An Up Am

Intention-based models of entrepreneurship education Francisco Liñána University of Seville, Spain Summary Despite the widespread development of entrepreneurship education initiatives in the last decades, a consensus definition about it has not been reached. As a consequence, there is also a lack of consistent classifications of educational activities. In this paper, our main objective is to develop a view of entrepreneurship education based on entrepreneurial intention models. Given the wide variety of this kind of training programmes being implemented, and their different effects on participants, it is also important for the proposed definition to allow the establishing of a useful classification. Finally, a preliminary test has been carried out, both on the validity of intention models and on the subsequent derived classification. Empirical results tend to validate the theoretical approach adopted. Keywords: entrepreneurship education, intention models, entrepreneurial intention, conceptualization, classification

1. Introduction Entrepreneurship education has been spreading over the last decades at a considerable pace. Courses are being implemented in universities, secondary schools, and even primary ones. At the university level, programmes are being developed enthusiastically. More recently, examples of Master degrees in entrepreneurship are starting to appear. Outside the educational system, there are courses and programmes carried out for specific audiences, especially for different subgroups of the unemployed and/or minorities. Taking into account all this widespread development, one should think that the theoretical bases of entrepreneurship education are solidly established. However, this is not the case. The absence of an accepted definition poses important problems, such as the controversy arising from the different objectives and varieties of entrepreneurship

a

F. Liñán, Associate Professor - Dept. of Applied Economics (Economía Aplicada I), University of Seville, Av. Ramón y Cajal, 1, E-41018 Seville (Spain); Tel.: +34954554487; Fax: +34954551636; email: [email protected]

1

education considered in the various studies. In fact, depending on the initial assumptions, these studies may reach opposite results. Or they may be referring to very dissimilar educational experiences. Authors such as Sexton & Bowman (1984) have claimed that entrepreneurship education has to be considered as an extension of entrepreneurship itself. Therefore, any attempt to define the former has to be based on a view of the latter. However, there is no consensus definition of entrepreneurship. And yet, it is essential, if the field is to be developed, to establish some theoretical foundations on which the “building” may be based. In this sense, intention models seem to be a very good starting point. There is a considerable agreement that intention is a necessary prerequisite both to being an entrepreneur and to carrying out specific behaviours after the start-up phase. The main objective of this paper, therefore, is to develop a view of entrepreneurship education based on an entrepreneurial intention model. Thus, after this introduction, we devote the following section to describing that entrepreneurial intention model. Section 3 attempts to define the concept of entrepreneurship education. Then, it will be used to establish a classification of educational activities. We believe this taxonomy may encompass all the different initiatives labelled as entrepreneurship education. Section 4 presents some empirical results that constitute a partial test on the validity of this approach. Firstly, we have tested intention models themselves, to see if they qualify as the basis for describing entrepreneurship. Secondly, we have checked the influence of entrepreneurship education activities on entrepreneurial intention of students. Finally, in section 5 we summarize our main conclusions.

2

2. Intention models Over the years, the decision to become an entrepreneur has been analysed using very different methodologies. Authors began looking for the existence of certain personality traits that could be associated with the entrepreneurial activity (McClelland, 1961). Later on, other studies have pointed to the importance of different characteristics such as age, gender, origin, religion, level of studies, labour experience, and so on (Reynolds et al., 1994; Storey, 1994). These are usually called “demographic” variables (Robinson et al., 1991). Both lines of analysis have allowed the identification of significant relationships among certain traits or demographic characteristics of the person, and the fulfilment of entrepreneurial behaviours. However, the predictive capacity has been very limited (Reynolds, 1997). From the theoretical point of view, those approaches have been criticized (Gartner, 1989; Robinson et al., 1991; Krueger et al., 2000; Liñán et al., 2002), both for their methodological and conceptual problems and for their low explanatory capacity. From a third perspective, since the decision to become an entrepreneur may be plausibly considered as voluntary and conscious (Krueger et al., 2000), it seems reasonable to analyze how that decision is taken. In this sense, entrepreneurial intention would be a previous and determinant element towards performing entrepreneurial behaviours (Fayolle & Gailly, 2004; Kolvereid, 1996). In turn, the intention to carry out a given behaviour will depend on the person's attitudes towards that behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). A more favourable attitude would increase the intention of carrying it out. In this manner, this “attitude approach” would be preferable to those traditionally used, such as the trait or the demographic approaches (Robinson et al., 1991; Krueger et al., 2000). Thus, attitudes would measure the extent to which an individual positively or negatively

3

evaluates something. Attitudes are relatively stable, but they change according to time and situation. In this paper, we especially rely on two contributions, due to their influence on recent research. In the first place, Shapero & Sokol’s (1982) theory of the “entrepreneurial event” and, secondly, the much more highly structured theory of “planned behaviour” (Ajzen, 1991). These two models present a high level of mutual compatibility (Krueger et al., 2000). Our work, therefore, starts from an integration of both. The theory of the entrepreneurial event considers firm creation as the result of the interaction among contextual factors, which would act through their influence on the individual's perceptions. The consideration of the entrepreneurial option would take place as a consequence of some external change -a precipitating event- (Peterman & Kennedy, 2003). People’s answers to that external event will depend on their perceptions about the available alternatives. There are two basic kinds of perceptions: – Perceived desirability refers to the degree to which a person feels an attraction towards a given behaviour (to become an entrepreneur). Similarly, – Perceived feasibility is defined as the degree to which people consider themselves personally able to carry out that behaviour. The presence of role models, mentors or partners would be a decisive element in establishing the individual's feasibility level. In turn, both types of perceptions are determined by cultural and social factors through their influence on the individual's value system (Shapero & Sokol, 1982). Therefore, external circumstances would not determine behaviours directly, but rather they would be the result of (conscious or unconscious) analysis carried out by the

4

person about the desirability and feasibility of the different possible alternatives in that situation. Along the same line, but much more detailed, Ajzen (1991) develops a psychological model of “planned behaviour”. This is a theory that may be applied to nearly all voluntary behaviours and it provides quite good results in very diverse fields, including the choice of professional career (Ajzen, 2001; Kolvereid, 1996). According to it, a narrow relationship would exist between the intention of carrying out a given behaviour and its effective performance, as Figure 1 shows. Intention becomes the fundamental element towards explaining behaviour. It indicates the effort that the person will make to carry out that behaviour. And so, it captures the motivational factors that influence behaviour. As shown in Figure 1, if individuals consider the implementation of a given behaviour within their reach, this makes them try harder. More specifically, “perceived behavioural control” would be defined as the perception of ease or difficulty in the fulfilment of the behaviour of interest (Ajzen, 1991). It is, therefore, a concept quite similar to self-efficacy, though some authors consider it to be wider (Fayolle & Gailly, 2004). And it is also very similar to Shapero & Sokol’s (1982) “perceived feasibility”. In all three instances, the important thing is the sense of capacity regarding the fulfilment of the behaviour under consideration.

Please insert Figure 1 about here

Another interesting question to be taken into account is related to the degree of realism in the perceptions. Some people may have a wrong impression of their own

5

capacity to carry out a behaviour (Ajzen, 2002). This could be due to some new elements appearing on the scene, or to facing non-familiar situations. In these cases, they could try to perform the behaviour even though their actual capacity is negligible, or they could fail to attempt it although the objective probabilities of success are very high. Therefore, in the case of entrepreneurship, specific knowledge would help increase a realism of perceptions. On the other hand, the remaining elements of the model are much more intuitive. The first of them is attitude towards the behaviour: this refers to the degree to which the person holds a positive or negative valuation of that behaviour. Secondly, subjective norms would measure the perceived social pressure to carry it out -or not. These two elements, together with perceived control, would make up the explanatory variables of intention. Their relative contribution to the configuration of intention is not established in the model, as it may change from case to case. In particular, in the sixteen empirical studies analyzed by Ajzen (1991), subjective norms tended to contribute very weakly to the intention of carrying out different behaviours. Finally, the model assumes the existence of interactions among the three explanatory elements.

Please insert Figure 2 around here

If we compare these explanatory variables with those considered by Shapero & Sokol (1982), we can see that perceived feasibility -as mentioned above- corresponds quite well with perceived behavioural control. On the other hand, the willingness to carry out that behaviour (perceived desirability) could be understood as composed of the

6

attitude towards it and subjective norms. In this sense, it may be recalled that Shapero & Sokol (1982) considered desirability as a result of social and cultural influences. Additionally, as mentioned above, the presence of role models would have an influence on perceived self-efficacy and possibly on desirability as well (Scherer et al., 1991). Finally, a greater knowledge of the entrepreneurial environment will surely contribute to more realistic perceptions about entrepreneurship. It will also directly provide a greater awareness about the existence of that professional option, and will make the intention to become an entrepreneur more credible. Figure 2 summarizes the entrepreneurial intention model used in this paper.

3. Definition and classification of entrepreneurship education Just as the interest towards entrepreneurship has been growing since the seventies, both in the academic and political circles, entrepreneurship education has also experienced a rapid increase all over the world (Loucks, 1988; European Commission, 1999; SBA, 2000). Current theories on economic development and structural adjustment of economies include entrepreneurial promotion as one of their crucial instruments (Liñán & Rodríguez, 2004). In this sense, entrepreneurial education could be pointed out as a potentially very effective strategy (Liñán, 2004). However, it would be necessary to establish a certain delimitation of the different existing types of entrepreneurship education. In this sense, there have been numerous attempts to conceptualize this educational form. The simplest one identifies it with training for firm creation. This is the case, for example, of McIntyre & Roche (1999, p. 33), when they affirm that it is «the process of providing individuals with the concepts and skills to recognize opportunities that others

7

have overlooked, and to have the insight and self-esteem to act where others have hesitated. It includes instruction in opportunity recognition, marshalling resources in the face of risk, and initiating a business venture». On the other hand, wider conceptions are comprised of a number of objectives and of different stages that usually include action during the whole educational system. The view of the Consortium for Entrepreneurship Education would be an example of this. According to them, entrepreneurship education should be considered as a model of lifelong learning. One of its more salient characteristics is the division into five stages which are formally independent and that would be developed without the need of a tight coordination between them (Ashmore, 1990). Nevertheless, the conjunction of these five stages may have a very remarkable effect on the level of entrepreneurial spirit of a society, on firm creation rates, and also on their survival and their subsequent dynamism. A similar approach, although not so wide, is supported by the European Commission (2002). In developing countries, meanwhile, there is also a considerable presence of this type of initiatives, with economic development as their main concern. These experiences, frequently called Entrepreneurship Development Programmes, have spread noteceably, due to their more-than-reasonable level of success (Loucks, 1988). These programmes do not normally include an explicit definition of entrepreneurship education. However, the objective almost always consists of trying to promote effective firm creation. The contents of these programmes tend to be very basic, and normally include training on a specific occupation at the same time as they promote the participants’ establishing as independent craftspeople.

8

In our opinion, the following conception would be wide enough to embrace those mentioned above: «the whole set of education and training activities -within the educational system or not- that try to develop in the participants the intention to perform entrepreneurial behaviours, or some of the elements that affect that intention, such as entrepreneurial knowledge, desirability of the entrepreneurial activity, or its feasibility» (Liñán, 2004, p. 163). This includes the development of knowledge, capacities, attitudes and personal qualities identified with entrepreneurship. Specifically for those of working age, entrepreneurship education would seek the effective creation of enterprises and their subsequent dynamism. This definition presents a number of characteristic features that, in our opinion, makes it useful as a reference framework for analysis and classification of the different existing initiatives. In the first place, it seeks to include all education activities and not only those developed within the educational system. Secondly, it includes broader objectives than the diffusion of an entrepreneurial culture or the creation of enterprises. It also tries to increase the degree of dynamism of entrepreneurs; that is to say, the entrepreneurial quality (Guzmán & Santos, 2001). Thirdly, the role of educators would be clearly established. Instructors should concentrate on creating and strengthening entrepreneurial intention of participants (Fayolle, 2003). Whether this intention turns into action or not depends on very different factors (environment, opportunity, resources, etc) which lie outside the reach of educators. Besides, this definition allows a clear distinction between entrepreneurship education and management training. A typical instance of the latter would be university business studies. Management training is not usually concerned with traits, skills, attitudes or intentions of the participant, but mainly with the necessary technical

9

knowledge for business administration. Similarly, management training would not be interested in the creation process of an independent entrepreneurial project, or its dynamism, but mainly in the organization of firms in operation. In principle, any entrepreneurship education initiative could fit within this definition, so it becomes necessary to establish some kind of classification. Thus, McMullan & Gillin (1998), based on the theoretical outline previously developed by McMullan & Long (1987), specify six differentiating elements of an entrepreneurship education project: a) objectives that are pursued; b) faculty or teaching team who will be imparting it; c) participant students; d) content of the course; e) teaching methods; and f) specific support activities for the participants to start their ventures. As Brockhaus (1992) points out, objectives are the fundamental question, under which all other elements should be placed. Therefore, in this paper, we have used those aims as the main classifying criteria. In this sense, Curran & Stanworth (1989) try to define the main types of objectives that can be pursued by entrepreneurship education. Their classification has been widely assumed by Garavan & O'Cinneide (1994) or Liñán (2004). In our opinion, though the general idea may be valid, some changes have to be included to make it compatible with our conception: – Entrepreneurial awareness education. Its purpose would be to increase the number of people having enough knowledge about small enterprises, self-employment and entrepreneurship, so that they consider that alternative as a rational and viable option. Thus, this educational category would not directly pursue the creation of more entrepreneurs. According to intention models, it would be acting on one or more of the elements that determine intention (entrepreneurial knowledge, desirability or feasibility), but not directly on intention. One example of this type of

10

initiatives would be courses imparted at universities. They are usually optional courses within business or engineering degrees. Instructors do not actually try to transform students into entrepreneurs, but only allow them to make their future professional career choice with a greater perspective. This kind of courses fits very well into the characteristics of university instruction and, especially, of secondary schools (Garavan & O'Cinneide, 1994). In fact, many of the start-up or selfemployment courses -especially shorter ones- would be really working as awareness programmes (Curran & Stanworth, 1989). – Education for start-up. It would consist of the preparation to be the owner of a small conventional business, as are the great majority of all new firms. It would be centred on the specific practical aspects related to the start-up phase: how to obtain financing; legal regulations; taxation; and so on (Curran & Stanworth, 1989). Participants in this type of courses are usually highly-motivated about the project. So, they tend to show much interest in course contents. Frequently, the selection criteria rely excessively on already having a viable business idea. In this sense, these courses should try to develop the entrepreneurial intention of the participants. However, in practice, it is very common for them to select persons showing a high previous level of intention, and concentrate on the practical questions for start-up (self-selection bias). – Education for entrepreneurial dynamism. It would try to promote dynamic entrepreneurial behaviours after the start-up phase. Therefore, their objective would not only be to increase the intention of becoming an entrepreneur, but also the intention of developing dynamic behaviours when the enterprise is already in operation. However, the conventional forms of education do not allow for the

11

development of entrepreneurial quality (Guzmán & Santos, 2001), thus it would be necessary to use alternative educational models (Garavan & O'Cinneide, 1994). Some examples of this kind of educational programmes are described by Garavan & O'Cinneide (1994b). – Continuing education for entrepreneurs. This would be the fourth and last type of entrepreneurship education. It would be a specialized version of adult education in general, designed to allow improvement of the existing entrepreneur’s abilities (Weinrauch, 1984). In particular, it is difficult to attract these entrepreneurs towards this type of programmes, since they tend to consider these initiatives as too general for the particular needs of their firms. A possible way to overcome this difficulty could be linking this category with the above-mentioned modalities. In this sense, participation in some start-up or dynamism programme could make entrepreneurs more receptive to continuous training. These four objectives of entrepreneurship education still need a lot of research to enlarge their knowledge-base, to perfect their teaching techniques, to improve their effectiveness and to advance towards the achievement of all their potential (Curran & Stanworth, 1989). In any event, there is some agreement in considering education for entrepreneurial dynamism as the most relevant category (Garavan & O'Cinneide, 1994; Liñán, 2004).

4. Some empirical results Given the characteristics of intention models, for empirical analysis to provide valid and useful results, the situation needs to be studied before the entrepreneurial behaviour has been performed (Noel, 2002). It is also necessary to include both individuals with

12

and without entrepreneurial intention (Krueger et al., 2000). Therefore, last year university students constitute a highly suitable community, used for example by Fayolle & Gailly (2004). In the first place, they are about to face a professional career choice. Secondly, within this group one can expect to find people with all kinds of preferences and intentions. Thirdly, few of them will have developed entrepreneurial behaviours, so we can study their intention before the fulfilment of that behaviour. Besides, young adults with university education show a greater propensity towards entrepreneurship (Reynolds et al., 2002). Accordingly, a longitudinal study may be undertaken to verify the correspondence between intention and subsequent behaviour. In this sense, longitudinal studies offer much more satisfactory results, even when only demographic variables are used in the analysis (Liñán et al., 2002). Our purpose is to carry out such longitudinal studies ourselves, with this and with successive samples of students.

4.1 Design of the empirical analysis For this study, a questionnaire was given to students of last year subjects in two Andalusian university business schools. Since Andalusia (southern Spain) is a large region with a sizeable population, a considerable diversity may be expected to exist within it. The situation in two very different centres within the region has, therefore, been analyzed. The University of Seville is large (more than 60.000 students), old, and located in the biggest metropolitan area in the region. The University of Jaen is small (15.000 students), new, and located in a medium-sized town. The questionnaire used was developed under a research project financed by the regional government1 and divided into six sections: personal data; education and experience; entrepreneurial assessment; entrepreneurial environment; creation of

13

enterprises; and contact data. These latter data will allow a longitudinal follow up of interviewees over a period of time. The items included in the first five parts have been measured using 5-point likert-type scales, or by means of ordinal scales with three or four categories. Nevertheless, when necessary, dichotomic answers (yes/no) or nominal variables have been used. In classrooms where the questionnaire was used, answer rates were above 95%. Thus, the total number of valid answers reached 166. Of them, 141 filled in contact data (84.9%), so they could ideally be traced for the longitudinal follow-up. Our sample is made up of 93 students from the University of Seville, and 73 from that of Jaen. 43.4% of the sample are women, while 68.0% of it belongs to the age interval from 22 to 25. The degree studied by most interviewees is Business Administration (103 cases, 62.1%). Table 1 displays the main characteristics of both sub-samples. As may be observed, some minor differences exist between them. In the first place, those surveyed in Seville are studying business administration or economics. In Jaen, economics is not available as a degree and, as the campus is geographically concentrated, it is more common for students of other degrees to take subjects at the business school. Besides, those other degrees tend to be shorter (3 years). Therefore, this would help to explain the existing difference with respect to age in both sub-samples and also with respect to the length of studies2.

Please insert Table 1 around here

14

The second significant difference refers to gender. In Jaen, the proportion of women within the sample (52.1%) is well above that of Seville (36.6%). This difference seems to correspond to the general situation in both universities. In Seville there are relatively fewer women studying, while in Jaen they represent a slight majority, not only in business administration, but in most degrees. With respect to other characteristics, there is not any significant difference regarding the following features: income level, parents' level of studies, labour experience, or personality traits. Therefore, we understand that both sub-samples are considerably homogeneous. Thus, the Andalusian population of university students may be taken as a whole. The results obtained can be considered on two different levels. In the first place, the relationships established among the analyzed variables seem to confirm the validity of the intention model for studying the entrepreneurial phenomenon. Secondly, different entrepreneurship education courses have distinct effects on students’ attitudes and intentions.

4.2 Testing the entrepreneurial intention model Intention models assume that external variables (demographic or background characteristics) do not directly affect the intention of performing a given behaviour, or the behaviour itself (Ajzen, 1991; Kolvereid, 1996). That effect would be only indirect, through their influence on the antecedents of intention. The model developed in section 2 identifies these antecedents as: entrepreneurial knowledge, perceived desirability (personal attitudes and social norms) and perceived feasibility (self-efficacy). According to this, one should expect intention to be better predicted through those antecedents. To test this hypothesis, the Partial Least Squares (PLS) technique was

15

used. This is a multivariate analysis technique. Gefen et al. (2000) indicate that PLS is more adequate than covariance-based techniques, such as LISREL, when carrying out exploratory analysis and working with small sample sizes. In this case, two different sets of explaining variables were compared. The first of them considers only external variables, while the second uses the above-mentioned antecedents. Detailed results are included in the appendix, as well as the indicators used in each of the constructs. Figure 3 summarizes the influence of external variables directly on the intention of being an entrepreneur. In simple linear models with only one endogenous (dependent) variable, PLS results are equivalent to those obtained with Ordinary Least Squares (Gefen et al., 2000). As can be seen, demographic characteristics of students explain only 21.2% of the variance in intention. Only four of those variables are significant, exerting a sizable effect on the dependent variable. In contrast, when the entrepreneurial intention model is used, results are significantly improved. Figure 4 presents those findings. In this case, the proportion of the explained variance in intention rises to 47.3%. That is, nearly half of the change in intentions may be explained by only those four antecedents. In particular, attitude towards entrepreneurship and perceived feasibility make the largest contributions, and the most significant ones. Social norms, on the other hand, contribute very weakly to explaining intention. This is consistent with other studies that have applied the theory of planned behaviour in general (Ajzen, 1991), and also specifically to entrepreneurship (Krueger, et al., 2000). Yet, , Kolvereid (1996) found a direct significant effect of social norms on intention. However, in Fayolle & Gailly’s (2004) study, a close replication of the latter,

16

those social norms were not significant. Further analysis of this relationship is surely needed to solve this discrepancy. In our case, a possible explanation could be the absence of an entrepreneurial tradition in the territorial context we have investigated. Interestingly, though, the influence of social norms on attitude is significant. This would be indicating that perceived social valuation of entrepreneurship plays its main role by affecting an individual’s attitude towards that behaviour.

Please insert Figure 3 around here

Please insert Figure 4 around here

A high correlation was also found between attitude and feasibility. Nevertheless, as the literature is not clear on the sense of this relationship, it has not been included in the final model. In any case, when that relationship was included, it helped increase the explained variance of the respective antecedent (attitude or feasibility), but had no impact on intention, and only a marginal one on the regression coefficients. Additionally, Figure 4 confirms the relevance of knowledge, not only to explain other antecedents of intention, but also the theory predicted, as a direct influence on it. In particular, this variable exerts a strong influence on perceived feasibility, as could be expected. Knowing an entrepreneur, and being familiar with the business environment, makes students more confident about their own capacity of becoming entrepreneurs. Knowledge alone explains 17.2% of the variance in feasibility. On the other hand, its effect on attitudes and social norms is much weaker.

17

Please insert Table 2 around here

The addition of external or demographic variables to the model in Figure 4 does not change coefficients appreciably. Table 2 shows the change in explained variance after inclusion of those external variables. As can be seen, the improvement in intention is relatively small. The highest effect is produced on feasibility and, to a lesser extent, on social norms. The demographic characteristics are probably too general to explain attitudes or knowledge. Meanwhile, socioeconomic level, degree studied and having labour experience significantly explain feasibility, whereas self-employed parents exert a significant influence on social norms.

4.3 Differential effect of entrepreneurship education courses Entrepreneurship education is a new phenomenon in Andalusia. The available offer is still limited to little more than business-plan courses, which could be classified as education for start-up. This is the case in the University of Jaen. In Seville, however, there is at least another kind of initiatives, which would correspond to entrepreneurial awareness education. Therefore, for Seville students, it is possible to analyse the different effect of each of those categories on the variables included in the intention model. In this sense, the participation in either of these two distinct kinds of entrepreneurship education tends to be associated with higher levels of perceived feasibility and desirability, as well as a greater entrepreneurial knowledge. However, there is also a statistically significant differential effect of awareness and start-up education, which is reflected in Figure 5.

18

Please insert Figure 5 around here

The awareness education course centres on the analysis of the role of entrepreneurial agents in economic development and highlights their importance. For that reason, it could contribute to increasing a perceived social valuation of those agents. Our results seem to confirm this hypothesis. The start-up course, on the other hand, centres on the elaboration of the business plan. Therefore, its differential effect concentrates on improving feasibility perceptions. We have also found a higher direct relationship between participation in the start-up course, on the one hand, and perceived attraction and level of intention, on the other. However, as other researchers have pointed out (Noel, 2002; McMullan & Long, 1987), this is probably due to the so-called “self-selection bias”. That is, those students with a higher attraction to becoming entrepreneurs and a stronger intention towards entrepreneurship enrol on that course. In Figure 5, this situation is reflected by dashed lines.

5. Conclusions Intention models seem to be a solid starting point for the analysis of entrepreneurship. In particular, this work has integrated Ajzen’s (1991) and Shapero & Sokol’s (1982) theories into an entrepreneurial intention model. This, in turn, has been used as the basis to define entrepreneurship education and to classify it. The differentiating element of these educational activities would be trying to increase the

19

intention of performing entrepreneurial behaviours, or any of the variables determining that intention. This allows for a clear distinction from conventional management training, which is mainly concerned with technical knowledge for business administration. It also enables us to clarify the role of educators, who should concentrate on strengthening participants’ intention of developing those entrepreneurial behaviours. Depending on the specific objective pursued, four categories of entrepreneurship education could be thought of. In particular, education for entrepreneurial dynamism could be considered as the most relevant category. It not only tries to promote the intention of being an entrepreneur, but also of developing dynamic entrepreneurial behaviours after the start-up phase. A partial empirical test has been carried out about the validity of the entrepreneurial intention model. However, as this work is part of a wider research project, the questionnaire was not designed to allow for a full validation of that model. Undoubtedly, this makes up a serious limitation. Therefore, even though the results obtained are clearly encouraging, they should be considered with caution. In the first part of the empirical analysis carried out, the entrepreneurial intention model has offered much better predictions of intention than external or demographic variables alone. What is more, when these latter variables are added to the former, the joint model -despite being substantially more complicated- does not offer much better results. Therefore, a tentative conclusion would be that the entrepreneurial intention model is a valid explanation of intention. Similarly, we have found that the influence of each course on the variables determining intention is different depending on the kind of course considered. This

20

result is consistent with the classification developed. Nevertheless, only awareness and start-up courses have been considered. In future research, a test on the four categories should be implemented. Natural extensions of this work would include, in the first place, the reformulation of the questionnaire to allow for a thorough validation of the theory. Secondly, we plan to carry out a longitudinal follow-up of interviewees to test the relationship between intention and subsequent behaviour.

Acknowledgements The author wants to thank comments by participants at the IntEnt 2004 Conference, where a previous version of this paper was presented. In particular, Alain Fayolle helped me clarify the position of “entrepreneurial knowledge” as a previous element within the entrepreneurial intention model. I am also indebted to an anonymous referee for his/her interesting comments and suggestions.

Notes 1

2

Ref. No.: ACC-953-SEJ-2002, Programa Acciones Coordinadas, III Plan Andaluz de Investigación. The questionnaire is available from the author upon request. University studies in Spain are either “diplomatura” (3-year degree) or “licenciatura” (4- to 5-year degrees). In Seville, the “licenciatura” in business administration lasts 5 years, while in Jaen it is 4.

References Ajzen, I., “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 50, pp. 179-211, 1991. Ajzen, I., “Nature and operation of attitudes”, Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 52, pp. 27-58, 2001. Ajzen, I., “Residual effects of past on later behavior: habituation and reasoned action perspectives”, Personality and Social Psychology Review, vol. 6 (2), pp. 107-122, 2002. Ashmore, C.M., “Entrepreneurship in vocational education”; en Kent, C.A. (Ed.): Entrepreneurship education: current developments, future directions, Quorum Books, Westport, 1990.

21

Brockhaus, R.H., “Entrepreneurship education: a research agenda”, IntEnt92 Conference, Dortmund (Germany), 23-26 June, 1992. Curran, J. & Stanworth, J., “Education and training for enterprise: some problems of classification, evaluation, policy and research”, International Small Business Journal, vol. 7 (2), pp. 11-22, 1989. European Commission, Action Plan to Promote Entrepreneurship and Competitiveness, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 1999. European Commission, Final report of the expert group «best procedure» project on education and training for entrepreneurship, Enterprise Directorate-General, Brussels, 2002. Fayolle, A., “Using the theory of planned behaviour in assessing entrepreneurship teaching programmes: exploratory research approach”, IntEnt2003 Conference, Grenoble (France), 7-10 September, 2003. Fayolle, A. & Gailly, B., “Using the theory of planned behaviour to assess entrepreneurship teaching programs: a first experimentation”, IntEnt2004 Conference, Naples (Italy), 5-7 July, 2004. Garavan, T.N. & O’Cinneide, B., “Entrepreneurship education and training programmes: a review and evaluation”, Journal of European Industrial Training, vol. 18 (8), pp. 3-12, 1994. Garavan, T.N. & O’Cinneide, B., “Entrepreneurship education and training programmes: a review and evaluation - Part II”, Journal of European Industrial Training, vol. 18 (11), pp. 13-21, 1994b. Gartner, W.B., “ “Who is an entrepreneur?” is the wrong question”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 13 (4), pp. 47-68, 1989. Gefen, D.; Straub, D.W. & Boudreau, M.C., “Structural equation modelling and regression: guidelines for research and practice”, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, vol. 4, article 7, 2000.

22

Guzmán, J. & Santos, F.J., “The booster function and the entrepreneurial quality: an application to the province of Seville”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, vol. 13 (3), pp. 211-228, 2001. Kolvereid, L., “Prediction of employment status choice intentions”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 21 (1), pp. 47-57, 1996. Krueger, N.F., Reilly, M.D. & Carsrud, A.L., “Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions”, Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 15 (5/6), pp. 411-432, 2000. Liñán, F., Educación empresarial y modelo de intenciones. Formación para un empresariado de calidad, PhD Dissertation, Dpto. Economía Aplicada I, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, 2004. Liñán, F. & Rodríguez, J.C., “Entrepreneurial attitudes of Andalusian university students”, 44th ERSA Conference, Porto (Portugal), 25-29 August, 2004. Liñán, F., Martín, D. & González, R., “Characteristics of nascent entrepreneurs in Germany”, 42nd ERSA Conference, Dortmund (Germany), 27-31 August, 2002. Loucks, K.E., Training entrepreneurs for small business creation, I.L.O., Ginebra, 1988. McClelland, D., The achieving society, The Free Press, London, 1961. McIntyre, J.R. & Roche, M., University education for entrepreneurs in the United States: a critical and retrospective analysis of trends in the 1990s, Center for International Business Education & Research, Working Paper Series 99/00-021, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, 1999. McMullan, W.E. & Gillin, L.M., “Developing technological start-up entrepreneurs: a case study of a graduate entrepreneurship programme at Swinburne University”, Technovation, vol. 18 (4), pp. 275-286, 1998. McMullan, W.E. & Long, W.A., “Entrepreneurship education in the nineties”, Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 2 (3), pp. 261-275, 1987. Noel, T.W., “Effects of entrepreneurial education on intent to open a business: an exploratory study”, The Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, vol. 5, pp. 3-13, 2002.

23

Peterman, N.E. & Kennedy, J., “Enterprise Education: influencing students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 28 (2), pp. 129-144, 2003. Reynolds, P.D., “Who start new firms? – Preliminary explorations of firms-in-gestation”, Small Business Economics, vol. 9 (5), pp. 449-462, 1997. Reynolds, P., Storey, D.J. & Westhead, P., “Cross-national comparison of the variation in new firm rates”, Regional Studies, vol. 28, p. 443-456, 1994. Reynolds, P.D., Bygrave, W.D., Autio, D. & Hay, M., Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. 2002 summary report, Ewin Marion Kauffman Foundation, Kansas City, 2002. Robinson, P.B., Stimpson, D.V., Huefner, J.C. & Hunt, H.K., “An attitude approach to the prediction of entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 15 (4), pp. 1330, 1991. S.B.A., Building the Foundation for the new century. Report on the implementation of the White House Conference, Small Business Administration, Washington, 2000. Scherer, R.F., Brodzinsky, J.D. & Wiebe, F.A., “Examining the relationship between personality and entrepreneurial career preference”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, vol. 3, pp. 195-206, 1991. Sexton, D.L. & Bowman, N.B., “Entrepreneurship education: suggestions for increasing efectiveness”, Journal of Small Business Management, vol. 22 (2), pp. 18-25, 1984. Shapero, A. & Sokol, L., “Social dimensions of entreprenurship”, in Kent, C.A., Sexton, D.L. y Vesper, K.H. (eds.): Encyclopaedia of entrepreneurship. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (NJ), 1982. Storey D.J., Understanding the small business sector, Routledge, London, 1994. Weinrauch, J.D., “Educating the entrepreneur: understanding adult learning behavior”, Journal of Small Business Management, vol. 22 (2), pp. 32-37, 1984.

24

Figure 1 - Theory of planned behaviour

Attitude towards the

Subjective Norms

Intention

Behaviour

Perceived Behavioural Control

Source: Ajzen, I. (1991).

Figure 2 - Entrepreneurial intention model

Entrepreneurial Knowledge

Perceived Desirability Personal Attitude

Entrepreneurial Intention

Perceived Social Norms

Perceived Feasibility (self-efficacy)

25

Table 1 - Sample characteristics

Degree Gender Age

Length studies

of

Work Experience

Univ Seville Nº % 61 65.6 31 33.3 1 1.1 59 63.4 34 36.6 8 8.6 37 39.8 35 37.6 13 14.0 9 9.8 25 27.2 32 34.8 26 28.3 51 54.8 42 45.2

Business Adm. Economics Others Men Women < 22 years 22 & 23 years 24 & 25 years > 25 years < 5 years 5 years 6 years > 6 years Yes No

Univ Jaen Nº % 42 57.5 31 42.5 35 47.9 38 52.1 24 32.9 23 31.5 18 24.7 8 11.0 32 43.8 22 30.1 12 16.4 7 9.6 37 50.7 36 49.3

Total Nº % 103 62.1 31 18.7 32 19.3 94 56.6 72 43.4 32 19.3 60 36.1 53 31.9 21 12.7 41 24.8 47 28.5 44 26.7 33 20.0 88 53.0 78 47.0

Figure 3 - Influence of external variables on intention

Age Gender

0.087 0.162*

Parent’s occupation Socioeconomic level

0.105 0.184*

-0.031 University Degree studied

Intention

0.211**

0.212

0.025

Reason for studies Labour experience

0.204**

* Significant regression coefficients, p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

26

Figure 4 - Influence of internal variables on intention

Attitude 0.086 0.272** Social Norms

0.068 0.204

0.418*** 0.041

0.042

Intention

Knowledge

0.164*

0.415***

0.473

Feasibility

0.314***

0.172 * Significant regression coefficients, p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

Table 2 - Change in explained variance

Explained variance of dependent variables

Internal variables Internal + external variables net change

Knowledge

Attitude

Social norms

Feasibility

Intention

---

0.086

0.042

0.172

0.473

0.081

0.160

0.154

0.350

0.529

+0.081

+0.074

+0.112

+0.178

+0.056

27

Figure 5 - Differing effects of entrepreneurship education courses

Entrepreneurial Knowledge

0.397**

Start-up education 0.327**

Perceived Feasibility (self-efficacy) 0.242*

Entrepreneurial Intention

Perceived Desirability Personal Attitude

Awareness education

Perceived Social Norms

0.288**

Pearson correlations. * = p<0.05; ** = p<0.01

28

Appendix

Model A - External variables on intention Constructs & indicators

options (ascending)

========================================================== Age Gender Parents’ occupation Father self-employed Mother self-employed Socioeconomic level Father’s level of studies Mother’s level of studies Income level University Degree studied Reason for selecting those studies Labour experience Entrepreneurial Intention Seriously thought about it Probability of becoming entrepreneur

years female / male no / yes no / yes primary / secondary / university primary / secondary / university low / medium / high Jaen / Seville other / business other / career opportunities / vocation no / yes no / yes low / high

Path Coefficients Table (Original Sample Estimate): ========================================================== Age Intention

Gender Parent Socioe Univ. Degree Reason Labour

0.077 0.208 0.077 0.135 0.012 0.207 0.001 0.149

========================================================== Path Coefficients Table (T-Statistic) ========================================================== Age Intention

Gender Parent Socioe Univ. Degree Reason Labour

0.669 1.522 0.829 0.433 0.133 1.757 0.015 1.485

==========================================================

29

Model B - Internal variables on intention Constructs & indicators

options (ascending)

========================================================== Entrepreneurial Knowledge Knows an entrepreneur no / yes Knows business associations no / yes Knows business promotion bodies no / yes Personal Attitude Prospects to be entrepreneur vs gral. Economy worse / equal / better Prospects to be entrepreneur vs employee worse / equal / better Preferred career option other / indep. prof. / entrepreneur Preferred option immediately after studies other / continue studying / entrepreneur Perceived Social Norms No. of social obstacles to be an entrepreneur 0 to 4 (reversed) Social valuation of entship in closest environment worse / equal / better than in Spain Social valuation of entship in closest environment worse / equal / better than in your county Perceived Feasibility Probability of survival if firm created <10% 25% 50% 75% >90% Probability of success if firm created <10% 25% 50% 75% >90% Qualified to be an entrepreneur would need much help / with some help / yes Difficult to be an entrepreneur no / yes Sufficiently trained to be entrepreneur no / almost not at all / a little / yes Number of training needs to be entrepreneur 0 to 6 (reversed) Intention Seriously thought of becoming entrepreneur no / yes Probability of becoming entrepreneur low / high

Path Coefficients Table (Original Sample Estimate): ========================================================== Knowl. Attit. Soc.N Feasibility Attitude 0.0680 0.0000 0.2720 0.0000 Social norms 0.2040 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Feasibility 0.4150 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Intention 0.1640 0.4180 0.0410 0.3140 ========================================================== Path Coefficients Table (T-Statistic) ========================================================== Knowl. Attit. Soc.N Feasibility Attitude 0.6977 0.0000 2.8475 0.0000 Social Nomrs 1.7509 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Feasibility 6.7391 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Intention 2.1151 6.9483 0.6052 4.7649 ==========================================================

30