a swedish student's perspective on entrepreneurial...
TRANSCRIPT
Bachelor Thesis: Spring Semester 2016
A Swedish Student's Perspective
On Entrepreneurial Intent
A Case Study at Linnaeus University Växjö
Author: Daniel Stiegler &
Marc Thanhäuser
Supervisor: Anders Hytter
Examiner: Hans Lundberg
Date: 23/05/16
Subject: Business Administration
Level: Bachelor
Course code: 2FE28E
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This thesis was written during the spring semester at Linnaeus University Växjö in 2016.
It thereby represents the conclusive culmination of our Bachelor's level studies in
Business Administration. The successful submission of our work would not have been
possible without the help of the following;
We are very thankful and indebted to Hans Lundberg, our examiner, for sharing his
expertise, valuable guidance and encouragement with us. We also wish to express our
sincere gratitude to Anders Hytter, our tutor, who reviewed our progress and facilitated
the access to the research subjects. Both senior professors at LNU were always available
for all of our questions and issues. They also provided us with detailed and constructive
feedback throughout the 10-week period.
Many thanks go to all participants of our focus groups. We appreciate the investment of
your spare time and your active dialogues. Your engagement enabled us to collect our
empirical data in the first place.
Finally, we take this opportunity to express gratitude to all our professors at Linnaeus
University and ICN Business School for their help and support throughout our
undergraduate studies.
Växjö, 23/05/2016
Daniel Stiegler Marc Thanhäuser
3
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this paper is to test the ability of Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior and
Shapero's model of the entrepreneurial event to predict entrepreneurial intent (EI) among
Swedish university students. A conceptual framework was developed where attitude
towards entrepreneurial behavior was constituted by perceived self-efficacy, perceived
social norms, and independence and serves as a mediator for the EI.
A comparison between three focus groups composed of non-business students, business
students and participants from the 'Enterprising & Business Development' (EBD)
program at Linnaeus University was undertaken. The results show all three studied
variables are significant determinants of EI, which in turn is a precursor of the attitude
toward entrepreneurial behaviour. However, evidence suggests a negative relationship
between the perceived social norms and the EI among EBD and business students.
This paper contributes to the entrepreneurship literature by testing how certain factors
affect the EI of university students. Its originality arises from combining the two most
significant models for EI and applying them to three groups with different prerequisites.
Although the study is subject to some limitations, they can be overcome by further
studies.
Keywords - Entrepreneurial Intent, Self-Efficacy, Social Norms, Independence
Paper type - Research paper/Bachelor thesis
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................................... 2 ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................ 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................... 4 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES .................................................................................................................. 5
1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 6
1.1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 PROBLEM DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................... 7 1.3 PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................................ 8 1.4 DELIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................................. 9
2 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................ 10
2.1 SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES ............................................................................................... 10 2.1.1 Epistemological assumptions ................................................................................................... 10 2.1.2 Ontological assumptions .......................................................................................................... 10
2.2 RESEARCH APPROACH ...................................................................................................................... 11 2.2.1 Qualitative or quantitative approach ....................................................................................... 11 2.2.2 Inductive or deductive approach .............................................................................................. 11
2.3 RESEARCH DESIGN ............................................................................................................................ 12 2.3.1 Case study................................................................................................................................. 12
2.4 DATA SOURCES ................................................................................................................................. 13 2.5 SELECTION OF RESEARCH METHOD .................................................................................................. 13
2.5.1 Focus group .............................................................................................................................. 13 2.5.2 Ethical considerations ............................................................................................................... 14
2.6 SELECTION OF PARTICIPANTS ........................................................................................................... 15 2.7 INTERPRETATION OF OBTAINED QUALITATIVE DATA ....................................................................... 16
2.7.1 Pattern matching analysis ........................................................................................................ 17 2.8 OPERATIONALIZATION ..................................................................................................................... 18 2.9 CODING ............................................................................................................................................ 19 2.10 ANALYTIC PROCEDURE ................................................................................................................... 20 2.11 CRITERIA FOR SCIENTIFIC QUALITY ................................................................................................. 21 2.12 OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................... 22
3 LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................................................... 23
3.1 THEORETICAL INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 23 3.1.1 Entrepreneurial intent .............................................................................................................. 24 3.1.2 Entrepreneurial intent within the field of entrepreneurship .................................................... 25 3.1.3 Situational, personal and intention-based factors ................................................................... 25
3.2 ENTREPRENEURSHIP INTENTION MODELS ....................................................................................... 26 3.2.1 Theory of planned behavior ...................................................................................................... 26 3.2.2 Entrepreneurial event model .................................................................................................... 28 3.2.3 Comparing and contrasting the models ................................................................................... 29
3.3 SELECTED FACTORS FOR ASSESSING EI ............................................................................................. 30 3.3.1 Perceived self-efficacy .............................................................................................................. 30 3.3.2 Perceived social norms ............................................................................................................. 31 3.3.3 Independence ........................................................................................................................... 31 3.3.4 Attitudes towards entrepreneurial behavior ............................................................................ 32
4 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK .............................................................................................................. 34
4.1.1 Conceptual model ..................................................................................................................... 34 4.1.2 Perceived self-efficacy and attitude towards entrepreneurial behavior .................................. 34 4.1.3 Perceived social norms and attitude towards entrepreneurial behavior ................................. 35 4.1.4 Independence and attitude towards entrepreneurial behavior ............................................... 35 4.1.5 Attitude towards entrepreneurial behavior and EI ................................................................... 35
5
5 EMPIRICAL DATA AND ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 36
5.1 CASE STUDY: LINNAEUS UNIVERSITY VÄXJÖ ..................................................................................... 36 5.1.1 Factual background .................................................................................................................. 36 5.1.2 Entrepreneurship at Linnaeus University Växjö ........................................................................ 36 5.1.3 'Entreprising and Business Development' program .................................................................. 37
5.2 ANALYSIS OF EMPIRICAL DATA ......................................................................................................... 38 5.2.1 Focus group A (Non-business students) .................................................................................... 38 5.2.2 Focus group B (Business students) ........................................................................................... 42 5.2.3 Focus group C (EBD students) ................................................................................................... 44
6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 48
6.1 DISCUSSION OF THE EMPIRICAL FINDINGS ....................................................................................... 48 6.2 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................... 50 6.3 LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................................... 51
7 RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 53
7.1 PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................... 53 7.2 FUTURE RESEARCH ........................................................................................................................... 53
8 LIST OF REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 55
8.1 SCIENTIFIC SOURCES ......................................................................................................................... 55 8.2 ELECTRONICAL SOURCES .................................................................................................................. 63
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1. Operationalization ______________________________________________ 19
Table 2. Participant Information __________________________________________ 20
Table 3. Focus Group A (Perceived Self-Efficacy) ____________________________ 40
Table 4. Focus Group A (Perceived Social Norms) ___________________________ 41
Table 5. Focus Group A (Independence) ___________________________________ 42
Table 6. Focus Group B (Perceived Self-Efficacy) ___________________________ 43
Table 7. Focus Group B (Perceived Social Norms) ____________________________ 44
Table 8. Focus Group B (Independence) ___________________________________ 45
Table 9. Focus Group C (Perceived Self-Efficacy) ___________________________ 46
Table 10. Focus Group C: Perceived Social Norms) __________________________ 47
Table 11. Focus Group C (Independence) __________________________________ 48
Table 12. Comparison of B, C and A (Perceived Self-Efficacy) __________________ 49
Table 13. Comparison of B, C and A (Perceived Social Norms) _________________ 50
Table 14. Comparison of B, C and A (Independence) _________________________ 50
Figure 1. Overview of Methodology ______________________________________ 23
Figure 2. Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991) _________________________ 28
Figure 3. Entrepreneurial Event Model (Shapero, 1982) _______________________ 29
Figure 4. Conceptual Model _____________________________________________ 35
6
1 INTRODUCTION
The following chapter introduces and explains entrepreneurial intent (EI) and the
particular research gap. Moreover, the purpose, research question and the delimitations
of the study are presented.
1.1 BACKGROUND
Krueger et al. (2000, p. 411) pose the rhetorical question:
"We don’t start a business as a reflex, do we?"
This suggests that it takes much more than just an idea to make the decision to start a
company; it also puts the individual with such an intention in focus. How can one grasp
the influencing aspects of this so-called 'entrepreneurial intent' - shortened EI? Does it
vary among students in a highly entrepreneurial country like Sweden, and if yes, how?
A Google search of the word ‘entrepreneurship’ generates 76 million results, all
of which deal with entrepreneurship in a broader sense of the word. This may demonstrate
a general interest in the topic and its importance. Studies such as the Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) exemplify how widely researched the field of
entrepreneurship is. In order to fully comprehend any chosen facet of this field, it is
necessary to have a carefully defined perspective in order to make a meaningful and
valuable contribution to this well-examined area of research.
The research group was driven to investigate the phenonomenon of EI particularly
because of their current study environment at Linnaeus University Växjö (LNU). The
university was the main inspiration for the project scale because of its entrepreneurial
reputation throughout Sweden.
Linnaeus University describes itself as "Ett universitet där allt är möjligt"
(Linnaeus University, 2016) – a university where everything is possible and achievable.
Considering its entrepreneurial roots, one may adopt that creativity and the pursuit of
one's aspirations embedded in this slogan. In particular, LNU aims to naturally stimulate
entrepreneurial aspirations in students: this goes both for those pursuing an
entrepreneurial degree in particular, as well as for the programs in general (Linnaeus
University, 2016a). 'Entreprenöriella Universitetet' is a notably interesting project in this
context. This initaitive tries to sustainably shape an inspirational culture at LNU which
enables to constantly pursue entrepreneurial actions. The university aims to have a
7
remarkably high proportion of student entrepreneurs and to become a prestigious platform
for studying entrepreneurship worldwide (Linnaeus University, 2016b).
With this in mind, this research project studies students attending the 'Enterprising
and Business Development' (EBD) program as they are assumed to have a predisposition
toward entrepreneurial intent due to the practical engagement in real-life companies
within their curriculum (Linnaeus University, 2016c). Additionally, business students
will be considered a comparable sample group as their educational background does
provide a similar basis, while a group of non-business students will be used as a form of
control group. This control group represents the perception of people who are not
necessarily involved with entrepreneurship. Thereby, this research is enabled to present
EI from different perspectives.
Apart from the university, Sweden in general is a good place to conduct this study
as it is known for its financial support of students during their studies. In an international
comparison this financial aid is relatively high and enables most adolescents to pursue
higher education (Centrala studiestödsnämnden, 2013). Furthmore, this budget may
partly be used to financially realize business ideas.
To sum up, Swedens’ reputation of having a highly entrepreneurial mindset and
further, the suitable innovative entrepreneurship vision of LNU were decisive when
choosing to commit to the topic of entrepreneurial intent among Swedish students.
1.2 PROBLEM DISCUSSION
The phenomenon of entrepreneurship is most likely as old as mankind itself,
although its emergence as a scientific area of study occured relatively recently. However,
entrepreneurship entails a very broad range of topics and is not by any means a niche field
of research. Accordingly, the research methods and materials are continuously evolving.
The scientific effort to investigate the emergence of entrepreneurial actions can be traced
back to early works of Fishbein and Ajzen (1975). However, they still receive great
attention in contemporary research. This has caused the development of several models
addressing diverge factors that constitute the phenomenon of EI.
Nevertheless, rather little attention has been paid to the comparison and
integration of different intention-based theories and their capability to determine EI
(Krueger et al., 2000). Moreover, most models aim for an all-embracing perception of
factors to predict the phenomenon. Previous research established intentions as the most
precise indication for entrepreneurial behaviour, especially when facing unpredictable
8
circumstances that have a direct impact on the entrepreneurial event (Krueger et al., 2000
and Shook et al., 2003). More profoundly, Krueger et al. deduce that it is necessary to
explore how “intention precipitates into behavior” (2000, p. 430) to understand the
dynamic nature behind intentional antecedents of entrepreneurial events. Shapero and
Sokol (1982) outline both internal and external factors that determine an individual´s
entrepreneurial intention. It is logical to assume that these factors depend on the
individual's environment. Therefore, a closer investigation should involve a specific
regional framework. The proposition of this study is not to establish another one-size-fits-
all model of determining entrepreneurial intentions, but instead to combine factors of
existing and well-developed models and apply their most significant variables to a
specific context, namely that of Swedish students at Linnaeus University.
One may question the applicability of the aforementioned research findings as the
majority of them solely research entrepreneurial intent in general. At this point, it must
be remembered that research has largely been concentrated on adult or non-student
entrepreneurs until approximately 2009 (Turker and Selcuk, 2009). Since then, many
scholars have addressed this former gap in the entrepreneurship literature, most of them
focusing on comparative and cross-cultural studies (Autio et al., 2001 and Giacomin et
al., 2011). So far, no researcher has examined the phenomenon of entrepreneurial intent
by linking theoretical expectancies of different intention-based models with a Swedish
student´s perspective.
Therefore, this research paper takes this opportunity to connect the outcomes of
major intention-based models to examine entrepreneurial intention among Swedish
students at the Linnaeus University in Småland, Sweden. In contrast to the prevailing
research, this study attempts to build a contextualized approach in greater detail which
examines prerequisites and causes of entrepreneurial intention.
As a consequence, this thesis is examining the following research question:
How do Swedish students perceive entrepreneurial intent?
1.3 PURPOSE
This research will compare the entrepreneurial intentions among Swedish
business students and EBD participants at Linnaeus University, while using students from
non-business related programs as a control group to verify the results. Thereby, this
9
project attempts to increase the understanding of existing theoretically approved models
concerning EI.
1.4 DELIMITATIONS
The narrow focus on Swedish students at LNU does not allow for generalizations
to be drawn from this thesis. The focus groups have been conducted at one university,
which may have lesser robustness when compared to collecting the data using quantitative
research methods. Furthermore, the entrepreneurial intent among Swedish students may
not directly indicate a definite involvement in entrepreneurial activities.
10
2 METHODOLOGY
The following chapter presents the methodology for the conducted qualitative study and
thoroughly justifies the choices made.
2.1 SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES
The ontological and epistemological assumptions made in this study will
significantly influence how the world's existence, knowledge, human interactions as well
as the concept of scientific theories and methods are perceived. They are indoctrinated in
the beliefs of every researcher and thus, these adapted lenses will profoundly shape this
research project.
2.1.1 Epistemological assumptions
First and foremost, the researchers need to be in accordance with certain
epistemological assumptions when developing the foundations of a research study. These
assumptions are devoted to "the question of what is [or should be] regarded as acceptable
knowledge in a discipline" (Bryman and Bell, 2011, p. 16).
An interpretivist perspective is more beneficial to this research as important
elements from the natural sciences do not relate to the research question. Fundamentally
speaking, researchers who adopt an interpretivist view endeavor to achieve what Max
Weber (1947) characterizes as 'verstehen' which is the comprehension of the individual
intentions and faiths of people's actions (Taylor and Bogdan, 1998). Accordingly, an
interpretivist perspective embraces the understanding that a particular strategy is
necessary which comprehends the differences between people and the elements of the
natural sciences. As a consequence, it calls for the social scientist to perceive the
"subjective meaning of social action" (Bryman and Bell, 2011, p. 17). At the same time,
comprehension of the studied phenomena by gaining access to the subjective meaning of
the study participants should be pursued (Neville, 2007).
2.1.2 Ontological assumptions
Ontology is occupied with the central question of whether social beings should be
understood as objective beings having a reality foreign to social actors or as constructed
from the views and operations of social actors (Bryman, Bell, 2011). Within ontology,
there is a distinction made between between objectivism and constructionism.
11
Objectivism suggests that social phenomena are neither identifiable nor influenceable for
human beings (Bryman and Bell, 2011). Contrastingly, constructionism assumes that
social phenomena and their implications are performed by social actors (Bryman and
Bell, 2011).
Since this thesis focuses on the motives and desires of Swedish students as social
actors, a constructionist approach was chosen where the phenomenon of EI is the social
construct of interest. EI is shaped by the perceptions and actions of the involved social
actors - in this case, the focus group participants. As a consequence of choosing
constructionism, this thesis presents a particular version of social reality. This enables the
emphasis of Swedish students’ perspective on EI and to analyze the process of perception
building among the respondents.
2.2 RESEARCH APPROACH
2.2.1 Qualitative or quantitative approach
Since researchers pursue different problems areas and answer different questions,
there are two widely used methodologies: a qualitative or a quantitative approach (Taylor
and Bogdan, 1998 and Bryman and Bell, 2011). Qualitative research may be understood
as a strategy which accentuates words, whereas quantitative research puts emphasis on
the quantification of gathering and evaluating data (Bryman and Bell, 2011). Foremost,
qualitative research is utilized to develop hypotheses or to identify newly discovered
variables, followed by a quantitative approach to analyse the data (Malhotra and Birks,
2003).
In this case, a qualitative approach is the superior choice as it is meant to provide
a deeper level of insight into a particular facet of social life (Bryman and Bell, 2011). Due
to the limited time frame of this research, it is rather small-scaled. As the necessary
number of participants is lower in qualitative research, the choice of this approach
conveniently reduces the necessary efforts to reach a significant number of subjects.
2.2.2 Inductive or deductive approach
Greener (2008) distinguishes between the deductive and the inductive approach.
A deductive approach establishes and tests hypotheses based on a theoretical framwork,
whereas an inductive approach functions the other way around and thus has the purpose
of generating theory from the project's research findings. This study aims to apply existing
theory that has been modified to the specific context of Swedish students to test
12
hypotheses. Applied research methods, as well as data collection, were matched in order
to provide sufficient data to test the hypotheses. Hence, this research follows a deductive
approach.
2.3 RESEARCH DESIGN
The chosen research design contributes a ‘roadmap’ for carrying out a research
project in accordance with its purpose (Aaker et al., 2007). Correspondingly, the reseach
design links the research questions with the conclusions drawn (Yin, 2009). Based on the
posed research question, the researcher may decide to use either an exploratory or a
conclusive research design (Malhotra, 2010). Bryman and Bell (2011) outline five major
research designs: the experimental, cross-sectional, longitudinal, case study, and
comparative research design. In the following section, the choice of a case study research
design will be argued for.
2.3.1 Case study
Firstly, case studies may be associated with any methodologies and scientific
research methods, whether they be of a qualitative or quantitative nature. Accordingly,
the researcher can apply a single or multiple case design (Yin, 2009). A single case study
shows a critical or unique case. It allows for detailed observation. Multiple case studies
examine different example cases with the intention of making a comparison (Yin, 2009).
The essential feature of a case study is that it is considered as a "small-sample, in-
depth study" (Tight, 2010, p. 338). Furthermore, case studes are linked to a geographical
location, an organization, a person, or an event (Bryman and Bell, 2011). For this study,
a single organization, namely Linnaeus University, is examined. The detailed level of
analysis enables a new and isolated understanding of this singular case (Yin, 2009).
Eriksson and Kovalainen (2008) distinguish between intensive and extensive case
studies. Intensive cases emphasize the different ideas, interactions and sense-making of
the participants. The case is rare or extreme and serves as a key to understanding how the
case example functions as a whole entity (Eriksson and Kovalainen, 2008). An extensive
case study, on the other hand, is interested in mapping familiar patterns and structures
with the objective of building, reasoning or verifying theory (Eriksson and Kovalainen,
2008). The choice of cases will be made on grounds of pragmatism such as access or
feasibility. In this case study, an extensive case example is used to stress the attempt to
explain the theory-based phenomenon of EI.
13
A point often overlooked is that single-case research may take advantage of
uncommon or extraordinary conditions (Eisenhardt, 2007). Although this may be true,
the predominant advantage of a case study is that it provides the opportunity to examine
and understand exceptional and unusual organizations as well as dynamic events and
processes (Eriksson and Kovalainen, 2008).
2.4 DATA SOURCES
There are two key channels from which to collect empirical data. The first is
secondary data, which is publicly available data, or primary data collected by the
researchers themselves. This study relies on both forms of information sources.
Secondary data was used as a basis for the literature review and the corresponding
conceptual framework. The primary data was generated as it serves the purpose of this
qualitative research paper. Scientists gather primary data with a very specific purpose in
mind (Saunders et al., 2009). This thesis uses one primary data collection method with
the goal to answer the research question.
2.5 SELECTION OF RESEARCH METHOD
According to Yin (2009), a research method is chosen because of two important
characteristics of a study. Firstly, one may consider the degree of control that the
researcher demands or has over the project. Secondly, the temporal expenditure of the
studied phenomenon may have an effect on the choice of method.
2.5.1 Focus group
A focus group is a way to gather qualitative data which preferably assembles
between six and 12 participants with the goal to explore a particular theme or topic in an
informal and unstructured setting (Bryman and Bell, 2011; Calder, 1977 and Stewart et
al., 2007). Focus groups have been used since the 1920's and have since become one of
the most significant and popular qualitative research methods (Threlfall, 1999 and Cheng,
2014). This is as the method's structure allows for several in-depth interviews to be
conducted at one time (Barnett, 1989 and Lydecker, 1986). The whole group discussion
is guided by the interviewer who also acts as a moderator, promotes active interaction,
and gives creative probes concerning the topic (Bryman and Bell, 2011). The host should
also stimulate an open debate where every person can freely speak his or her mind
14
(Bryman and Bell, 2011). The optimal outcome is the "'joint construction of meaning"
(Bryman and Bell, 2011, p. 503). Focus group should strive to account for a large number
of beliefs, ideas and attitudes (Quible, 1998). This is achieved by following up on
significant statements made by the participants. However, this research method does not
serve as an indicator of the beliefs of a significant percentage of the population and thus
it lacks generalizability (Bryman and Bell, 2011).
On the one hand, focus groups are relatively cost-efficient and easy to set up to
collect large amounts of information; on the other, the method does not provide data of
any statistical significance (Stewart et al. 2007 and Byers and Wilcox, 1991).
Furthermore, participants cannot be expected to forget societal norms and accordingly
may answer certain questions in a way that is socially acceptable rather than giving true
answers (Crowne and Marlow, 1964). Some participants might feel uncomfortable talking
about personal topic, or they may be naturally reserved. In contrast, dominant group
members may shape the discussion and impose their view on others. Nonetheless, bias is
likely to occur as people naturally avoid detaching themselves from a group (Solomon et
al., 2013).
It seemed reasonable to interview participants of the EBD program as they are
assumed to have a predisposition toward having an exceptional EI due to the practical
engagement in real-life companies within their curriculum (Linnaeus University, 2016c).
Additionally, business students will be considered as a comparable sample group as their
educational background provides a similar basis, while non-business students will be used
as a control group.
2.5.2 Ethical considerations
Interpersonal involvement and exchange with human beings requires the
acknowledgement of the subjective nature of researchers. The protection of studied
human subjects is the ethical basis for qualitative research (Munhall, 1988). Bellah (1981)
sets the bar for ethical considerations with the assumption that all collected data has
normative accounts and is linked to what he states are ‘moral sciences’, the ethical
reflection of social inquiries. Munhall (1988) defines the faithful description of
experiences of subjects as the most crucial ethical obligation for qualitative researchers.
This encompasses the realistic description of experiences, even if they may be contrary
to desired or needed outcomes. Bryman and Bell (2011) outline several fundamental
15
ethical principles that qualitative researchers need to consider when conducting research
in the field of social and business studies.
A researcher should never harm participants physically or emotionally and
essentially avoid what Diener and Crandall state as “inducing subjects to perform
reprehensible acts” (1978, p. 19). The 'AoM Code of Ethical Conduct' allocates
responsibility to the researcher to carefully assess if there is any possibility that
participants can be harmed, and if so, how the possibility of harm can be minimized
(Bryman and Bell, 2011). To ensure no harm comes to participants in this research, they
will be anonymous and data will only be collected following participant approval.
Secondly, it is crucial that participants are fully aware of the actual research topic
to avoid lack of consent (Bryman and Bell, 2011). The qualitative approach of personal
data collection via focus groups minimizes the risk of lacking consent. However,
participants were introduced to the topic and all necessary information was
communicated at the beginning of each session in order to create an understanding about
the purpose and reason for this research.
The third ethical principle is concerned with the privacy of participants (Bryman
and Bell, 2011). To ensure participants were comfortable, the questions to be asked were
examined before the sessions to evaluate whether or not they were invasive of participant
privacy by asking for too personal or discomforting information. However, questions
seeking personal motivation and experience always come close to intruding on a
participant’s privacy. Therefore, Fletcher´s ‘situation ethics’ (1966) were carefully
considered in order for the moderator to respond appropriately and not try to dig too deep
during the focus groups.
The last principle concerns deception, which prevents researchers from lying
about the actual purpose of the research, withholding significant information, or acting
with false pretext (Bryman and Bell, 2011). The in-depth information needed for this
research about experience and personal views of participants could only be gained by
presenting clear information and by sharing important aspects.
2.6 SELECTION OF PARTICIPANTS
In qualitative research, researchers may intentionally select participants with the
goal to carefully investigate the chosen phenomenon. The chosen research subjects
should, however, be able to contribute their detailed understanding of the research area
(Merriam, 2009). Thus, the selection is made on grounds of the underlying expectations
16
of the researchers and accessibility of participants. The primary data is provided by the
focus group dialogues; therefore, the researcher should highlight them as the main
guidance for the research. In this particular case, the student perspective on EI will frame
the process of understanding the phenomenon in order to truthfully convey the students’
perceptions. Similarly, the collaborative interaction between the researchers and the
research subjects will tell the complete story of the investigation of EI and create a
commonly reflected understanding.
The selection of the population and sample was structured according to the 'four-
point approach to qualitative sampling' established by Robinson (2014) with the goal to
provide practical guidance for interviewing. Even though Robinson (2014) speaks of
research in psychology, his structure is relevant and beneficial for this project. This is
because of its "theoretically informed" instructions (Robinson, 2014, p. 25). Furthermore,
the author outlines a general manual and the field of entrepreneurship and psychology
partly use the same qualitative methodologies.
In accordance with the 'four-point approach to qualitative sampling' (Robinson,
2014), the research participants were selected as follows:
(1) Define a sample universe - In this case, the sample universe is the 'university-
educated adults with a Swedish nationality from Linnaeus University Växjö'.
(2) Decide on a sample size - The ideal sample size for a focus group is between six and
12 participants (Bryman and Bell, 2011; Calder, 1977 and Stewart et al., 2007).
(3) Devise a sample strategy – In this case, the strategy is non-probability sampling
through a convenience sampling.
(4) Source the sample - The sample was recruited through establishing contact with the
student organization EHVS (Ekonomihögskolan i Växjös Studentförening), by
contacting those responsible for the relevant university programs, and through
connecting with certain students directly. All were chosen at random from class lists
and participation was voluntary. Participants were invited through Facebook events
to communicate the meeting place and time.
2.7 INTERPRETATION OF OBTAINED QUALITATIVE DATA
Qualitative research has one major disadvantage in comparison to quantitative
research: it rapidly produces a large database as it relies on texts such as interview
transcripts. In general, analytic strategies facilitate the data analysis, especially when
17
dealing with qualitative research (Bryman and Bell, 2011). This is because they provide
a starting point and a structured procedure which contributes an approximate arrangement
throughout the analysis.
There are two types of analysis which are most commonly used to structure the
data analysis (Yin, 2009). Firsty, analytic induction is when an investigator attempts to
establish a broad explanation of the topic (Bryman and Bell, 2011). Secondly, grounded
theory is characterized by a continuous comparison which enables the researchers to
refine, identify and explore data to integrate key concepts into comprehensible theory
(Bogdan and Taylor, 1998).
Yin (2009) outlines five techniques to analyze qualitative data: pattern matching
analysis, explanation building, time-series analysis, logic model and cross-case synthesis.
In the following section, pattern matching will be described to show it is the most suitable
technique for this study.
2.7.1 Pattern matching analysis
The pattern matching analysis was established by Campbell in 1966. Furthermore,
pattern matching analysis is one of the most aspirational logics to use for case studies
(Yin, 2009). According to Yin (2009), this type of interpretation tests an observed pattern
with an expected pattern in order to verify if they are compatible with each other. The
theoretical assumptions of the framework and the expected pattern facilitate this
comparison by providing detailed elaborations on the theory (Dul and Hak, 2008).
Moreover, this technique was construed with the goal to increase the academic
rigor of case studies. Under the circumstance that the scientifically-established patterns
coincide with the predicted patterns, the results will reinforce the study's internal validity.
Conversely, if the prognosticated and experienced patterns are contradictory, the
explanations must be reassessed (Yin, 2009). According to Yin (2009), the pattern
matching analysis is suitable for all case study designs. The most decisive reason for its
use is to be consistent with the purpose of the study and the research question.
This study distinguishes between two variations of pattern matching. The first is
a design in which a complete set of expectations derived from theory is supported in the
case, while the second is a pattern which consists of independent variables (Yin, 2009).
Pattern matching analysis was chosen as this research project links the existing
theoretical pattern with the operational pattern found with the help of the focus groups.
In other words, the focus group transcriptions were compared with the conceptual
18
framework, which in turn was constructed based on the literature review. Hereby, an
independent variables design was used. This technique is not the most commonly used
when analyzing focus groups, but due to the stimulated dialogue in the groups this
technique was found to be suitable. As this study used a qualitative approach, the
unavoidable factor of subjectivity must be highlighted when attempting to grasp the
meaning of the participants’ statements.
2.8 OPERATIONALIZATION
According to Wood and Brotherton (2008), operationalization connects
theoretical constructs with measurable items. The attached table displays definitions and
measurements of the research determinants under investigation. The table below
associates the posed questions with the empirical research for each variable of the chosen
conceptual framework.
Variable Definition Question Intended
Measurement Ref.
Initial
question
1. What do you think
about being an
entrepreneur studying,
what is the first thing
that comes to your
mind?
Do students have an
opinion about
entrepreneurship
while studying?
Attitude
towards
entrepre-
neurial
behaviour
The individual´s
basal entrepreneurial
behaviour as an
antecedent for
entrepreneurial
intentions.
2. To what extent have
you thought about
starting a business?
3. If yes, what was
holding you back/
decisive to start a
business?
What behavioural
attitude do
respondents have
toward
entrepreneurial
venturing?
Krueger et
al., 2000.
Perceived
self-efficacy
Defined as an
individual´s self-
confidence to carry
out a special
task/event.
4. To what extent do you
feel able to deal with
risk, uncertainty and
decision making?
Are entrepreneurial
intentions
underlined by trust
in own knowledge
and abilities?
Shane et
al., 2003.
Perceived
social norms
What important
people in the
individual's life
think of the action to
start one's own
business.
5. What would your
personal environment
say if you would start
your own business?
6. How does this opinion
affect the pursuit to
become an
entrepreneur?
Is the respondent's
decision to start a
business influenced
by who they
consider to be
important people?
Engle et
al., 2010.
Independence
It is defined as the
level of self-
determination of
7. What aspects do you
think are appealing
about self-employment?
Do respondents
have independence
as a motivation
Schlaegel
C. and
19
one's own actions
and time.
What is the most
important factor?
when starting their
own business?
Koenig
M., 2014.
EI
An individual' s
openness towards
the tendency of
establishing his/her
own business.
8. Do you think that
your Swedish nationality
or your LNU identity
influence it?
Do respondents
intend to start a
business in the
future?
Bird, 1988.
Explorative
Question
9. Do you think that
your Swedish nationality
or your LNU identity
influence it?
Do students
consider their
nationality and
university as
important factors?
Reitan,
1997.
Final
question
10. Is there anything else
that you would like to
add to this topic?
Did students forget
to say something or
want to elaborate?
Table 1: Operationalization
2.9 CODING
The coding scheme of a research project converts collected empirical data into
displayable values presented in organized tables. A code can be a word or a short phrase.
Its task is to review the data and to give labels to the most significant observations
(Bryman and Bell, 2011). In other words, a code captures the essence of an event similar
to how a film's title speaks for its representative content (Saldaña, 2009). Coding is
significant for qualitative analysis because it influences the scope of the study. It also
reflects the used concepts, language and theoretical models which initially guided the
project (Merriam, 2009).
As this research utilizes pattern matching, what constitutes a pattern needs to be
defined. According to Hatch (2002), a pattern may encompass similarities, differences,
frequencies, sequences, correspondences, and causations.
In the data visualization, each variable has its corresponding table. The columns
present the participant's responses while the rows capture the expected patterns extracted
from the literature review. As soon as a participant's statement was interpreted as
supporting one of the categories it was colour coded red. All answers which do not
support the patterns were colour-coded white. All categories which were not mentioned
at all were colour-coded grey.
All participants were granted anonymity. The only information provided about
them will be their program of study and their age. The information about all participants
was coded according to the following table:
20
Focus
Group Nr
Parti-
cipant Study Program Level Of Studies Gender Age
A
1 Teacher (English) Bachelor Female 21
2 Social Work Bachelor Female 20
3 Political Science Bachelor Female 20
4 History Bachelor Male 20
5 Social Work Master Female 24
6 Social Science Bachelor Female 24
7 Social Science Bachelor Male 19
B
1 Marketing Master Female 24
2 Economics Bachelor Male 21
3 Economics Bachelor Female 24
4 Marketing Master Male 28
5 Marketing Master Male 23
6 Economics Bachelor Female 22
C
1 EBD Bachelor Male 22
2 EBD Bachelor Male 26
3 EBD Bachelor Male 24
4 EBD Bachelor Female 20
5 EBD Bachelor Male 29
6 EBD Bachelor Female 24
7 EBD Bachelor Male 29
Table 2: Participant Information
2.10 ANALYTIC PROCEDURE
In this segment the analytic procedure will be outlined as transparency is a highly
important charcteristic of a qualitative data analysis. Taking into consideration that the
subjective interpretation of the researchers determines the outcome of this thesis, the
process and the decision motivation on how to analyze the focus group interactions will
be documented.
Before conducting the focus groups, meaningful patterns based on the literature
review were establisheed. Attention was paid to personality traits, which are proven to
have a significant impact on EI. As the Swedish context of this study influenced the
pattern development, the findings for the Swedish population were highlighted in the
patterns. They are considered most suitable to gain an comprehensive understanding of
student perceptions of EI. Furthermore, keywords and important sentences were written
21
down if they provided the starting point for further discusion or if they summarized a
common opinion of the participants.
The transcribed dialogues and the notes taken during the session served as a basis
for the data analysis. As a first step, the answers to the corresponding questions of each
variable were examined carefully. The questions were used to find out about the
personality traits regarding EI among the students. Secondly, the theory-related patterns
were supplemented with decisive key words extracted from the focus groups. All student
responses were then examined together. If a participant's statement supports one of the
categories, it was colour coded as described in section 2.9. All patterns and responses
were transferred into tables. Lastly, the patterns were analyzed in order to stress the match
or mismatch with theory. Keywords and quotes were integrated into the analysis to fully
present the circumstances and the value of certain statements.
2.11 CRITERIA FOR SCIENTIFIC QUALITY
Since the beginnings of business research, the assessment of quality in qualitative
and quantitative research has been important. Lincoln and Guba (1985, 1994) depict an
approach that assesses quality in qualitative research. Their approach consists of two main
criteria: trustworthiness and authenticity.
Trustworthiness comprises of four pillars that provide a solid scientific and
reliable basis for qualitative studies, namely credibility, transferability, dependability,
confirmability (Bryman and Bell, 2011).
On the basis of an individual´s attitude and notion, EI is unique in every human
being. This leads to the conclusion that a focus group with a mixed set up of participants
will naturally provide a different set of insights and outcomes. Even if the discussion is
repeated with the exact same group of participants, the group interaction is likely to differ.
This is a limitation to the transferability of research outcomes in this study. However, to
counterbalance this, this thesis provides a detailed and ‘thick description’ (Geertz, 1973)
containing an elaborated theoretical background as well as a thoroughly presented
research methodology.
Regarding the dependability, Guba and Lincoln (1994) advice an ‘auditing’
approach to gain trustworthiness. Records about the process of all research phases have
been thoroughly collected and, therefore, this study can be considered trustworthy. These
records include accounts about participant selection, focus group transcripts and lines of
thoughts that influenced the research. Data gathering in focus groups is based on
22
interaction and reaction to statements, opinions and feedback and can be seen as a process
of respondent validation (Bryman and Bell, 2011). To reduce the risk of bias and establish
confirmability, objectivity was always aimed for. However, it has to be noted that
complete objectivity and expulsion of bias is certainly never fully reachable in qualitative
studies. In-depth data gathered in line with well-established research methods serves as a
scientific reliable basis for further discussion and argumentation. Considering all
mentioned aspects, effort has been made to increase the degree of reliability throughout
the research process. Therefore, this study should be considered trustworthy.
Besides establishing trustworthiness, Guba and Lincoln (1994) emphasise
authenticity. Participants from all focus groups were selected in the same way regardless
of study path. Therefore, the sampling used in this research is a fair reproduction without
involvment of strong perceptions from one field of study. Furthermore, the study
outcomes provide ontological and educational authenticity (Guba and Lincoln, 1994).
Readers and participants of this research may reflect on their own behaviour as well as
gain insights about antecedents that determine their personal intention concerning
entrepreneurship.
2.12 OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY
Figure 1: Overview of Methodology
23
3 LITERATURE REVIEW
The following chapter reviews the literature regarding EI, the theory of planned behavior,
the entrepreneurial event, and the major variables. It highlights the major evolvements
of entrepreneurial intentions. This segment adds value to the chosen pieces of literature
by critically discussing and analyzing them.
3.1 THEORETICAL INTRODUCTION
The literature describing EI of individuals can be traced back to 1975. Shapero
was the first to address its importance within the field of entrepreneurship. His findings
working together with Sokol (1982) established the foundation and shortly after the works
of Bird (1988) and Katz and Gartner (1988) further developed the scope of entrepreneurial
intentions. The large quantity of available literature may be divided into the different
paths which were taken when analyzing entrepreneurial intent.
The phenomenon of EI encompasses the investigation of personal characteristics
cognitive skills, and predecessors of entrepreneurship (Begley and Boyd, 1987; Chell et
al., 1991; Milner, 1997; Krueger, 2003; Baum et al., 2007; Hunter, 1986; Robinson et al.,
1991 and Krueger and Brazeal, 1994). Ajzen' s (1991, 2002) theory of planned behavior
and a theory of entrepreneurial careers are important theories within the field (Tkachev
and Kolvereid, 1999 and Dyer, 1994). Finally, employment intentionality and its cultural
facets, the impact of identification figures or role models, and the connection between
creativity and entrepreneurial intentions are covered (Kirby and Fan, 1995; Busenitz and
Lau, 1997; Mitchell et al., 2002; Scherer et al., 1989; Van Auken et al., 2006 and
Zampetakis and Moustakis, 2006).
In sum, a large number of components and their relationship with EI have been
examined. As a logical consequence, diverse models and theories were established
enabling today's researchers to apply them in various contextual settings (Autio et al.,
2001; Guzmán-Alfonso and Guzmán-Cuevas, 2012 and Wurthmann, 2014). These
theories have been constructed with different motivations such as cultural comparisons
or as means to estimate the entrepreneurial potential of a particular region (Plant and Ren,
2010 and Eijdenberg et al., 2015). In the same way, the range of models has been
broadened, criticized and reviewed since Shapero (1975) started investigating EI.
24
3.1.1 Entrepreneurial intent
Before beginning to uncover EI, it is advisable to define the general scope. Due to
the large quantity of research on EI, only the initial definitions of the phenomenon will
be highlighted. If interested, one may consider further explanations arising from reviews
such as meta analyses. To begin with, the following definition is one of the earliest:
"Entrepreneurial intentions, entrepreneurs' states of mind that direct attention, experience,
and action toward a business concept, set the form and direction of organizations at their
inception" (Bird, 1988, p. 442). A less precise but more commonly used explanation states
that EI relates to the individual's intention to start a new business venture (Engle et al.,
2010).
In order to provide a consistent and encompassing explanation for this research
paper, we will define it as follows: EI will be specified as an individual's openness
towards the tendency of establishing his or her own business venture.
Besides the necessity to establish a consistent definition in the beginning of the
literature review, it is a prerequisite to assess every significant facet of the phenomenon,
which one may stumble across when aiming at a thorough and complete topic overview:
When researching the origins of entrepreneurial activity, one is likely to find a
two-fold-direction of the phenomena. Aside from EI, there is entrepreneurial orientation
(EO). Anderson et al. (2015) specify EO as a company's strategic disposition towards
entrepreneurship and clearly differentiate it from entrepreneurial intent. EO may be
placed above EI by assuming that both entrepreneurial behaviors and managerial attitude
towards risk are encompassed by entrepreneurial orientation (Anderson et al., 2015).
Nevertheless, EO remains focused on the firm-level emphasizing the strategic
constituents of "decision-making practices, managerial philosophies, and strategic
behaviors" (Anderson et al., 2015, p. 1579). For this reason, EO is not helpful here as this
study decisively focuses on the exploration on the individual level.
More recently, the concept of the 'studentpreneur' has emerged within the field of
entrepreneurship (Marchand and Hermens, 2015). This perspective criticizes the
universal approach towards the student entrepreneur and is closely connected with EI as
they both aim to forecast students’ entrepreneurial actions (Marchand and Hermens,
2015). On the one hand, this facet could be integreated into the definition of
entrepreneurship due to its novelty and scientific obscurity: on the other, the inclusion of
this concept may overcomplicate things as it only applies to university students who
already generate profit from their ventures (Marchand and Hermens, 2015).
25
3.1.2 Entrepreneurial intent within the field of entrepreneurship
It needs to be determined why it is essential to understand the underlying
psychological parameters of EI. It is necessary to grasp how it has been positioned in the
field of entrepreneurship studies. Referring back to the question posed by Krueger et al.
(2000) in section 1.1, one may make two assumptions about the origin and the crucial
importance of intentions: Firstly, it characterizes the formation of a new business venture
as an envisaged, and therefore an intentional, process. Secondly, the examination of
human intentions "made valuable theoretical and empirical contributions to our
understanding of the early stage of the entrepreneurial process" (Schlaegel and Koenig,
2014, p. 292). When the perspective that the process of creating a new creation is the
central aspect of entrepreneurship is adopted (Shook et al., 2003), it is inevitable to make
sense of the role of the individual. This is mandatory in order to have an understanding
of a company's foundation (Schlaegel and Koenig, 2014).
Today most entrepreneurship researchers share the assumption that "it is our
contention that intention is an important key to the entrepreneurial event" (Engle et al.,
2010, p. 39). Consequently, this perspective is accepted throughout this research paper.
3.1.3 Situational, personal and intention-based factors
It is equally important to differentiate attempts describing EI. According to the
current state of research, there are three possible considerations on how to examine
entrepreneurship; the researcher may make use of situational components, which refer to
the employment status or informational cues of the individual; utilize personal factors to
target the outcome of anticipating entrepreneurial activities, which in turn relates to
demographic data or traits of one' s personality, or, finally, use frameworks based on
intention to understand the ongoing processes (Krueger et al., 2000).
As research on psychological variables evolved over time, intentions became
established as the most solid and precise indicator for planned behavior. This is
particularly so if circumstances are unpredictable and associated with significant
preparation (Krueger et al., 2000 and Shook et al., 2003). To put it differently, "careful
planning and thinking on the part of the individual" (Schlaegel and Koenig, 2014, p. 293)
enables formation of the opinion that entrepreneurship is an intentional behavior, which
will be examined through intention models (Krueger, 1993).
As the prevailing theoretical assumptions needs to be critically scrutinized, using
an intention-based approach when analyzing the source of entrepreneurial activities may
26
be questioned. Krueger et al. (2000) point out that both situational and personal
components have weaknesses. The reasons are that they provide little help in explaining
the phenomenon. Furthermore, the tested predictive validity was insufficiently low,
empirically speaking. Therefore, intention-based models will be the primary source to
gain a detailed understanding of the origin of entrepreneurial activities.
3.2 ENTREPRENEURSHIP INTENTION MODELS
Three models are particularly important due to their actuality and continuous
attempts to understand the psychological parameters of entrepreneurial intentions (Shook
et al., 2003). These are Shapero's (1982) model of the entrepreneurial event (SEE), the
model of implementing entrepreneurial ideas (IEI) (Bird, 1988) and the theory of planned
behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1987). As Bird's model does not have a meaningful empirical
validation yet and does not contribute valuable components of significant importance for
this particular research, this particular model will not be used in order to be oriented
toward the chosen literature.
Even though the creators of the SEE and TPB models came from very different
disciplines, they set up similar approaches towards entrepreneurial intentions. The two
frameworks have frequently been confirmed empirically, which strengthens the decision
to use both models as a starting point. Accordingly, this segment of the literature review
will cover the two preeminent intention-based theoretical frameworks, offering a
scientific basis which aims to present and critically discuss today' s state of research.
3.2.1 Theory of planned behavior
This model was established by Ajzen in 1988 and spread further after being
published as an article in 1991. The theory originated in the field of social psychology
and was initially published in the journal 'Advances in Experimental Social Psychology'.
Even today TPB has been applied in various fields of research such as health sciences,
leisure studies, psychology, marketing, and to explain entrepreneurial intentions (Godin
and Kok, 1996; Hagger et al., 2003; Austin and Vancouver 1996; Pavlou and Fygenson
2006; Autio et al., 2001; Guzmán-Alfonso and Guzmán-Cuevas, 2012; Sahut et al, 2015;
Schlaegel and Koenig, 2014 and Shook et al., 2003).
27
Figure 2: Theory of Planned Behavior, Ajzen (1991)
The diverse usage and interpretation of TPB establishes it as the main theory to
use when examining behavioral intentions of individuals (Kolvereid, 1996; Autio et al,
2001; Krueger et al., 2000; Van Gelderen, 2006 and Lortie and Castogiovanni, 2015).
Furthermore, the constant reviewing and actualization of its initial assumptions increases
the model's overall generalizability. This applies mostly when analyzing the starting
phase and the beginning growth phase of business ventures. To point out the fundamental
importance of TPB to the field of entrepreneurship, Lortie and Castogiovanni (2015)
dedicated an article to its origin, alterations, and additions where they placed it as a central
element and emphasized its potentially misleading use.
From an entrepreneurial point of view, the TPB aids in an improved
comprehension of the development of the entrepreneurial behavior among individuals. It
characterizes entrepreneurial behavior as being determined by entrepreneurial intentions,
which are, in turn, determined by three antecedents: the attitude towards self-
employment, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control (Murugesan and
Jayavelu, 2015). To clarify further, the attitude towards self-employment develops
awareness of the individual desirableness of carrying out the behavior (Murugesan and
Jayavelu, 2015). In contrast, the subjective norm "taps perceptions of what important
people in respondents lives think about performing a particular behaviour" (Murugesan
and Jayavelu, 2015, p. 261). Perceived behavioral control is similar to the prospect of
apprehended self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986). According to Ajzen (1987), it may be
characterized as the described capability to implement a target behavior.
Attitude toward
behaviour
Perceived
Behavioural
Control
Subjective
Norm INTENTION BEHAVIOUR
28
3.2.2 Entrepreneurial event model
Shapero and Sokol´s (1982) early approach of the ‘Entrepreneurial Event’ (SEE)
can be seen as a pioneer model for the prediction of EI (Krueger, 1993). Although it was
not initially proposed as an intention-based model, it was rapidly adopted as one. SEE
has since been continuously perpetuated as one of the major contributions within the field
of EI research for the investigation of venture creation (Kuehn, 2008).
Figure 3: Entrepreneurial Event Model, Shapero (1982)
Shapero and Sokol (1982) argue that an individual´s intention to commence a
venture is determined by two main factors, namely the perception of desirability and
feasibility. Perceived desirability is specified as the level of attractiveness for the
individual to establish a venture. In turn, perceived feasibility is defined as the level of
confidence of the individual concerning his own ability of becoming an entrepreneur
(Shapero and Sokol, 1982). However, these ‘internal’ factors are not sufficient enough to
constitute new venture creation unless an ‘external’ factor arises, which is the individual´s
‘propensity to act’ - without this, further significant steps may not be undertaken (Shapero
and Sokol, 1982). The tendency to exploit opportunities is based upon Krueger et al.
(2000) discussion of an individual´s notion of control in general and the level of proclivity
to obtain such control. Additionally, Shapero and Sokol (1982) claim that EI emerges
with the occurrence of fundamental events in an individual´s life. These so-called
‘displacements’ can have varying outcomes: positive, such as the detection of an
auspicious market niche, negative, like the loss of employment, or neutral, such as
graduation from studies. Shapero (1975) see such external occurrences as important
aspects influencing the individual´s perception regarding desirability and feasibility of an
entrepreneurial activity compared to other possible alternatives.
Perceived
Desirability
Perceived
Feasibility
Propensity
to Act INTENTION
29
Shapero and Sokol (1982) built on Shapero´s (1975) findings and identified social
pressure as an influencer of desirability. Therewith, it affects the EI of the individual.
Kuehn (2008) describes the SEE as an important contribution for the understanding of
antecedents of EI that induce the rise of new ventures.
3.2.3 Comparing and contrasting the models
For this study, it is necessary to compare TPB and SEE in order to identify their
strengths and weaknesses. Previous researchers already implied overlaps in matters of
objectiveness and characteristics in the two models. As for EI, both models refer to an
individual´s “willingness and capability” (Schlaegel and Koenig, 2014, p. 298) regarding
the entrepreneurial act (Krueger and Brazeal, 1994 and Van Gelderen et al., 2006).
Concerning factors that influence an individual´s intention to initiate a venture, Krueger
et al. find the models are “largely homologous to one another“ (2000, p. 419).
Moreover, they state that factors of both models are conceptually associated. This
compromises findings regarding perceived self-efficacy and attitude measures of the TPB
in combination with the SEE factor of perceived desirability (Krueger et al., 2000).
Bagozzi (1992) argues that an individual´s perception towards entrepreneurial behaviour
may function as an aspect arbitrating the relationship between attitudes and intention. In
particular, this has been used as an argument by previous research on EI serving for a
linkage of the models (Iakovleva and Kolvereid, 2009).
The factors predicting EI are highly similar in both models. Shapero (1982)
depicted perceived desirability and perceived feasibility, whereas Ajzen (1987)
introduced the individual´s attitude towards behaviour and perceived behavioural control.
Nevertheless, the models are strongly distinguishable because of the possibility of an
individual to have great capabilities for entrepreneurial events without intentions
underlining such capabilities (Krueger et al., 2000). This idea has been noted by Katz
(1992) using the example of venture initiators without preceding EI or entrepreneurs who
eventually never fulfilled their intention (Reynolds, 1994). Therefore, Shapero and Sokol
(1982) introduced a “volitional element to intentions” (Krueger et al., 2000, p. 419), the
aspect of propensity to act. Krueger et al. (2000) used a regression analysis in their study
to compare both models and were able find the SEE slightly superior. However, Krueger
et al. elucidate the equality of both intention models as a “valuable tool” (2000, p. 424)
regarding the contemplation of entrepreneurial emergence.
30
3.3 SELECTED FACTORS FOR ASSESSING EI
3.3.1 Perceived self-efficacy
Bandura (1986, 1997) defines self-efficacy as an individual’s perception of their
personal ability of handling events or specific tasks that impact their lives. Furthermore,
it represents the core of motivation, performance effort, and emotional wellness. In other
words, perceived self-efficacy can be grasped as a “task-specific self-confidence“ (Shane
et al., 2003, p. 267). Self-efficacy overlaps with perceived behavioural control and has
been successfully applied to entrepreneurship initiation (Meyer et al., 1993).
Moreover, perceived self-efficacy coincides with Shapero and Sokol´s (1982)
variable of perceived feasibility, which is defined as the level of confidence the individual
has concerning his own ability of becoming an entrepreneur (Shapero and Sokol, 1982).
Self-efficacy is seen as a sturdy forecaster of general and individual performance when
facing such events and helps explain the differing performances of people with equal
abilities (Shane et al., 2003). Furthermore, Ajzen (1991) observed a more goal-directed
behaviour of subjects as well as a reduced threat-rigidity under pressure. This represents
a crucial entrepreneurial antecedent as self-efficacy and personal perception of control
directly impacts an individual´s opportunity recognition, a prerequisite of any
entrepreneurial venture (Krueger et al., 2000).
As much as self-efficacy can be seen as a predictor for opportunity recognition,
perceived self-efficacy is fundamental for EI (Scherer et al., 1989). Multiple evidence has
been found for a connection between EI and entrepreneurial self-efficacy (Zhao et al.,
2005). Baum (1994) assessed the impact of self-efficacy on entrepreneurial processes,
and self-efficacy established itself as the best predictor of assessed variables and showed
a strong positive relationship with a company´s realized growth.
EI strongly correlates with self-efficacy. Individuals under observation with
higher self-efficacy were more likely to become entrepreneurs, simply because of the
belief they are able to handle this role (Zhao et al., 2005). In their study, Zhao et al. (2005)
found evidence that self-efficacy is shaped by the individual´s degree of risk propensity
and furthermore that it impacts the emergence of EI. Another outcome of their study is
that previous entrepreneurial work experience positively correlates with entrepreneurial
self-efficacy (Zhao et al., 2005).
31
3.3.2 Perceived social norms
The perceived social norms were first defined by Ajzen in 1987. They are
determined as the probability of whether important referent individuals and groups agree
or disagree with carrying out a given behaviour. They are often understood as a mirror
for an individual's cognition of how important persons in the life of the individual
perceive venture creation (Shook et al., 2003 and Engle et al., 2010). Thus far, they have
been studied the least in comparison to other variables of the TPB. According to Lortie
and Castogiovanni (2015), subjective norms toward intention obtained the lowest
empirical underpinning with 86% of scientific articles supporting its evidence. The
literature on social norms is inconsistent as it may not be sufficiently studied apart from
student samples (Krueger et al., 2000; Liñán and Chen, 2009; Lortie and Castogiovanni,
2015 and Van Gelderen et al., 2008). On the contrary, the collectivist cultures of
Scandinavian countries are particularly known for having a distinctive manifestation of
social norms (Engle et al., 2010; Davidsson, 1991; Kolvereid, 1996; Reitan, 1997 and
Wurthmann, 2014). A key assumption about the component is that the increased
willingness to start one' s own business may be related to a self-employed family member
(Van Gelderen et al., 2008).
In sum, perceived social norms are somewhat lacking scientific research (Krueger
et al., 2000). Nevertheless, they do have solid relevance under certain circumstances
(Wurthmann, 2014). Beside the partial disagreement, this paper will consider perceived
social norms as a valid component as it increases the scope of the study due to its partly
unknown origins.
3.3.3 Independence
Independence does not only involve accepting the responsibility "to use one's own
judgment as opposed to blindly following the assertions of others" but also entails
accountability for one's own life "rather than living off the efforts of others" (Shane et al.,
2003, p. 268). Initially, it arose from early testing of personality measures, where
independence was established as a legitimate variable which differentiates entrepreneurs
from the general population (Aldridge, 1997; Hisrich, 1985 and Hornaday and Aboud,
1971).
However, the critical questioning of its application in entrepreneurship research
should not be ignored. The boundaries between the technical terms independence and
autonomy in the existing literature are blurry. In a similar fashion, Van Gelderen et al.
32
(2006) categorize independence as a sub-category of autonomy and define autonomy as
the condition of independent self-ruling. In comparison to independence, the super-
ordinate characteristic autonomy has been criticized and declared a poor predictor of EI
(Van Gelderen et al., 2008 and Davidsson, 1995). Van Gelderen et al. (2008) support the
assumption that autonomy is immensely valued by university students, no matter whether
they prefer to be self-employed or to work in an organization. Although this may be true,
independence was found to be the potential sole purpose to determinately pursue an
entrepreneurial career (Shane et al., 2003). In addition, Alänge and Scheinberg (1988)
concluded that Swedish entrepreneurs are inspired by a need for independence and the
ambition to have the absolute government and oversight over their endeavors. Similarly,
Giacomin et al. (2011) found independence to be a significant predictor and was divided
into the possibility to realize own ideas, personal independence and to act financially
autonomous.
As a final consideration, one of the few studies which do not strengthen
independence is Alänge and Scheinberg (1988). They could not establish that
independence was significantly different between Sweden and the rest of the world.
Nevertheless, researchers have strongly argued for the application of independence when
examining the origin of entrepreneurial activities.
3.3.4 Attitudes towards entrepreneurial behavior
Since entrepreneurial ventures begin with the development of an individual´s
intention to favour such a process, it is important to explore antecedent behaviour of those
intentions to gain an understanding of entrepreneurial venture creation (Lee and Wong
2004 and Shook and Bratianu, 2010). Shapero (1982) and Ajzen (1987) both depict the
individual´s attitude toward performing entrepreneurial activities as a central construct
for understanding EI in their models. They specified it as the attitude toward
entrepreneurial behaviour. This attitude is contingent on beliefs and expectations about
an individual´s bearing regarding outcomes from such behaviour (Krueger et al., 2000).
SEE (1982) titled this attitude perceived desirability, just as Ajzen (1987) defined it as an
individual´s attractiveness in matters of establishing a business. As part of his perceived
desirability, Shapero (1982) specifies perceived feasibility as the level of confidence of
an individual concerning his own ability to become an entrepreneur (Shapero and Sokol,
1982). In this study, perceived feasibility will be separated from perceived desirability
and investigated under the concept of perceived self-efficacy.
33
Schumpeter (1934) outlined the importance of innovation when creating a
business. In current literature, EI remains strongly linked with attitudes toward
innovation. Studies found positive implications of students who established
entrepreneurial ventures having attitudes toward innovations versus students without
them (Wurthmann, 2014). This suggests that students with a positive attitude towards
innovation naturally tend to behave in a more innovative way and are more likely to
pursue entrepreneurial events (Stewart et al. 1999 and Wurthmann, 2014). Therefore, this
paper puts emphasis on the attitude towards EI with relation to innovation and scrutinises
characteristic behaviour of entrepreneurial events among Swedish students at Linnaeus
University.
Hereby, the factor attitudes towards entrepreneurial behaviour will be
theoretically seen and tested as a connector between the previous mentioned attributes
that impact EI among students, namely perceived self-efficacy, independence, and social
norms.
34
4 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
The following chapter establishes the connection between the different variables in the
conceptual model based on the literature review. Accordingly, it formulates assumptions
which will be tested with the empirical data.
4.1.1 Conceptual model
Based on the literature review, a conceptual model has been constructed, seen
below. According to previous research, combining TPB and SEE with the construct of EI
seems promising. As a consequence, this framework is based on two assumptions: EI has
been scientifically found to be moderated by the attitude towards entrepreneurial
behavior, and the personality traits of human beings have an indirect impact on the
intention to act as an entrepreneur achieved through their attitude.
Figure 4: Conceptual Model, Original Diagram
4.1.2 Perceived self-efficacy and attitude towards entrepreneurial behavior
Major intention models integrated self-efficacy as the self-confidence factor of an
individual toward an entrepreneurial event (Ajzen, 1991 and Shapero and Sokol, 1982).
Shane et al. (2003) refer to self-efficacy as a sturdy forecaster of an individual´s self-
recognition of abilities towards an event or special task. Self-efficacy has already been
defined and connected to antecedent behaviour that impacts the emerge of EI (Meyer et
al., 1993 and Krueger et al., 2000).
Concerning the positive relationship presented in literature, it is reasonable to
conclude that perceived self-efficacy is a crucial driver for an individual´s attitude
towards entrepreneurial behaviour.
Perceived Self-
Efficacy
Social Norms
Independence
Attitude Towards
Entrepreneurial
Behaviour
Entrepreneurial
Intention
Intrinsic Variables
Personality Traits
35
4.1.3 Perceived social norms and attitude towards entrepreneurial behavior
The perceived social norms are commonly proposed to have a constant influence
on entrepreneurial decisions (Dubini and Aldrich, 1991). Social norms may only be
significant among particular ethnic groups who are known to have influential traditions
of entrepreneurship (Krueger et al., 2000). For example, Scandinavia does have a
comparably strong influence of social forces (Davidsson, 1991 and Reitan, 1997).
Therefore, the contextualized approach of this study reasonably justifies the assumption
that there is a positive connection between perceived social norms and attitudes towards
entrepreneurial behavior.
4.1.4 Independence and attitude towards entrepreneurial behavior
It is essential to cover the component independence as it has been proven to be a
decisive argument to pursue entrepreneurial endeavors, especially among university
students (Shane et al., 2003 and Van Gelderen et al., 2008). Personality traits such as
independence even increase the likelihood to succeed as an entrepreneur (Bird, 1988). It
is evident that independence is not only important for the initial motivation to become an
entrepreneur, but has a sustainable positive impact on the individual's career. Due to the
established relationship in the literature, the assumption may be made that independence
positively the affects attitude towards entrepreneurial behavior.
4.1.5 Attitude towards entrepreneurial behavior and EI
Literature pointed out the importance of understanding underlying entrepreneurial
behaviour as it is defined as a strong influencer on the process of entrepreneurial
venturing (Lee and Wong, 2004 and Shook and Bratianu, 2010). Shapero (1982) and
Ajzen (1987) depict an individual´s attitude towards entrepreneurial behaviour in their
intention models as a central construct for understanding EI. Moreover,
Wurthmann (2014) recently discovered a positive relationship between students who
established entrepreneurial ventures having noticeable precedent attitudes. Therefore, it
may concluded that attitude towards entrepreneurial behaviour is an indispensable factor
that positively affects EI among students.
36
5 EMPIRICAL DATA AND ANALYSIS
This segment will present the empirical data of this study and subsequently analyze the
empirical findings which will be carried out using the pattern matching technique. The
data presented below is based on the coding outlined in 2.7.
5.1 CASE STUDY: LINNAEUS UNIVERSITY VÄXJÖ
In the following section, the central organization for this case study, namely
Linnaeus University Växjö, will be introduced more properly. Not only are facts
supporting the choice to examine this particular university presented, but also in-depth
insights into entrepreneurial endeavours in and around the university.
5.1.1 Factual background
In 2010, Linnaeus University was founded as a result of the merger between Växjö
University and Kalmar University College. Accordingly, it is the youngest higher
education institutions in Sweden. The university has 38.000 matriculated students, of
whom 14.000 are full-year students. As the focal point of this research is related to
economic students, the 'School of Business and Economics' at LNU, which is one of
Sweden's largest business schools, is of particular importance. It is one of five faculties
at Linnaeus University and the department accommodates nearly 4.000 students
(Linnaeus University, 2016d).
5.1.2 Entrepreneurship at Linnaeus University Växjö
The entrepreneurial spirit of Linnaeus University is largely formed due to its name
giver Carl Linnaeus. The Swedish scientist is best known for his binomial nomenclature,
in which he codified the contemporary scheme of designating organisms. According to
the university, "it is the spirit of the scientist, entrepreneur, and pedagogue Linnaeus that
makes up the foundation at Linnaeus University." (Linnaeus University, 2016e). This
statement highlights the fact that entrepreneurship is not only offered as a course at the
School of Business and Economics, but it is also indoctrinated into the advertised vision
and image of Linnaeus University.
This young higher education institution aims to become a prestigious ground for
entrepreneurial endeavours among students (Linnaeus University, 2016e). Thus, it may
be assumed that students at LNU have a special pre-existent attitude towards self-
37
employment. This may be because of their final choice of university and also due to the
highly entrepreneurial region of Småland. Furthermore, the entrepreneurial focus has
positively afftected the university's environment. One will find plenty of organizations
which have local branches on the university campus. Campus was chosen because of the
scientific environment for development and growth in and around LNU (Videum AB,
2016). Certain kinds of initiatives and structures such as the 'Island of Entrepreneurs,’ the
Videum Science Park or Drivhuset increase the approachability of entrepreneurship
among students (Island of Entrepreneurs, 2015; Videum AB, 2016 and Drivhuset, 2013).
These organizations facilitate the involvement in entrepreneurial activities. They also
make it possible for everybody involved in LNU to realize ideas from which new business
ventures can emerge.
5.1.3 'Entreprising and Business Development' program
The EBD-program is a three-year undergraduate program exclusively offered by
Linnaeus University. It is a business degree with a focus on entrepreneurship, business
development and project management within the field of business administration.
Students are taught about aspects such as information science and social psychology. The
specificity of EBD is that the participants work in real-life projects with partner
companies from the beginning. These practical experiences define the covered themes
and course objectives so that students can tailor their education to the needs of the
respective business project. Moreover, the courses identify the practical and professional
skills which are necessary to provide feasible solutions to the firm's problem. The training
is focused on linking together theory and practice. The scope of the education is very
wide and the practical work with companies positively stimulates the creative ability and
drive of the participants (Linnaeus University, 2016c).
In short, the EBD program provides in-depth practical experience and knowledge
and supports the students in establishing their own entrepreneurial ventures, should they
so wish. Based on this, EBD students have been selected in order to gain insights into
entrepreneurial intentions with the goal to draw a significant comparison between all
chosen students.
38
5.2 ANALYSIS OF EMPIRICAL DATA
In order to thoroughly analyze the empirical data, the following steps by Almutairi
et al. (2014) are adopted:
(1) Statement of the research's proposition.
(2) Comparison between the observed pattern and the expected one.
(3) Presentation of theoretical explanations and development of the research
outcomes.
First of all, the proposition of the research is stated as the first step in pattern matching.
The forecasted pattern can be deduced from the existing literature, scientific theory or the
scientist's ideas from their field of expertise (Trochim, 1989). The proposition of this
particular case study is:
Certain personality traits – perceived self-efficacy, perceived social norms, and
independence – can influence the attitude towards entrepreneurial behavior and thereby
impact the EI among Swedish students at Linnaeus University Växjö.
Secondly, the testing phase is undertaken. Here, techniques are used in order to
verify the correctness of the stated proposition. This study uses focus groups to gather
qualitative data. Thereby, the pattern matching analysis has the benefit that it establishes
a connection between the theoretical proposition and the empirical information (Saunders
et al., 2009). The desired outcome is to find a reason whether and why the patterns are
compatible with each other or not (Yin, 2009). This may ultimately lead to an increased
validity. Alternatively, it will result in the confirmation or adaptation of the theory or
conceptual framework (Yin, 2009).
A mixture of the TPB and the SEE were used to establish the theoretical
framework. In the following, our group will scrutinize all findings of the three focus
groups in correspondence with the posed interview questions. The data analysis will be
structured on the basis of the expected patterns of each variable under investigation. In a
similar manner, each focus group will be regarded separately and in the end, a comparison
of all three student groups will be established.
5.2.1 Focus group A (Non-business students)
Focus group A included seven Swedish students between 19 and 24 years old. 5
out of 7 participants were female and are currently studying an undergraduate program in
the field of sociology. In comparison to the other two focus groups, the dialogue between
39
the students was less fluent and some participants only contributed a little. Some
participants predominantly agreed with what was said and did not elaborate on the topics.
Initially, participation in general was hesitant and reluctant. Participant 1 and 5 were
highly active, whereas the remaining participants were less involved.
Table 3: Focus Group A (Perceived Self-Efficacy)
The expected pattern for this variable was that it is reasonable to conclude that
perceived self-efficacy is a less crucial driver for an individual´s attitude towards
entrepreneurial behaviour in comparison to the other two groups.
When studying the students’ responses to the questions, there was not any
significant compliance with the categories chosen based on the existing literature. The
above circled agreement only allows for drawing limited conclusions. Generally
speaking, non-business students did not have a strong opinion about entrepreneurship.
Participant 1 argued that she does not have any interest in entrepreneurship, because, as
a teacher, she will become a civil servant. The majority of students will eventually be
employed by the state and thus agreed with her statement.
The non-business students seem convinced to be capable of making important
decisions when being self-employed. Also, they strongly associate 'passion' with
entrepreneurship. According to participant 7, "people that decide to start their own
business will do whatever it takes and they will also invest the time to become successful."
This statement does not only indicate that conviction and ambition are more important
than experience, but also that one will acquire the necessary skills along the way. One the
other hand, we found that all students except for one consider 'risk' as something very
negative. In a similar manner, when responding to the questions regarding self-efficacy,
most students conclude that they need a considerable amount of money to start a business.
40
For example, participant 1 said that, "If I am going to take a risk, I would need to have
safe ground", meaning she needs a monetary basis.
The match of the expected and the observed patterns indicate that non-business
students may not have the awareness of what skill set is needed to become an
entrepreneur. Furthermore, they possibly lack the abilities, especially self-confidence and
perceived feasibility, to confidently do the necessary planning in order to realize
entrepreneurial ideas. Some may hypothetically start their own business, but they
consider job and monetary security to be more important than to become self-employed.
Table 4: Focus Group A (Perceived Social Norms)
According to theory, it was expected that the perceived social norms have a
constant influence on entrepreneurial decisions for this group of students. This is
especially because the collectivist cultures of Scandinavian countries are particularly
known for having a distinctive manifestation of social norms.
Among the students who are not studying economics, observations similar to this
expected pattern were made. Almost every student (85%) stated that they perceive the
support of their family and friends as crucial when considering starting a business. For
instance, participant 5 has owned a coffee shop in the past and she concludes that she
would not have been able to establish it without her parents and friends.
This implies that this focus group may be less willing to act unbound from their
important referent individuals and groups. This interpretation is supported by a statement
made by participant 3, "If you do not have your family and friends strengthening your
back, who else will be supportive?" The word 'help' was said very often among the non-
business students. In contrast to the other two groups, we found that the non-business
students define support differently. To illustrate their perception of support, participant 3
said, "You have to have more support than just your own motivation." Non-business
41
students need support from family and friends as a fundamental base in order to
sustainably make the business grow.
Another potential explanation could be that the students prefer to rely on other
people's judgment and are less likely to leave their comfort zone. In accordance with this
assumption, participant 7 mentioned that nobody expects her to establish a business in the
future due to her university background in the social sciences. In correspondence with the
literature, independence may be expected to predominantly affect attitude towards
entrepreneurial behavior, no matter whether they may prefer to be self-employed or to
work in an organization.
Table 5: Focus Group A (Independence)
As can be seen in the graphic illustration above, the responses indicate three
patterns: firstly, the students tendency to positively stress one's own decision-making
when being self-employed. Most students positively reacted to the statement "Thus, you
can make your own rules and everything works on your ground." Thereby, they indicate
that the label of 'self-made' is highly important to them. Secondly, control over the
organizational goals and actions seems to be important. Thirdly, the keywords
'independence' as well as 'autonomy' were mentioned as a beneficial facet of
entrepreneurship. Therefore, the most dominant attribute was decision-making (70%). In
line with this pattern, students were found to value 'freedom' the most.
In contrast to the expected pattern, this particular focus group did not significantly
support independence. Given these points, the conclusion is that the responses related to
the key word 'freedom' may address aspects which are limited in the future jobs of the
respondents. To be more precise, a civil servant – a teacher or social worker – is most
likely not entitled to make individual decisions in their job, nor do their jobs provide
independence.
Independence
42
5.2.2 Focus group B (Business students)
The second focus group included six Swedish students between the age of 21 and
28. This group was equally divided by gender and students from the marketing master
program and the business and economics bachelors program. The duration of the focus
group was approximately 30 minutes. Throughout the session students maintained a
fluent conversation within the group, without the necessity of probing by the moderator.
The students seemed to feel comfortable and spoke frankly. All participants contributed
their opinions about most topics and the positive atmosphere enabled them to critically
discuss the mentioned aspects.
Table 6: Focus Group B (Perceived Self-Efficacy)
According to the theory, it was reasonable to conclude that perceived self-efficacy
positively impacts an individual´s attitude towards entrepreneurial behaviour among
business students.
While analysing the responses of the business student group, strong overlaps
between the expected and the observed pattern were found. Responses such as “I think I
deal pretty well with both uncertainty and decision making” from half of the participants
shows self-confidence in one’s own abilities. Regarding the perception of risk, the focus
group separated into two camps. Half of the participants showed a high risk propensity,
for instance as stated from participant 3, “If you want to be successful, you have to allow
yourself to take risks.” Those participants showed the necessary mindset regarding risk
that is necessary to start an entrepreneurial venture. Others were generally risk
affectionate but deterred by the amount of monetary involvement.
Without exception, all participants positively responded towards an
entrepreneurial career, strongly expressed as “I would definitely go for it tomorrow” or
43
“I would start it right away.” However, this propensity for being self-employed is
undermined by a lack of creativity when it comes to establishing a business idea.
However, the overlap between expected and observed patterns indicates that
students from a business-related field of study have the necessary set of personal traits
and perceptions that is needed to become an entrepreneur.
Table 7: Focus Group B (Perceived Social Norms)
The expected pattern for this factor was that perceived social norms influence an
individual´s entrepreneurial decisions and thus the underlying attitude towards
entrepreneurial behaviour itself. Again, this is suggested because the collectivist cultures
of Scandinavian countries are particularly known for having a distinctive manifestation
of social norms.
As can be seen in the table above, only one significant pattern could be observed
– that support from referents is preferable, but not necessary. The only factor the majority
of the participants (66.67%) responded to implies that students from a business related
study background show a low perception for the support from their close surroundings
when establishing an entrepreneurial venture. Only two participants stated that “their
[family/friends] opinion would actually affect” them.
This mismatch between expected and observed patterns may implicate that
business students prefer to act more autonomously. Furthermore, they may be willing to
assert oneself even though their family or friends disapprove with their business idea,
perhaps adjust it at most “so it fits more what other people think.”
In correspondence with the literature, one may expect that independence
predominantly affects attitude towards entrepreneurial behavior, no matter whether they
may prefer to be self-employed or to work in an organization. When analysing the
respondent’s answers regarding the variable of independence, several patterns could be
ascertained. First, half of the students show affection for being able to contribute their
44
work towards a personal set of goals for the enhancement of their own business, “to be
your own boss.”
Table 8: Focus Group B (Independence)
Regarding the second pattern, seen above, 66,67% of the participants mentioned
the keyword ‘flexibility’ when discussing the idea of being able to manage their own
working time and life. The last and most dominant pattern that 83.33% responded to
outlines personal or financial independence as the most beneficial aspect of being an
entrepreneur. In a nutshell, “that you can do whatever you want.” This search for
independence matches the previously detected affection of business students have
towards a later entrepreneurial career.
The outcomes of this focus group indicate a match with existing literature
regarding the fact that independence as a variable predominantly affects an individual´s
attitude towards entrepreneurial behaviour.
5.2.3 Focus group C (EBD students)
This focus group consisted of seven Swedish students between 20 and 29 years
old. 5 out of 7 participants were male and all were students of the EBD program. The
duration of the focus group was approximately 40 minutes – thus, it was the longest
recording with the liveliest dialogue throughout. The EBD students were very interested
in the covered topics and most participants comprehensively explained themselves.
Subject 5 was observed to give recommendations to the other students as he is an
experienced entrepreneur. As a result, every student was attentive and this caused further
dialogues enriching the focus group data. Additionally, further interesting comments on
related topics were recognized, especially in the very end.
According to theory, it was reasonable to conclude that perceived self-efficacy
impacts an individual´s attitude towards entrepreneurial behaviour more strongly among
EBD than business students.
45
While examining the responses of the EBD students, stronger overlaps between
the expected and the observed pattern than with the business students were found. The
responses show that most variables are significantly reinforced, see below.
Table 9: Focus Group C (Perceived Self-Efficacy)
The perception of risk by participant 5 was certainly interesting as he understands
risk as omnipresent: "Risk is there even when walking on the road. There is the risk of
getting hit by a car." This opinion sums up how entrepreneurial ventures are perceived by
the EBD students.
Decisiveness and inventiveness were less compelling, but they still proved to be
reliable for at least 60% of all studied subjects. Throughout the dialogue, the key word
'idea' played a particular role. For instance, participant 6 had lots of ideas, but was
indecisive which she should follow up on. In contrast, participant 5 reduced the lack of
realistic ideas to two decisive factors: "It has to be a good idea, you must be convinced
about it, that’s it."
In contrast, participant 7 showed a conservatively perceived self-efficacy in
comparison with the rest of the group. He sees himself "more like a watcher" rather than
a risk taker. The student mostly agreed with raised points in retrospect, but generally
demonstrated a conservative opinion towards all criteria.
The findings indicate that EBD students are very aware of the necessary set of
personal and professional skills. They were more optimistic than expected since all of
them indicated they are likely to pursue a self-employed career in their future. According
to participant 3, people in the EBD program think of risk as a 'possibility' or an
'opportunity'. They seem to have an optimistic opinion, especially regarding risk.
46
Table 10: Focus Group C (Perceived Social Norms)
The expected pattern for perceived social norms was that they influence an
individual´s entrepreneurial decisions among EBD students. The table above displays two
significant observed patterns. EBD students may adjust their business ideas according to
different opinions. 45% have an entrepreneurial family tradition – this background may
encourage them to start their own business in the future. Furthermore, self-employment
is expected from them to a certain extent, as participant 1 jokingly said, "I come from a
family where people run their own businesses, so they would be probably angry if I would
get a job somewhere."
On the one hand, 70% of the students indicated that they most likely will not stop
to pursue a certain venture creation, if support from family and friends is missing. On the
other hand, the same percentage of students mentioned that they may listen and adjust
their business idea accordingly. Overall, the EBD students agreed with the opinion
summarized by participant 2: "You should always listen to everyone around you: even if
they are biased, some parts of what they are saying can be good for you."
The mismatch between expected and observed patterns may demonstrate that
important referent individuals and groups of EBD presume that the program may further
encourage them to become self-employed. Additionally, the students consider themselves
very open-minded towards other opinions about their frequent idea sharing. At the same
time, they declare opinions from people who are personally involved with them as too
subjective to be taken into critical consideration. For example, participant 6 said that
"your family doesn’t want to put you in the risk, so they will probably maybe say no even
if they think it is a good idea."
47
Table 11: Focus Group C (Independence)
As can be seen in the illustration above, the responses indicate four patterns:
firstly, one's own decision-making was stressed by 60% of the subjects. Secondly, control
over the organizational goals and actions seems to be the most important (85%). Thirdly,
the responsibility which comes with self-employment was appreciated by 60%. Lastly is
the students tendency to positively highlight the keyword freedom (70%). The assumption
that independence considerably affects attitude towards entrepreneurial behavior,
particularly among EBD students, is confirmed.
Given these points, it is concluded that the common aspiration of EBD students is
to pursue what they are passionate about. In the words of participant 6, "everything I do,
I work for myself." The interaction in the focus group does not only indicate that the
studied participants do not value time flexibility, but also that they want to keep
themselves occupied with something that they are definitely convinced of. This is best
summed up by participant 1: "The thing that treats me the most: the ability to have
something you truly believe in."
Independence
48
6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The following section discusses the results of the study and answers the research
question: how can entrepreneurial intentions among Swedish students be understood?
6.1 DISCUSSION OF THE EMPIRICAL FINDINGS
To reach a conclusion, the most significant patterns of each focus group will be
displayed to establish a comparison. A particular focus lays on group B and C, whereas
group A serves as a mean of control.
Table 12: All Focus Groups (Perceived Self-Efficacy)
The comparison of the perceived self-efficacy among all groups confirms the
expected observation. Homogeneous strong beneficial capabilities have been observed
between EBD and business students, whereas, in contrast, focus group A participants did
not show any aptitude for entrepreneurial intent. Both group B and C indicated the
confidence to become self-employed. At the same time, the EBD subjects are more
determined and creative in establishing precise ideas. Epecially business students stressed
that entrepreneurial ideas are the most difficult barrier to overcome, whereas EBD
students are confident in their inventiveness.
The similarities between group B and C suggest that both groups possess similar
prerequisites towards entrepreneurial intent. Minor discrepancies may be explained with
the more profound practical working experience of the EBD students. Their continuous
practical experience may be seen as an explanation for their more distinctive ability of
decision-making as well as creating concrete and realizable business ideas.
49
Table 13: All Focus Groups (Perceived Social Norms)
According to the empirical findings, EBD and business students have a different
perspective on social norms. In particular, EBD students highlighted that they do not
comply with their family's and friend's opinions and perceive their notions as lacking
objectivity. This general mismatch is concluded to be based on the emotional connection
between the student and their families and friends. Especially non-business students show
strong bonds and understand ignoring the family´s opinion as a conflict.
Table 14: All Focus Groups (Independence)
As can be seen in the illustration above, all student groups similarly understand
most benefits about being self-employed. ‘Independence’ was the key word which all
groups have specified. The outcomes of focus group A matches these responses and thus,
overlapping attitudes of all groups are observed for the first time.
EBD students seem more responsible in their entrepreneurial endeavors due to the
aforementioned practical experiences about facing the consequences of making vital
decisions. These practical insights may also account for the students´ superior
understanding of what necessities constitute entrepreneurship.
During the focus groups, the question 'Do you think that your Swedish nationality
or your LNU identity influence your motivation to start your own business?' was asked.
Independence
50
This question is not backed up by contemporary literature, nor is it an inherent component
of the conceptual framework. The intention of this question was to inspire the participants
to talk about their perception of LNU as an entrepreneurial university and about Sweden
as a highly entrepreneurial country.
Among the non-business students, nobody thought that their LNU identity has an
impact. However, they do perceive Sweden as a good starting point to found a business
as you can get a loan from, for example, 'Arbetsförmedlingen'. Similarly, the business
students do not consider the university as important, whereas they also regard Sweden as
a good place to start being entrepreneurial.
On the contrary, the EBD students highly appreciate the university environment
and perceive it as "special". Furthermore, the students stress the natural growth of
entrepreneurial ventures around campus and Växjö in general. In accordance with the
other two groups, they feel lucky to have the advantages of a Swedish nationality as they
have access to monetary support by the government and a stable economy.
In essence, there is a large discrepancy between group C and A, and a slightly
smaller discrepancy between B and A. There are partial similarities between group B and
C. All economics-oriented students showed similar standpoints and used a comparable
vocabulary to express their attitude towards entrepreneurship. Nevertheless, group C
presented the most notable entrepreneurial pursuit. On the whole, group A proved to be a
reliable control group. For the most part, its respondents outlined the opposite of what the
other two groups indicated. The expected pattern for perceived self-efficacy almost
completely matched the observed pattern. In contrast, the observations of perceived social
norms do not match what was expected. Finally, independence was found to be a
beneficial aspect among all students.
6.2 CONCLUSION
Entrepreneurship makes a significant contribution to economic growth: for this
reason, EI models were established over the past decades as they can predict an
individual's entrepreneurial behavior (Bird, 1988 and Krueger and Carsrud, 1993). A
concise EI literature review resulted in three decisive factors – 'perceived self-efficacy',
'perceived social norms', and 'independence'. These factors are suggested to positively
influence one's ‘attitude towards entrepreneurial behaviour’ and therewith directly affect
an individual's entrepreneurial intent.
51
The purpose of this study has been to investigate whether these factors can be
found as drivers for EI among Swedish non-business students, business students and
participants of the EBD program. A comparison between the three was made in order to
answer the research question: How do Swedish students perceive entrepreneurial intent?
Swedish business students and EBD students verified the assumptions made about
self-efficacy. Accordingly, both groups have proven to possess the typical skillset that is
needed to become an entrepreneur; the analysis even showed a strong proclivity of those
students towards an entrepreneurial career. On the opposite, non-business students did
not show any suitable capabilities for EI nor any propensity towards having an
entrepreneurial career.
Regarding the perceived social norms, the analysis disproved the positive
relationship with EI found in other intention-based models. While business students
prefer to be supported but do not necessarily rely on it, the EBD students regard outside
opinions as inferior and subjective. These results differ from the case of the non-business
students. They consider their family's and friend's support important and rely on their
opinion. Evidence was found for a negative relationship between perceived social norms
and EI. This means that the lower EI among Swedish students are, the more reliant those
students are on their friends and familys opinion and support, and vice versa.
Most intention-based models do not consider the factor ‘independence’ when
investigating antecedents of EI. In contrast to other literature, this study included
‘independence’ as a main factor in the exploration of EI predictors among Swedish
students. Moreover, the analysis has emphasised ‘independence’ as the most distinctive
factor among the investigated variables. Its conceptualized patterns of autonomy and
personal freedom has been pointed out to be a heavy driver of EI. This indicates that the
motivation Swedish students have for starting a business differs from students from other
countries. Swedish students are mainly motivated by their search for independence and
to be their own boss with the inherent flexibility.
6.3 LIMITATIONS
The primary limitation of this thesis is the overall scope of the research. Due to
the limited amount of time and accessibility constraints, data had to be collected from a
restricted number of students. The initially planned project size was significantly
narrowed down due to the difficulty of finding volunteers. Thus, the used qualitative
approach combined with the relatively small sample size does not allow to make any
52
generalizations. In an ideal world, this case study would have included pre-testing the
focus groups for all three chosen student groups. Afterwards, in-depth interviews could
have been conducted with a questionnaire adjusted according to the focus group
responses. Under different circumstances, the same study could have been made at
different Swedish universities in order to strengthen the findings.
Moreover, the considered literature is a possible limitation. The available
scientific sources about the phenomenon of entrepreneurial intent are wide and diverse.
Therefore, the review had to be limited to a realistic amount of credible sources. In
addition, the empirical data is restricted because of the decision about a suitable research
method. In this example, focus groups entail the potential risk of participant bias and a
lack of participation. In other words, research subjects who are less self-confident and
talkative than others may say something similar instead of defending their true opinion.
Regarding the quantity of responses, the researcher must be prepared to not have a
sufficient amount of valuable comments. Furthermore, this study exclusively relies on a
student sample. Even though they may be facing an immediate career choice in the
foreseeable future, it may be regarded as preferable to establish direct contacts with
experienced entrepreneurs to determine the cognitive processes of entrepreneurs.
53
7 RECOMMENDATIONS
This last chapter gives practical recommendations and suggestions for theoretical future
research.
7.1 PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Due to the contextualized nature of this thesis, some inferences can be drawn from
the study's findings. Because of the intentional perspective, entrepreneurship practitioners
and lecturers can gain a better understanding of how intentions are shaped and how the
company creator's self-efficacy and motives merge into entrepreneurial intentions.
In particular, entrepreneurs may have an advantage if they accurately understand
their own leitmotif. Hereby, the view through intention-based lenses facilitates the
identification of one's own perceived desirability and feasibility.
This case study documents that the EBD students feel supported by Linnaeus
University, whereas the other two student groups do not feel this way. Therefore,
universities are urged to provide a good environment for potential entrepreneurs. In
conjunction with this observation, entrepreneurial success among LNU students must be
transparently visible in order to positively influence the whole student body in Växjö.
Even though the impact of entrepreneurship education itself was not examined in
this study, the results indicate that the university shall embolden their students to come
up with creative ideas and to teach the demanded entrepreneurial skills.
Speaking on a larger scale, this study infers that it is desirable if policy makers
have a comprehensive understanding of entrepreneurial intentions. This may lead to
governmental initiatives having a positive effect on new business formations.
7.2 FUTURE RESEARCH
This study puts emphasis on three interacting personality traits which together
constitute the attitude towards entrepreneurial intent among Swedish students. In order to
logically follow up on this, future research should explore the circumstances and
conditions in which students with entrepreneurial intentions are most likely to start their
own business. The perspective of the EBD students may be most useful for this study.
The interesting findings among the different student groups regarding their LNU
and Swedish identity are a promising base to conduct further research on. Not only may
one consider university support as another constituent, but it may also be interesting to
54
examine how to sustainably characterize LNU as the entrepreneurial university among all
students. Thereby, future research may pose the following questions: To which extent
does their LNU identity influence the student’s entrepreneurial pursuit? How does the
campus environment transparently impact this condition? In accordance with the findings
about the benefit of an entrepreneurial family tradition, parental experience and influence
may also be investigated.
Although there is still much to gain from intention-based variables of
entrepreneurial intent in Sweden, the generalizibility of the findings should be examined.
The research scope may be extended to other countries and scientists may qualitatively
test the significant variables on samples of subjects who vary in age, experience and
ethnicity. This may be attempted with a cross-culture approach.
It must also be remembered that the entrepreneurial intention is not necessarily
followed by entrepreneurial action. Therefore, future scientists could include actual
behavior measurements in order to strengthen the link between intent and behavior. One
possible way to do this would be to conduct a longitudinal study. An increased
understanding of the entrepreneurial intent may establish more components, which
hypothetically have promise for future studies.
55
8 LIST OF REFERENCES
8.1 SCIENT IFIC SOURCES
Ajzen, I. (1987). Attitudes, traits, and actions: Dispositional prediction of behavior in
personality and social psychology. In: Berkowitz L., ed., Advances in
experimental social psychology. New York: Academic Press. 20(1), pp.1–63.
Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
Ajzen, I. (1991). Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50(1), pp.179-211.
Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the
theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4),
pp.665–683.
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social
Behavior, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Alänge, S. and Scheinberg, S. (1988). Swedish entrepreneurship in a cross-cultural
perspective, pp.1-15.
Aldridge Jr., J.H. (1997). An occupational personality profile of the male entrepreneur
as assessed by the 16PF fifth edition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
ProQuest Information & Learning, University of Georgia.
Almutairi, A.F., Gardner, G.E. and McCarthy, A. (2014). Practical guidance for the use
of a pattern-matching technique in case-study research: A case presentation.
Nursing and Health Sciences, 16(2), pp.239–244.
Anderson, B.S., Kreiser, P.M., Kuratko, D.F., Hornsby, J.S. and Eshima, Y. (2015).
Reconceptualizing entrepreneurial orientation. Strategic Management Journal,
36(10), pp.1579-1596.
Austin, J. and Vancouver, J. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology: structure, process,
and content. Psychological Bulletin, 120(3), pp.338–375.
Autio, E., Keeley, R.H., Klofsten, M., Parker, G.G.C. and Hay, M. (2001).
Entrepreneurial intent among students in Scandinavia and in the USA.
Enterprise and Innovation Management Studies, 2, pp.145–160.
Bagozzi, R.P. (1992). The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions and behavior. Social
Psychology Quarterly, pp.178–204.
Bagozzi, R.P., Baumgartner, H., and Yi, Y. (1992). State vs. action orientation and the
theory of reasoned action. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(4), pp.505–518.
56
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of thought and action.: A social cognitive
Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Barnett, J.A. (1989). Focusing on Residents. Journal of Property Management, 10(1),
pp.31-32.
Baum, J.R., Frese M. and Baron R. (2007). The Psychology of Entrepreneurship.
Lawrence. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Baum, R. (1994). The Relation of Traits, Competencies, Vision, Motivation, and
Strategy to Venture Growth. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Maryland, College Park, MD.
Begley, T.M. and Boyd, D.P. (1987). Psychological characteristics associated with
performance in entrepreneurial firms and smaller businesses. Journal of
Business Venturing, 2(1), pp.79–93.
Bellah, R. (1981). The ethical aims of social inquiry. The Teachers College Record,
83(1), pp.1-18.
Bird, B. (1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intentions. Academy
of Management Review, 13(3), pp.442–454.
Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2011). Business Research Methods. 3rd ed. New York City:
Oxford-University Press.
Busenitz, L.W. and Lau, C.M. (1996). Across-cultural cognitive model of new venture
creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 20(4), pp.25–40.
Byers, P.Y. and Wilcox, J.R. (1991). Focus Groups: A Qualitative Opportunity for
Researchers. International Journal of Business Communication, 28(1), pp.63-78.
Calder, B. (1977). Focus Groups and the Nature of Qualitative Marketing Research.
Journal of Marketing Research, 14(10), pp.353–364.
Campbell, D.T. (1966). Pattern matching as an essential in distal knowing. In:
Hammond KR (ed.). The Psychology of Egon Brunsvik. New York: Holt,
Rinehart &Winston, 1966; 81–106.
Chell, E., Haworth, J.M. and Brearley, S. (1991). The entrepreneurial personality:
Concepts, cases and categories. London: Routledge.
Cheng, K.W. (2014). A study on applying focus group interview on education. Reading
Improvement, 51(4), pp.381-385.
Crowne, D.P. and Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive: Studies in evaluative
dependence. New York: Wiley, pp.27.
57
Davidsson, P. (1991). Continued entrepreneurship: Ability, need, and opportunity as
determinants of small firm growth. Journal of business venturing, 6(6), pp.405-
429.
Diener, E. and Crandall, R. (1978). Ethics in social and behavioral research. U Chicago
Press.
Dubini, P. and Aldrich, H. (1991). Personal and extended networks are central to the
entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing, 6(5), pp.305-313.
Dul, J., and Hak, T. (2008). Case study research methodology in business research.
Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Dyer, W.G. (1994). Toward a theory of entrepreneurial careers. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 19(1), pp.7–21.
Eijdenberg, E.L., Paas, L.J. and Masurel, E. (2015) Entrepreneurial motivation and
small business growth in Rwanda. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging
Economies, 7(3), pp.212-240.
Eisenhardt, K. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges.
Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), pp.25–32.
Engle R.L., Dimitriadi N., Gavidia J.V., Schlaegel C., Delanoe S., Alvarado I., He X.,
Buame S., Wolff B. (2010). Entrepreneurial intent: A twelve‐country evaluation
of Ajzen's model of planned behaviour. International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behavior & Research, 16(1), pp.35-57.
Eriksson, P. and Kovalainen, A. (2008). Case study research. In Qualitative methods in
business research. London & Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.115–136.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behaviour: An
Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Fletcher, J.F. (1966). Situation ethics: The new morality. Westminster John Knox Press.
Geertz, C. (1973). Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture. In:
Geertz, C. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Giacomin, O., Janssen, F., Pruett, M., Shinnar, R.S., Llopis, F. and Toney, B. (2011).
Entrepreneurial intentions, motivations and barriers: Differences among
American, Asian and European students. International Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal, 7(2), pp.219-238.
Godin, G. and Kok, G. (1996). The theory of planned behavior: A review of its
applications to health-related behaviors. American Journal of Health Promotion,
11(2), pp.87–98.
58
Greener, S. (2008). Business Research Methods. Ventus Publishing ApS.
Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research.
Handbook of qualitative research, 2(163-194), pp.105.
Guzmán-Alfonso, C. and Guzmán-Cuevas, J. (2012). Entrepreneurial intention models
as applied to Latin America. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 25(5), pp.721-735.
Hagger, M., Chatzisarantis, N., Culverhouse, T. and Biddle, S. (2003). The processes by
which perceived autonomy support in physical education promotes leisure-time
physical activity intentions and behavior: a trans-contextual model. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 95(4), pp.784–795.
Hatch, J.A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in educational settings. Suny Press.
Hisrich, R.D. (1985). The woman entrepreneur in the United States and Puerto Rico: a
comparative study. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 5(5),
pp.3–8.
Hornaday, J.A. and Aboud, J. (1971). Characteristics of successful entrepreneurs.
Personnel Psychology, 24(2), pp.141–153.
Hunter, J.E. (1986). Cognitive ability, cognitive aptitudes, job knowledge and job
performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29(3), pp.340–362.
Iakovleva, T. and Kolvereid, L. (2009). An integrated model of entrepreneurial
intentions. International Journal of Business and Globalisation, 3(1), pp. 66–80.
Lortie, J. and Castogiovanni, G. (2015). The theory of planned behavior in
entrepreneurship research: what we know and future directions. International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(4), pp.935-957.
Katz, J. and Gartner, W. (1988). Properties of emerging organizations. Academy of
Management Review, 13(3), pp.429–441.
Katz, J.A. (1992). Modeling entrepreneurial career progressions: Concepts and
considerations. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 19(2), 23–39.
Kautonen, T., Van Gelderen, M. and Fink, M. (2013). Robustness of the theory of
planned behavior in predicting entrepreneurial intentions and actions.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(3), pp.655-674.
Kautonen, T., Van Gelderen, M. and Tornikoski, E. (2013). Predicting entrepreneurial
behaviour: a test of the theory of planned behavior. Applied Economics, 45(6),
pp.697–707.
59
Kirby, D.A. and Fan Y. (1995). Chinese cultural values and entrepreneurship: A
preliminary consideration. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 3(3), pp.245–260.
Kolvereid, L. (1996). Prediction of employment status choice intentions.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 20(3), pp.47–57.
Krueger, N. (1993). The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of new
venture feasibility and desirability. Entrepreneurship: Theory and practice,
18(1), pp.5-22.
Krueger, N.F. (2003). The Cognitive Psychology of Entrepreneurship. In: Acs Z.J. and
Audretsch, D.B. Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research. ed. London:
Springer, pp.105– 140.
Krueger, N.F. and Brazeal, D.V. (1994). Entrepreneurial potential and potential
entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 18(3), pp.91–104.
Krueger, N.F. and Carsrud, A. (1993). Entrepreneurial intentions: applying the theory
of planned behaviour. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 5(4),
pp.315-330.
Krueger, N.F., Reilly, M.D. and Carsrud, A.L. (2000). Competing Models of
Entrepreneurial Intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5), pp.411–432.
Kuehn, K. (2008). Entrepreneurial intentions research: implications for
entrepreneurship education. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 11, pp.87-
98.
LeCompte, M.D. and Goetz, J.P. (1982). Problems of Reliability and Validity in
Ethnographic Research. Review of Educational Research, 52(1), pp.31–60.
Lee, S.H. and Wong, P.K. (2004). An exploratory study of technopreneurial intentions:
a career anchor perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(1), pp.7–28.
Liles, P. (1974). Who are the entrepreneurs? MSU Business Topics, 22, pp.5–14.
Liñán, F., & Chen, Y. W. (2009). Development and cross-cultural application of a
specific instrument to measure entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 33(3), 593–617
Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lortie, J. and Castogiovanni, G. (2015). The theory of planned behavior in
entrepreneurship research: what we know and future directions. International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(4), pp.935-957.
Lydecker, T. (1986). Focus Group Dynamics. Association Management, 38(3), pp.73-
78.
60
Malhotra, K. and Birks, D.F. (2003). Marketing research: An applied approach. New
Pearson: Education.
Malhotra, N.K. (2010). Marketing research: an applied orientation. Upper Saddle
River, N.J.; London: Pearson Education.
Malhotra, N.K. and Birks, D.F. (2003). Marketing research: An applied approach, New
Pearson: Education.
Marchand, J. and Hermens, A. (2015). Student Entrepreneurship: A Research Agenda.
International Journal of Organizational Innovation (Online), 8(2), pp.266.
Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative Researching. London: Sage.
Merriam, S.B. (2009). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation.
San Francisco: Wiley & Sons.
Meyer, G.D., Zacharakis, A.L. and De Castro, J. (1993). A postmortem of new venture
failure: An attribution theory perspective. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship
Research, 17(13), pp.256-269.
Milner, J.B. (1997). A Psychological Typology of Successful Entrepreneurs. Westport,
CT: Quorum.
Mitchell, R.K., Smith J.B., Morse E.A., Seawright K.W., Peredo A.M. and McKenzie
B. (2002). Are entrepreneurial cognitions universal? Assessing entrepreneurial
cognitions across cultures. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 26(4), pp.9–
24.
Munhall, P. L. (1988). Ethical considerations in qualitative research. Western Journal
of Nursing Research, 10(2), pp. 150-162.
Murugesan, R. and Jayavelu, R. (2015). Testing the impact of entrepreneurship
education on business, engineering and arts and science students using the
theory of planned behaviour: A comparative study. Journal of Entrepreneurship
in Emerging Economies, 7(3), pp.256-275.
Neville, C. (2007). Introduction to research and research methods. University of
Bradford, School of Management.
Pavlou, P. and Fygenson, M. (2006). Understanding and predicting electronic
commerce adoption: an extension of the theory of planned behavior. MIS
Quarterly, 30(1), pp.115–143.
Plant, R. and Ren, J. (2010). A comparative study of motivation and entrepreneurial
intentionality: Chinese and American perspectives. Journal of Developmental
Entrepreneurship, 15(2), pp.187–204.
61
Quible, Z. (1998). A Focus on Focus Groups. Business Communication Quarterly,
61(2), pp.28-38.
Reitan, B. (1997). Where do we learn that entrepreneurship is feasible, desirable,
and/or profitable. ICSB World Conference, pp.21-24.
Reynolds, P. (1994). Reducing barriers to understanding new firm gestation:
prevalence and success of nascent entrepreneurs. Academy of Management,
Dallas, TX.
Robinson, P.B., Stimpson D.V., Huefner J.C. and Hunt H.K. (1991). An attitude
approach to the prediction of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 15(4), pp.13–31.
Robinson, O. C. (2014). Sampling in Interview-Based Qualitative Research: A
Theoretical
and Practical Guide. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 11:1, 25-41.
Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. First edition. Los
Angeles: SAGE.
Sahut, J.M., Gharbi, S. and Mili, M. (2015). Identifying factors key to encouraging
entrepreneurial intentions among seniors. Canadian Journal of Administrative
Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration, 32(4), pp.252-
264.
Saunders, M. Lewis, P & Thornhill, A. (2009) Research Methods for Business Students (5th
edition) Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Scherer, R.F., Adams, J.S., Carley, S.S. and Wiebe, F.A. (1989). Role model
performance effects on development of entrepreneurial career preference.
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 13(3), pp.53–71.
Schlaegel C. and Koenig M. (2014). Determinants of Entrepreneurial Intent: A Meta-
Analytic Test and Integration of Competing Models. Entrepreneurship: Theory
and Practice. 38(2), pp.291-332.
Schumpeter, J. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Uni- versity Press.
Shane, S., Locke, E.A. and Collins, C.J. (2003). Entrepreneurial motivation. Human
Resource Management Review, 13(2), pp.257-279.
Shapero, A. (1975). The displaced, uncomfortable entrepreneur. Psychology Today, 9,
pp.83–88.
62
Shapero, A. and Sokol, L. (1982). The Social Dimensions of Entrepreneurship.
Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, pp.72-90.
Shook, C.L. and Bratianu, C. (2010). Entrepreneurial intent in a transitional economy:
an application of the theory of planned behavior to Romanian students.
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 6(3), pp.231–247.
Shook, C.L., Priem, R.L., and McGee, J.E. (2003). Venture creation and the
enterprising individual: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 29(3),
pp.379–399.
Solomon, M., Bamossy, G., Askegaard, S. and Hodd, M. (2013). Consumer Behaviour
– A European Perspective, 5th, Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Stake, R.E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stake, R.E. (2005). Qualitative Case Studies. In: Denzin, N.K. and Y. S. Lincoln, ed.,
The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stewart, D.W., Shamdasani, P.N. and Rook, D.W. (2007). Theory and practice. Focus
Groups Sage Publications.
Stewart, W.H., Watson, W.E., Carland, J.C. and Carland, J.W. (1999). A proclivity for
entrepreneurship: A comparison of entrepreneurs, small business owners, and
corporate managers. Journal of Business venturing, 14(2), pp.189-214.
Taylor, S.J. and Bogdan, R. (1998). Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: A
Guidebook and Resource. 3rd ed. Published by Jon Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Threlfall D.K. (1999). Using Focus Group as a consumer research tool. Journal of
Marketing Practice: Applied Marketing Science, 5(4).
Tight, M. (2010). The Curious Case of Case Study: A Viewpoint. International Journal
of Social Research Methodology, 13(4), pp.329–39.
Tkachev, A and Kolvereid L. (1999). Self-employment intentions among Russian
students. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 11(3), pp.268–280.
Trochim, W. (1989). Outcome pattern matching and program theory. Eval.
Program Plann. 12: 355–366.
Turker, D., and Selcuk S. (2009). Which Factors Affect Entrepreneurial Intention of
University Students?. Journal of European Industrial Training, 33(2), pp.142–
159.
Van Auken, H., Stephens, P., Fry, F.L. and Silva, J. (2006). Role model influences on
entrepreneurial intentions: A comparison between USA and Mexico. The
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 2(3), pp.325-336.
63
Van Gelderen, M., Brand, M., Van Praag, M., Bodewes, W., Poutsma, E. and Van Gils,
A. (2006). Explaining entrepreneurial intentions by means of the theory of
planned behaviour. Career Development International, 13(6), pp. 538-559.
Van Gelderen, M., Brand, M., Van Praag, M., Bodewes,W., Poutsma, E., and Van Gils,
A. (2008). Explaining entrepreneurial intentions by means of the theory of
planned behavior. Career Development International, 13(6), 538–559.
Weber, M. (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. trans. A. M.
Henderson and T. Parsons. New York: Free Press.
Wood, R. and Brotherton, B. (2008). The SAGE handbook of hospitality management.
London: SAGE Publications.
Wurthmann, K. (2014). Business students’ attitudes toward innovation and intentions to
start their own businesses. International Entrepreneurship and Management
Journal, 10(4), pp.691-711.
Yin, R.K. (2009). Case study research: Design and Methods. 4th ed. Sage Publications.
Zampetakis, L.A. and Moustakis, V. (2006). Linking creativity with entrepreneurial
intentions: A structural approach. The International Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal, 2(3), pp.413–428.
Zhao, H., Seibert S. and Hills G.E. (2005). The Mediating Role of Self-Efficacy in the
Development of Entrepreneurial Intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology,
90(6), pp.1265– 1272.
8.2 ELECTRONICAL SOURCES
Centrala Studiestödsnämnden (2013). What is financial aid for studies? [Online]
Available from: http://www.csn.se/en/2.1034/2.1036/2.1037/2.1038. [Accessed:
15th May 2016].
Drivhuset. (2013) Start [Online] Available from: http://drivhuset.se/en/. [Accessed: 2nd
May 2016].
Island Of Entrepreneurs (2015). The Story. [Online] Available from:
http://www.islandofentrepreneurs.com/. [Accessed: 22th April 2016].
Linnaeus University (2016a). Entrepreneurship. [Online] Available from:
https://lnu.se/en/education/job-and-career/entrepreneurship/. [Accessed: 22th
April 2016].
64
Linnaeus University (2016b). Det entreprenöriella universitetet. [Online] Available
from: https://lnu.se/mot-linneuniversitetet/om-linneuniversitetet/vision-och-
vardegrund/det-entreprenoriella-universitetet/. [Accessed: 15th May 2016].
Linnaeus University (2016c). Enterprising & Business Development. [Online]
Available from: https://lnu.se/program/egebd/20162/71002/. [Accessed: 22th
April 2016].
Linnaeus University (2016d). Linnaeus University Short Facts. [Online] Available
from: https://lnu.se/en/meet-linnaeus-university/This-is-linnaeus-
university/linnaeus-university-in-numbers/ [Accessed: 22th April 2016].
Linnaeus University (2016e). Vision and Basic Principles. [Online] Available from:
https://lnu.se/en/meet-linnaeus-university/This-is-linnaeus-university/vision-and-
basic-principles/. [Accessed: 15th May 2016].
Videum AB (2016). Business Concept. [Online] Available from:
http://www.videum.se/in-english. [Accessed: 22th April 2016].