussed. Also, current literature with regard to the possible factors that influence these relationships is discussed. After the literature review, the research methods, results, discussion and conclusion and the theoretical- and managerial implications are presented.
2. Literature review and hypotheses development
2.1 Defining entrepreneurial education
In the last few decades, entrepreneurial education has experienced an impressive expansion (Green & Rice, 2007). Subsequently, remarkable research attention has been devoted to this particular subject. Much prior research in the field of
entrepreneurship emphasized the important role of entrepreneurial education. Entrepreneurial education is mostly defined as “the education for entrepreneurial
attitudes and skills” (Bae et al, 2014). Its goal is to, logically, allow students to
develop entrepreneurial skills. In addition, entrepreneurial education is important as it assists students in determining their career path (Linan, 2004). Although there is a widespread range of entrepreneurial education programs, most entrepreneurial education programs aim to increase students’ entrepreneurial awareness. Thereby their goal is to “prepare” students to a life as an entrepreneur (Weber, 2011).
2.1.1 Entrepreneurship education research
However, many scholars demonstrated inconsistent findings regarding the
effectiveness of entrepreneurial education in relation to entrepreneurial intentions. It is mentioned that there is only little evidence tot support the claim that
entrepreneurship education programs influence entrepreneurial intentions. Research has showed multiple examples of negative associations between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions. As already mentioned in the introduction, Oosterbeek et al (2010) conducted a study to measure the relationship between
Graevenitz et al (2010), similarly, found a small negative relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions. In their research, a small negative relationship was demonstrated among German undergraduate students.
In addition, studies of, for example, Fayolle and Gailly & Lassas-Clerc (2006) and Fayolle and Gailly (2009) found no effects regarding the relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intention.
Contrarily, there are also many scholars that demonstrate a positive
relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intention (Martin et al, 2013; Sanchez, 2013; Bae et al 2014; Galloway and Brown, 2002. Martin et al (2013), for instance, found a statistically significant relationship between
entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions. Their meta-analysis of a total of 42 studies demonstrated this effect.
Galloway and Brown (2002) also reported a positive relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions. They found that
individuals who have followed entrepreneurship courses on a university level have higher intentions to start a business. Although their findings highlight a positive relation between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions, they note that further research is necessary to universally support this finding.
Altogether, “entrepreneurship researchers, educators and practitioners are thus left with a dilemma regarding how the conflicting findings of the outcomes of
entrepreneurship education should be interpreted” (Martin et al, p. 5). As the review of the literature here above showed, one possible interpretation is that
entrepreneurship education indeed is positively associated with entrepreneurial intentions. However, there still remain many uncertain, contradictory findings about the relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions. In
this manner, it may be helpful to enhance our knowledge which factors influence the effectiveness of entrepreneurial education (Bae et al, 2014). Also, it may be helpful to further investigate- and extend entrepreneurial intentions as an outcome of entrepreneurship education by introducing the self-perceived effect to not follow a master and focus on being an entrepreneur as an outcome. Thereby, it may also be useful to newly introduce the self-perceived effect to follow a master, but a more entrepreneurial-oriented master as another outcome of entrepreneurship education in order to better interpret the (positive) relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions.
2.1.2 Defining Minor Entrepreneurship “University of Amsterdam (UvA) and Minor Entrepreneurship “Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR)
As the minor entrepreneurship students of these universities were the main targets of this study, a short explanation about their minor entrepreneurship programs is stated below.
In general, a minor entrepreneurship program in The Netherlands usually lasts two semesters and is taught very intensively; during the minor entrepreneurship program no other courses are given to participating students. Students are subject to both lectures as working groups and they can achieve 30 ECTS (European Credit Transfer System; internationally known expression of the accomplishment of a number of course credits.
Minor entrepreneurship programs have several advantages in comparison with shorter, less extensive entrepreneurship programs. The most common form of shorter
entrepreneurial education is education through entrepreneurship workshops. In comparison with entrepreneurial workshops, minor entrepreneurship programs have multiple advantages. For example, previous research found that entrepreneurship education in a “semester” format positively affects the learning of students (Cepeda et al, 2009). Another aspect of minor entrepreneurship programs in The Netherlands is that they contain academic- as well as practical oriented learning goals. Previous literature especially emphasizes the importance of a practical-oriented learning orientation (Minniti and Bygrave, 2001; Lee, Chang and Lim, 2005). As a result, many entrepreneurship education programs offer “venture creation” courses in order to provide students with practical experience (Bae et al, 2014), which is expected to positively influence the relation of entrepreneurial education programs and
entrepreneurial intentions.
Minor entrepreneurship “University of Amsterdam” (UvA)
The Entrepreneurship Minor is offered by the Faculty of Economics and Business through the Amsterdam Center for Entrepreneurship (ACE). It aims to provide students an academic- as well as practical-oriented introduction to the different phenomena of entrepreneurship. An example of an academic-oriented course is “Cases in Entrepreneurship”. In this course, students will use case studies to discuss topics like entrepreneurial opportunity discovery, the capture of value and motivation in entrepreneurial organisations and/or small teams. From a practical-oriented
perspective, the course “Entrepreneurship in Practice” is important. In this course, students are obliged to set up a company. At the end of the period, their business must terminate operations. Thereby, during the course, students need to write a business
plan. In sum, this course offers practical information- and experience to minor entrepreneurship students.
Minor entrepreneurship “Erasmus University Rotterdam” (EUR)
The minor Entrepreneurship & New Business Venturing is offered by the Erasmus University Rotterdam (department: Strategic Management & Entrepreneurship) and the Rotterdam School of Management. The minor mainly focuses on identifying and exploiting real life (successful) business opportunities. It enables students to
personally experience what it takes to become an entrepreneur, by building up their own business in a team of students. The content of this minor is practical-oriented, although students also are taught about entrepreneurship in an academic way. More specifically, the core of the minor is the development of an own business in a team of students and under supervision of expert entrepreneur. However, at the same time, students are taught about the different phenomena of entrepreneurship, such as opportunity recognition and financial strategies.
The minor entrepreneurship of the Erasmus University of Rotterdam differs from most minors in The Netherlands as it only consists of 15 ECTS.
2.2 Factors that possibly influence the relationship between following a minor entrepreneurship program and (1) the self-perceived effect of minor
entrepreneurship students to not follow a master and focus on being an entrepreneur- and (2) the self-perceived effect of minor entrepreneurship students to follow a master, but a more entrepreneurial-oriented one.
Entrepreneurial intention
As stated earlier, current literature has presented inconsistent and ambiguous findings regarding the relationship between entrepreneurship education and
entrepreneurial intentions (Martin et al, 2013). Negative relationships or no
relationships between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions were found by, for example, van Oosterbeek et al (2012), Graevenitz et al (2010), Mentoor and Friedrich (2007), Fayolle, Gailly and Lassas-Clerc (2006) and Fayolle and Gailly (2009).
Oosterbeek et al (2010) measured the relationship between entrepreneurial education and entrepreneurial intentions and found that it significantly affected
entrepreneurial intentions. More specifically this study evaluated the impact of a SMC program (Student Mini-Company program) in a vocational college in the Netherlands in the academic year 2005/2006 on entrepreneurial intentions. The SMC program was chosen, as it was the most dominant entrepreneurship education program during that academic year. Their analyses were based on a sample of 250 students and,
eventually, the main finding of Oosterbeek et al (2002) indicated that the SMC program negatively significantly affected entrepreneurial intentions.
Graevenitz et al (2010), similarly, found a small negative relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions, as they found a small negative relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions. For this study, data was collected through the Munich School of Management at Ludwig-Maximillians Universitat Munich (LMU). The sample consisted of 357 undergraduate students, but statistics were presented for a sample of 189 students, as their responses to pre- and post-questionnaires were able to match. Graevenitz et al ultimately found a small negative relationship between
entrepreneurship education programs and entrepreneurial intentions.
Contrarily, there is also evidence of research that found a positive relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions (Martin et al, 2013; Sanchez, 2013; Bae et al 2014; Galloway and Brown, 2002; Martin et al (2013) demonstrated a statistically significant relationship between entrepreneurship
education and entrepreneurial intentions. They conducted a meta-analysis of a total of 42 studies. These 42 independent studies together provided a sample of 16,657
students. Studies came from countries all over the world. For example, studies from France, Norway, USA, Australia, Tanzania and Pakistan were included. Ultimately, their analysis showed a small but significant relationship between entrepreneurship education programs and entrepreneurial intentions.
Bae et al (2014) also extensively examined the relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions. In their research a well-designed meta-analysis about the relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions is presented. They meta-analysed over 70 studies with a total sample size of 37,285 individuals. The studies that were included in the meta-analysis came from all over the world. For example, there were studies from Pakistan,
Portugal, Uganda, Germany and USA. Most studies were focused on entrepreneurship courses that lasted a semester and only a small part encompassed entrepreneurship workshops. Eventually, conducted analyses yielded a small, but significant correlation between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions. However, it must be noted that after controlling this relationship for pre-education entrepreneurial intentions, it lost its significance.
Galloway and Brown (2002), in their research, also reported a positive relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intention. They found that individuals who have followed entrepreneurship courses on a university level have higher intentions to start a business. Galloway and Brown (2002) investigated the differences between students who followed university-level
entrepreneurship courses and students who students who not followed university-level entrepreneurship courses. A sample of 1933 (alumni-) students was used in order to conduct the analyses.
Zhang, Duysters and Cloodt (2014) also did an attempt in order to clarify the relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions. Their study presented a significant positive relationship between entrepreneurial education and entrepreneurial intentions. Data was collected from ten Chinese universities, five universities that offered entrepreneurship courses and five universities that not offered entrepreneurship courses, and yielded 494 effective responses. According to the results, Zhang, Duysters and Cloodt (2014) accept the hypothesis that
entrepreneurship education is positively related to entrepreneurial intention. In fact, they were able to show that entrepreneurial education had a direct effect on
entrepreneurial intentions. However, the results were not controlled for pre-education entrepreneurial intentions, thus, causation cannot simply be accepted.
Turker and Selcuk (2008) approached the relationship between entrepreneurial education and entrepreneurial intentions from a perspective that is probably the
closest to the approach of present study. Turker and Selcuk aim to answer the research question which factors affect entrepreneurial intention of university students? They tested their proposed model on 300 university students, which came from two state- and two private universities, in Turkey. The results indicated that entrepreneurial intentions of students positively related with perceived educational support. In other words, entrepreneurial education is a factor that could influence entrepreneurial intentions.
Although their findings highlight that educational support is one of the factors that influences entrepreneurial intentions, it is also suggested that further research is necessary to explore this particular factor that influences entrepreneurial intentions, and possibly other factors that may be able to do so (Turker and Selcuk, 2008).
Present study aims to discover factors that influence two specific outcomes of entrepreneurship education, namely, (1) the self-perceived effect to not follow a master and focus on being an entrepreneur- and (2) the self-perceived effect to follow a master but a more entrepreneurial-oriented master. And, as introduced earlier, entrepreneurial intention is a commonly researched factor in relation to
entrepreneurship education. In fact, based on research of, among other scholars, Bae et al (2014), Martin et al (2013), Galloway and Brown (2002) and Zhang, Duysters and Cloodt (2014) it is suggested that entrepreneurial education and entrepreneurial intentions statistically relate with each other. And, thereby, it may be expected that if someone after following a minor entrepreneurship program has high levels of
entrepreneurial intentions, he or she wants to be an entrepreneur and not follow an additional master. Following this line of reasoning, it is hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 1a: Entrepreneurial intention positively influences the self-perceived
effect of minor entrepreneurship students to not follow a master and focus on being an entrepreneur.
Logically, if it is expected that entrepreneurial intention have an influence on the self-perceived effect of minor entrepreneurship students to not follow a master and focus on being an entrepreneur, this automatically implies that entrepreneurial intention also has an influence on the self-perceived influence of minor entrepreneurship students to follow a master, but a more entrepreneurial one. Roughly stated, the self-perceived intention of minor entrepreneurship students to not follow a master and focus on being an entrepreneur increases, it is expected that their self-perceived intention to follow a master, but a more entrepreneurial one decreases. So, this leads to the following hypotheses.
Hypothesis 1b: Entrepreneurial intention negatively influences the self-perceived
effect of minor entrepreneurship students to follow a master, but a more entrepreneurial-oriented one.
The Big Five
In the 1990s, the Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality emerged. Ever since, this model has provided “a framework for organizing a vast and often confusing variety of personality variables into a meaningful, parsimonious, and yet relatively
Seibert and Lumpkin, 2010, p. 383). The FFM consists of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness to experience.
Zhao, Seibert and Lumpkin (2010) conducted a set of meta-analyses to examine the relationship between personality and entrepreneurial intentions and entrepreneurial performance. They included a total of 60 studies with a total sample size of 15,423 individuals. They expect that conscientiousness, openness to
experience, emotional stability, extraversion and risk propensity will be positively associated with entrepreneurial intentions. On the contrary, they expect that agreeableness will be negatively associated with entrepreneurial intentions.
Conscientiousness
Firstly, the relationship between conscientiousness and entrepreneurial intentions is investigated. Conscientiousness is described as a personality dimension that offers information about individuals’ level of achievement, motivation to work, organizational- and planning skills, self-control, ethic- and responsibility levels towards other individuals and the acknowledgement of traditional norms (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Zhao, Seibert & Lumpkin, 2010). According to Ismael et al (2009) a conscious personality may be of advantage for entrepreneurs. They argue that it may serve entrepreneurs in aspects such as planning and managing a company and the interaction with stakeholders, on an internal level as well as on an external level. In addition, Locke (2000) emphasizes work goal orientation, which is a trait that can as mentioned above be associated with conscientiousness, as also an important feature of an entrepreneur. High levels of such traits could have an influence on individuals’
intentions to become an entrepreneur. Based on this discussion, the following hypothesis is stated:
Hypothesis 2a: Conscientiousness influences the self-perceived effect of minor
entrepreneurship students to not follow a master and focus on being an entrepreneur.
However, as personality traits such as levels of the will to achieve something, motivation to work and organization- and planning skills are strongly associated with conscientiousness (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Zhao, Seibert and Lumpkin, 2010), it could be that these traits are also influence the self-perceived effect of minor
entrepreneurship to follow a master, but a more entrepreneurial-oriented one. Indeed, from this perspective conscientiousness could trigger the willingness to also follow a master entrepreneurship. Thus, the following hypothesis is presented:
Hypothesis 2b: Conscientiousness influences the self-perceived intention of minor
entrepreneurship students to follow a master, but a more entrepreneurial-oriented one.
Secondly, the personality trait openness to experience is described. Someone who possesses this personality trait is assumed to be “intellectually curious,
imaginative and creative; someone who seeks out to find new ideas and alternative values and aesthetic standards” (Zhao, Seibert & Lumpkin, 2010, p. 385).
Accordingly, openness to experience is closely related to the one of the most crucial characteristics of entrepreneurship, namely, creativity. Moreover,
ideas-, vision- and goals (Ferreira et al, 2012). Consequently, it seems logical that individuals who possess high levels of openness to experience appeal more to new, unconventional lifestyles and thus are have higher levels of entrepreneurial intentions. Zhao, Seibert and Lumpkin (2010) support this claim by providing evidence that demonstrates the positive relationship between openness to experience and entrepreneurial intentions. This leads to the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 3a: Openness to experience positively influences the self-perceived effect
of minor entrepreneurship students to not follow a master and focus on being an entrepreneur.
At the same time, logically, if it is expected that minor entrepreneurship students with high levels of openness to experience are likely to not follow a master and focus on being an entrepreneur, it is also expected that minor entrepreneurship students are less likely to follow a master afterwards, even if it is a more
entrepreneurial-oriented one. Their imaginative and creative personality will sooner be triggered to perform their ideas than to learn more about entrepreneurship. Therefore, the next hypothesis is stated:
Hypothesis 3b: Openness to experience negatively influences the self-perceived effect
of minor entrepreneurship students to follow a master but a more entrepreneurial-oriented one.
Thirdly, emotional stability is linked to entrepreneurial intentions. Emotional stability is referred to as people who are calm, balanced, even-tempered and brave.
On the other hand, people who lack emotional stability are often vulnerable to factors such as anxiety, stress and other negative emotions (Zhao, Seibert & Lumpkin, 2010). Current literature describes entrepreneurs as individuals who are willing to face pressure, bear uncertainty and take on burdens; entrepreneurs “go for it”, while other individuals might feel discouraged (Locke, 2000; Zhao, Seibert & Lumpkin, 2010). Logically, people who possess personality traits such as the ability to stay calm and balanced in stressful situations, which are inevitable in a life as entrepreneur, are more likely to become an entrepreneur. On the other hand, people who are vulnerable to factors such as stress and negative emotions are logically less likely to become entrepreneurs. Zhao, Seibert and Lumpkin (2010) endorse this claim by providing evidence that emotional stability is positively related to entrepreneurial intentions. Based on this discussion, it could be said that entrepreneurs are generally people with high levels of emotional stability. Subsequently, this leads to the following
hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4a: Emotional stability positively influences the self-perceived effect of
minor entrepreneurship students to not follow a master and focus on being an entrepreneur.
On the contrary, it is imaginable that people who score low on emotional stability are less willing to face pressure, bear uncertainty and take on burdens; those individuals might be more appealed to follow a master instead of entering the challenging and stressful world of entrepreneurship. They may be extremely interested in following a master after their minor entrepreneurship, however, it is expected that they are not
interested in a more entrepreneurial-oriented one. Here fore, the following hypotheses is formulated:
Hypothesis 4b: Emotional stability negatively influences the self-perceived effect of
minor entrepreneurship students to follow a master, but a more entrepreneurial one.
Next, the relationship between extraversion and entrepreneurial intention is evaluated. Extravert people are described as “gregarious, outgoing, warm and friendly; they are energetic, active, assertive and dominant in social situations; they experience more positive emotions and are optimistic; they seek excitement and stimulation” (Zhao, Seibert & Lumpkin, 2010, p. 387). Some of these traits, for example optimism and energetic, are often associated with entrepreneurs (Hmieleski and Baron, 2009). In addition, research of Costa, McCrae & Holland (1984) demonstrate that extravert individuals are remarkably interested in the world of entrepreneurship. Moreover, Zhao, Seibert and Lumpkin (2010) also show a positive relationship between
extraversion and entrepreneurial intentions. Thus, from this perspective, it is expected that extravert people are attracted to become entrepreneurs. Following this line of reasoning, the following hypotheses is stated:
Hypothesis 5a: Extraversion positively influences the self-perceived intention of
minor entrepreneurship students to focus on being an entrepreneur
Contrarily, people with low levels of extraversion are assumed to be less energetic, less active and less optimistic. They are less initiative, less persuasive and they are argued to be less capable for leadership roles (Ciavarella et al, 2004). To put it
simply, whereas people with high levels of extraversion possess high levels of
personality traits that are strongly associated with extraversion, people with low levels of extraversion possess low levels of personality traits that are strongly associated with extraversion. It is expected that “these kind of people” are less likely to pursue a career as an entrepreneur (Locke, 2000). They might me more attracted to follow a master, however, there is no reason to expect that they are triggered towards a more entrepreneurial-oriented master. Based on this way of reasoning, the following hypothesis is suggested:
Hypothesis 5b: Extraversion negatively influences the self-perceived intention of
minor entrepreneurship students for further education
Lastly, the role of agreeableness with regards to entrepreneurial intention is
investigated. Agreeableness is a personality characteristic that refers to the ability to assess one’s attitude and behaviour in relation to other people. Someone who scores high on agreeableness is considered to be trustable, altruistic and cooperative.
Furthermore, people who possess high levels of agreeableness are often characterized as people who show sympathy for others and are concerned for the needs of others (Zhao, Seibert & Lumpkin, 2010).
Current literature demonstrates mixed results regarding the relationship
between agreeableness and entrepreneurial intention. A small number of studies argue that agreeableness could be beneficial for entrepreneurship as it, for example, may facilitates entrepreneurs to effectively build a network (201). Far more studies, however, demonstrate a negative effect between agreeableness and entrepreneurial intention (Ismael et a, 2009). In line with this manner, Zhao, Seibert and Lumpkin
(2010) state that entrepreneurship often involves conflicts. And, in conflicts, altruistic behaviour is assumed to be not beneficial.
In their meta-analyses, after conducting multiple regressions, they found a small but statistically significant negative relationship. In other words, the results of Zhao, Seibert and Lumpkin indicate that people with high levels of agreeableness are negatively associated with entrepreneurial intentions. Additionally, Brice (2004) also claims that agreeableness is negatively associated with entrepreneurial intentions. He argues that high levels of agreeableness does not get along with the expectations of innovative behaviour that is heavily related to entrepreneurship. Instead, people may be more interested in, for example, follow a master. Following this line of reasoning, the next hypothesis is presented:
Hypothesis 6a: Agreeableness negatively influences the self-perceived effect of
minor entrepreneurship students to not follow a master and focus on being an entrepreneur.
On the contrary, if high levels of agreeableness negatively influence the
self-perceived effect of minor entrepreneurship students to not follow a master and focus on being an entrepreneur, on first sight, it may be expected that it positively
influences with the self-perceived effect to follow a master, but a more
entrepreneurial master. However, high levels of agreeableness imply most likely career interests in social occupations such as social work or teaching (Barrick, Mount and Gupta, 2003). Therefore, it is expected that students with high levels of
agreeableness will not change to a more entrepreneurial master. Based on this line of reasoning, the following hypothesis is presented:
Hypothesis 6b: Agreeableness negatively influences the self-perceived intention of
minor entrepreneurship students for further education
Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy
In entrepreneurship literature, it is suggested that self-efficacy influences the
development of entrepreneurial intentions (Boyd and Vozikis, 1994). Wilson, Kickul and Martino (2007) argue that entrepreneurial self-efficacy plays a key role in determining the amount of interest that someone has in pursuing an entrepreneurial career. They argue that self-efficacy must be seen as an antecedent to career choices. Accordingly, Krueger and Brazeal (1994) argue that self-efficacy is a strong predictor of the intention to become an entrepreneur.
Self-efficacy is defined as “individuals self-perceptions of their skills and abilities” (Wilson, Kickul & Marlino, 2007, p. 389). In an entrepreneurial context, self-efficacy is described as the belief of individuals about their own abilities to manage challenging goals, attain success and control cognition during a business start up phase (Maritz & Brown, 2013). Scholars believe that people are motivated by their self-efficacy. Moreover, research has shown that people with high self-efficacy for a particular task are more capable of pursuing, and then persisting that certain task (Bandura, 1997). Correspondingly, Shane, Lock and Collins (2003) suggest that people with high levels of entrepreneurial self-efficacy will normally “exert more effort for a greater amount of time, persist through setbacks, and develop better plans and strategies for the entrepreneurial task” (p. 267).
Wilson, Kickul and Marlino (2007) conducted two studies in order to investigate the relationship between self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intentions. However, they also included the variable gender in their analyses. Especially their
second study is relevant for present study. In this study, a sample of 933 MBA students of seven graduate programs of universities was analysed. It was found that entrepreneurship education significantly increased the self-efficacy of females in comparison to males.
Hence, in terms of the relationship between self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intentions, the results supports current literature by supporting the claim that self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intentions are related. In regards to present study, it is thus expected that minor entrepreneurship students with high levels of self-efficacy are more likely to not follow a master and focus on being an entrepreneur. Seemingly, this is a logical assumption, as it can easily be imagined that people who possess high levels of trust of being capable to be an entrepreneur will choose to not follow a master and pursue a life as an entrepreneur. Based on this discussion, therefore, the following hypothesis is presented:
Hypothesis 7a: Entrepreneurial self-efficacy positively influences the self-perceived
effect of minor entrepreneurship students to not follow a master and focus on being an entrepreneur.
Thus, it is expected that entrepreneurial efficacy positively relates to the self-perceived effect of minor entrepreneurship students to not follow a master and focus on being an entrepreneur. At the same time, this implies that entrepreneurial self-efficacy negatively relates to the self-perceived effect to follow a master, but a more-entrepreneurial one. In line with this reasoning, people who have high levels of entrepreneurial self-efficacy will be more likely to “take the plunge” when they
experience an opportunity instead of focus on following another entrepreneurial education programs. This leads to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 7b: Entrepreneurial self-efficacy negatively influences the self-perceived
intention of minor entrepreneurship students for further education
Grade Quality Minor
Although not every minor entrepreneurship program in The Netherlands is the same, they all aim to enhance student’s entrepreneurial skills on a practical level as well as on an academic level. On an academic level, students are introduced to different phenomena of entrepreneurship. For example, the University of Amsterdam (UvA) offers the course “Cases in Entrepreneurship” that discusses important
entrepreneurial topics such as entrepreneurial opportunity discovery, risk and uncertainty and motivation in entrepreneurial organisations or small teams. At the same time, the University of Amsterdam also emphasizes the importance of a practical introduction of entrepreneurship. Hence, the course “Entrepreneurship in
Practice” is offered. In this course, students are provided the practical experience in
multiple different aspects that are necessary for starting an own business.
A case study of entrepreneurship education of the University of Twente shows a similar minor entrepreneurship program structure. The courses of this minor also balance between academic knowledge- and practical knowledge about
entrepreneurship. On the one hand, students are taught about the legal aspects of SMEs, while on the other hand student are stimulated to write a business plan for a company they want to start (Van der Sijde & Ridder, 2008). The minor
entrepreneurship programs of the University of Amsterdam and the University of Rotterdam even obligate their students to start a business during the minor.
In present study, the grade of the quality of the minor explains how students valued the minor entrepreneurship program they participated in. It is expected that people who are satisfied with the quality of the minor valued the minor with a high grade. However, the possibility that students valued a minor entrepreneurship program with a high grade could be the result of multiple factors. For example, students may have been perfectly satisfied with starting a business during the minor. If so, it may be that these students will be more likely to not follow a master anymore and focus on being an entrepreneur. On the other hand, students could also have highly rated the minor entrepreneurship due to the more academic and theoretical parts of the minor. In this scenario, it may be that students were triggered to follow a more entrepreneurial-oriented master.
In other words, it is expected that the grade of the quality of the minor influences the self-perceived effect to not follow a master and focus on being an entrepreneur as well as the self-perceived effect to follow a master, but a more
entrepreneurial one. However, too little information is known to indicate the direction of these relationships. Therefore, it is hypothesized that
Hypothesis 8a: The grade of the quality of the minor influences the self-perceived
effect of minor entrepreneurship students to not follow a master and focus on being an entrepreneur.
Hypothesis 8b: The grade of the quality of the minor influences the self-perceived
effect of minor entrepreneurship students to follow a master, but a more entrepreneurial one.
“Propedeuse”
A “propedeuse” corresponds with the first 60 ECTs of a bachelor program of a university or university of applied sciences. In the Netherlands, universities try to stimulate students to obtain their propedeuse within one academic year (De Gruijter, Yildiz and Hart, 2006). The obtainment of a propedeuse within one academic year is seen as a form of measuring further academic success, and therefore, it may be associated with the development of entrepreneurial intentions.
To my knowledge, there is no study that further investigates the possible relationship of obtaining a propedeuse within one academic year and the
self-perceived effect of minor entrepreneurship students to not follow a master and focus on being an entrepreneur- and the self-perceived effect of minor entrepreneurship students to follow a master, but a more entrepreneurial one. However, a possible logical reasoning about the obtainment of a propedeuse within one academic year and the two introduced outcomes of entrepreneurship education could be that students who obtain their propedeuse within one academic year are eager for studying and thus are likely to follow a master, and may be less eager to focus on being an entrepreneur. Despite of this reasoning, it could evenly be possible that students obtain their
propedeuse within one academic year and yet develop an intention to not follow a master and focus on being an entrepreneur. In addition, there could be tons of other potential factors that, after students’ obtained their bachelor, influences self-perceived
effect to not follow a master and focus on being an entrepreneur- and the self-perceived effect to follow a master, but a more entrepreneurial one.
Hence, following this line of reasoning, it is expected that the variable “propedeuse” does not influences any of the two outcomes. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 9a: The obtainment of a “propedeuse” within one academic year does
not influence the self-perceived effect of minor entrepreneurship students to not follow a master, but focus on being an entrepreneur
Hypothesis 9b: The obtainment of a “propedeuse” within one academic year does
not influence the self-perceived intention of minor entrepreneurship students to follow a master, but a more entrepreneurial one.
University
Entrepreneurial education reflects high levels of similarity in terms of teaching content and teaching methods (Katz, 2003). Particularly, it is assumed that
universities through entrepreneurship education programs aim to improve individual’s knowledge base- and skills with regards to starting a business (Hytti & O’Gorman, 2004).
A closer look at the participating of present study shows that also between these universities high levels of similarities arise in terms of teaching content and teaching methods. Also, it makes clear that every minor entrepreneurship program indeed aims to improve people’s knowledge base- and skills regarding to starting a
business. However, logically, there are some small changes among the different entrepreneurship minor in The Netherlands.
As stated earlier, for instance, the university of Amsterdam and the university of Rotterdam both aim to both academically- and practically enhance students’ knowledge about entrepreneurship. Their minor entrepreneurship programs have already extensively been highlighted earlier in present study.
The “Vrije Universiteit (VU) also offers a minor which show high levels of similarity with the entrepreneurship minors of Amsterdam and Rotterdam. Although this specific minor is slightly more theoretical-oriented, it also offers multiple practical-oriented aspects.
Leiden University offers an entrepreneurship minor specifically oriented on complex societal challenges. However, although the teaching content is somewhat differs from most entrepreneurship minors, the main aim is still to develop scientific knowledge about entrepreneurship and develop entrepreneurial skills.
The “Hogeschool van Amsterdam” (HvA) and the “Haagse Hogeschool” (HH) are more practical-oriented. Despite of the fact that they also emphasize the
importance of the development of theoretical learning content, there main focus is clearly practical-oriented.
Altogether, having considered the aims of the different entrepreneurship minor programs of universities that participated in this study, it can be concluded that
theoretical- and practical aspects are nearly equally important. Therefore, no big differences in terms of the influence of a university on the self-perceived effect to not follow a master and focus on being an entrepreneur- and the self-perceived effect to follow a master, but a more entrepreneurial-oriented one. In line with this reasoning, the following hypotheses are stated:
Hypothesis 10a: Choice of university does not influence the self-perceived effect to
not follow a master and focus on being an entrepreneur.
Hypothesis 10b: Choice of university does not influence the self-perceived effect to
follow a master, but a more entrepreneurial one.
Faculty
In the Netherlands, universities have different faculties. Students, for example, could participate to a study that belongs to the Faculty of Law or the Faculty of Ecoonomics and Business. Despite of the fact that there is to my knowledge no existing study that directly examines the possible influence of faculty on the relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions, nonetheless, indirectly, several studies found interesting results regarding this specific relationship.
Fayolle and Gailly (2015), for instance, conducted a study to investigate whether or not entrepreneurship education programs really influence participants’ attitudes and intention towards entrepreneurship. More interestingly, they also tested how past experience to entrepreneurship is related to this relationship. Fayolle and Gailly (2015) used a sample of 239 French students from various master’s programs in management who all attended a certain entrepreneurship education program. It must be noted that this program only consists of 24 hours of class time, spanned over three days. In other words, the research of Fayolle and Gailly (2015) was based on an entrepreneurship education workshop. However, their results demonstrated interesting findings. Firstly, they showed that entrepreneurial education had a significant
influence on entrepreneurial intentions, although this effect was only significant in the medium term (i.e. measured six months after the entrepreneurship education
program). Secondly, Fayolle and Gailly (2015) demonstrated that this effect was stronger for people who had less prior exposure to entrepreneurship. From a “faculty” point of view, the effect of a minor entrepreneurship on entrepreneurial intentions may be stronger for students who were not exposed to any form of entrepreneurship in their main study.
Bae et al (2014) found similar results. From their results it became clear that the positive relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions is weaker for people with an entrepreneurial background. Thus, it may be expected that students who in their main study were exposed to forms of
entrepreneurship experience a weaker effect of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intentions.
Following this line of reasoning, the next hypothesis is stated:
Hypothesis 11a: “Faculty’ influences the self-perceived effect of minor
entrepreneurship students to not follow a master, but focus on being an entrepreneur.
On the other hand, it could also be possible that the increased entrepreneurial intentions of students not directly lead to not follow a master and focus on being an entrepreneur, but that it, in the first place, leads to “a switch” in terms of study. Students may be affected in such a way that they want to learn more about the
phenomenon entrepreneurship, instead of directly starting an own business. From this perspective, therefore, it is hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 11b: “Faculty” influences the self-perceived effect of minor
entrepreneurship students to follow a master, but a more entrepreneurial-oriented one.
Gender
Scholars often researched the role of gender differences with regards to
entrepreneurial intentions. A bulk of empirical research has resulted in mixed findings (Haus et al, 2013) according the relationship between gender, entrepreneurship
education and entrepreneurial intentions.
Wilson, Kickul and Marlino (2007), for example, found results that indicate that the relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions is significantly stronger for women than for men. Additionally, BarNir, Watson and Hutchins (2001) emphasize the fact that the perceived knowledge gap with regards to entrepreneurship is smaller for men than for women. From this perspective, thus, men are less likely to let entrepreneurial education influence their entrepreneurial intentions.
However, Bae et al (2014) demonstrate findings that indicate that there are no significant differences between men and women in terms of the influence of
entrepreneurial education on entrepreneurial intentions. They in fact conclude that “there are no universally accepted gender differences for the entrepreneurship education-entrepreneurial intentions relationship” (p. 223).
Therefore, conclusively, the following hypotheses are suggested:
Hypothesis 12a: Gender does not influence the self-perceived effect of minor
Hypothesis 12b: Gender does not influence the self-perceived effect of minor
entrepreneurship students to follow a master, but a more entrepreneurial-oriented one.
3. Methods
In this chapter, the research methods are described. It also provides an overview of the conducted research. Additionally the nature of the research approach is presented, as well as information about the measures and data collection.
3.1. Research design
This research aims to determine the factors that influence the relationship between completing a minor entrepreneurship program and (1) the self-perceived effect to not follow a master after the bachelor phase and focus on being an entrepreneur- and (2) completing a minor entrepreneurship program and the self-perceived effect to follow a master, but a more entrepreneurial-oriented one.
Data were obtained through an online survey. The survey consisted of questions that were (1) adopted from existing literature, or (2) were self-composed.
3.2. Measures
3.2.1 Dependent variables
Participants responded to a 5-point Likert scale (1=Strongly disagree, 5=Strongly agree) to measure the construct “self-perceived effect of minor entrepreneurship students to not follow a master and focus on being an entrepreneur” and the construct “the self-perceived effect of minor entrepreneurship students to follow a master, but a more entrepreneurial one”.
So, importantly, there are two different constructs that are measured individually as outcomes of entrepreneurship education.
Both measures are self-composed, due to the fact that there is no previous study addressing these specific constructs.
3.2.2 Independent variables
Entrepreneurial Intention
Entrepreneurial intention was measured with a 5-item scale. The scale for
entrepreneurial intention was self-composed, but based on the study of Rodriquez-Cohard and Rueda-Cantuche (2011). Respondents were asked to respond on a 5-point Likert scale to questions such as “Because of the minor, my professional goal is to become an entrepreneur” and “Because of the minor, I will do anything it takes to become an entrepreneur”.
“The Big Five”
The NEO PI-R personality model of Costa and McCrae (1992) forms the basis of this independent variable. The complete scale of Costa and McCrae consists of 240 items. It measures the factors extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness neuroticism and openness to experience. Present study made a selection of twenty test-items. Test-items were evenly distributed between the five factors; 4 Test-items per factor. Participants responded to a 5-point-Likert scale to measure the factors. They were asked to
respond to questions such as “I am relaxed most of the times”, “I like order”, and “I
Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy
In order to measure the entrepreneurial intention, a self-composed scale was used. The scale consists of 5 items and participants were asked to respond on a 5-point Likert scale. They were asked to respond to questions such as “Because of the minor,
I feel more confident when it comes to starting a business” and “The minor inspired me to start a business”.
Grade quality minor
In order to measure how minor entrepreneurship students measured the quality of the minor, respondents were asked to grade the quality of the minor on a scale from 1 to 10.
“Propedeuse”
Respondents were given the question whether they finished their first 60 ECT’s (i.e. “propedeuse”) of their bachelor within one academic year. Participants could simply answer this question with Yes or No.
University
Dummy variables were included for the independent variable university. Respondents were asked at which university they participated in the minor entrepreneurship
program. It showed that respondents came from six different universities, namely, the University of Amsterdam, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Leiden University, Free University Amsterdam, School of Applied Science of Amsterdam and the School of Applied Science of Den Haag. Respondents that answered that they were from the
University of Amsterdam were coded as 0, while respondents from every other university or other higher education institute were coded as 1.
Faculty
Also for the independent variable faculty, dummy variables were included.
Respondents were asked at which faculty they followed their bachelors program. A closer look at their answers indicated that the respondents came from a lot of
different, widespread faculties. For example participants were, among other faculties, involved in Faculty of Social Sciences, Faculty of Law or Faculty of Medical
Sciences. However, respondents from a Faculty of Economics and Business faculty
from their particular university or other higher education institute were most common. These faculties were transformed into “FEB” and were coded as 0, while all other faculties were coded as 1.
Gender
The independent variable gender is transformed to a dummy variable. Men were coded as 0, while women were coded as 1.
3.3 Data collection and participants
3.3.1 Participants
A total of N=90 respondents participated in the study. N=72 participants filled in the complete survey. One participant filled in the survey as a “test” and therefore must be
deleted. Thus, effectively, N=89 respondents eventually participated in the study. For this study, a total of N=80 respondents were useful.
Every single respondent had finished, or almost finished a minor
entrepreneurship program, at the University of Amsterdam (N=51), the Erasmus University of Rotterdam (N=12), Leiden University (N=6), Free University (N=5), University of Applied Science of Amsterdam (N=4) and the University of Applied Science of Den Haag (N=1).
The sample size of the 80 respondents was not evenly distributed between males and females. 51 males (63.8%) and 29 females (36.2%) filled in the
questionnaire. The respondents were highly educated, which is a very logical result of the fact that every respondent must have had finished, or almost finished a minor entrepreneurship program. Eventually 54.0% had a University’s bachelor’s degree, while 23.0% also had a University’s master’s degree. 37.9% did not (yet) finished a bachelor’s program at a university and only 6.3% followed an educational program at a University of Applied Science (“HBO”). Furthermore, 79.3% of the respondents had a Dutch nationality, 14.9% had another nationality and 2.3% had a non EU-nationality.
Participation of this study was anonymous and the data was handled with confidentiality.
3.3.2 Procedure
The questionnaire was developed with the online survey system Qualtrics. The participants were approached through an online questionnaire. The questionnaire was spread out via Facebook and via mail. It was posted in several Facebook-groups of entrepreneurial education programs. For example, the questionnaire was promoted
through the “Minor Ondernemen” page of “De Haagse Hogeschool” and the “Minor Ondernemerschap HvA” page of “De Hogeschool van Amsterdam”. The
questionnaire was also, via e-mail, send to 269 alumni of the University of Amsterdam.
3.3.3 Study Materials
Respondents were asked to answer a total of 29 questions. Every participant
conducted the same version of the questionnaire. However, in order to collect the data to carefully elaborate the factors that influence the relationship between a minor entrepreneurship program and the self-perceived effect of minor entrepreneurship students to not follow a master and focus on being an entrepreneur- and the self-perceived effect of minor entrepreneurship students to follow a master, but a more entrepreneurial one, not all questions had to be taken into consideration. For this particular study, only questions 1, 5, 6, 8, 10, 22, 23, 26, 27 and 28 were relevant. The complete questionnaire can be found in Appendix 1.
4. Results
In this chapter, an overview of the results of the data analysis is presented. In order to correctly test the hypotheses of this study, first a reliability- and a correlation analysis were conducted. Next, several linear regression analyses were conducted in order to test the hypotheses. The program IBM SPPS Statistics version 22 was used to perform the analyses.
4.1 Descriptive statistics
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the dependent and independent variables.
Variables M SD % Minimum Maximum
1. Gender 63.8% 0.00 2.00 (% Men) 2. Propedeuse 65.0% 1.00 2.00 (% “Yes”) 3. GradeQualityMinor 7.50 1.543 1 10 4. Openness 3.58 .425 2.50 4.50 5. Neurotisicm 2.71 .693 1.25 4.25 6. Extraversion 3.52 .563 2.00 4.75 7. Agreeableness 3.96 .533 2.50 5.00 8. Conscientiousness 3.59 .618 1.50 5.00 9. Faculty .70 .460 0.00 1.00
10. University 58.6% 0.00 1.00 (% “UvA”) 11. SelfEfficacy 3.72 .926 1.00 5.00 12. Intention 3.00 .919 1.00 5.00 13. RelatedMaster 2.47 1.308 1.00 5.00 14. NoMaster 2.01 1.007 1.00 5.00 4.1 Reliability analysis
Generally, a reliability analysis is performed to check the reliability of a scale. For present study, to measure the reliability of the scales, Chronbach’s alpha were measured. Literature suggests that a Chronbach’s alpha of at least .6 or higher demonstrates an acceptable level of reliability of a scale (Nunnally, 1978).
Importantly, all the reversed-formulated questions were recoded. Also, there was no need to delete any of the items of one of the scales used in this study. The relevant Chronbach’s alphas of present study are presented here under.
Entrepreneurial Intention
The scale entrepreneurial intention consists of 5 items and has a Chronbach’s alpha of .902, which indicates a high internal consistency of the scale. The consistency did not get any bigger if one of the items was deleted. Therefore, no item was deleted.
“The Big Five”
The Big Five consist of five different variables, namely, conscientiousness, openness to experience, emotional stability, extraversion and agreeableness. Each of these
