inclination towards entrepreneurship among … · chapter 2 entrepreneurship development in...
TRANSCRIPT
ABSTRACT
This study investigates the inclination towards entrepreneurship among Malaysian university
students in the northern region of Peninsular Malaysia. Specifically, it aims to examine the
relationship between entrepreneurship education and university students’ inclination towards
entrepreneurship. This study also examines the moderating effects of demographic
characteristics and family business background on entrepreneurship education and the image
of entrepreneurship and university students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship. The
samples were from final year university students in business, engineering, computing and
information technology (IT) programmes at three public universities. A self-administered
questionnaire was used in this study to collect data. The questionnaire consisted of seven
parts: the respondent’s characteristics and family business background, future career planning
and entrepreneurial inclination, role models, the role of universities in promoting
entrepreneurship, the entrepreneurial curriculum and contents, assessment and teaching
methods for entrepreneurship course(s), and entrepreneurial internship programmes. Five
hundred Malay-version questionnaires were randomly distributed to selected classes during a
regular lecture period in Semester 1 Session 2007. The students were given a week to return
the questionnaires. Participation was voluntary. After screening, a total of 417 questionnaires
were deemed completed and usable. This yielded a response rate of 83.4 per cent. Descriptive
analysis, factor analysis, multiple regression, one-way ANOVA, independent sample t-test
and structural equation modelling were used to test the hypothesised propositions. The results
of factor analysis suggested that future career planning and entrepreneurial inclination loaded
into two new dimensions: university students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship and image
of entrepreneurship. On the other hand, factor analysis on the entrepreneurial curriculum and
contents recommended another two new dimensions: the entrepreneurial curriculum and
i
contents and the personal independent learning approach. Multiple regression was performed
to examine the relationship between entrepreneurship education and inclination towards
entrepreneurship. The results showed that the role of universities in promoting
entrepreneurship and the entrepreneurial curriculum and contents have a statistically
significant relationship with student inclination towards entrepreneurship. At the same time,
image of entrepreneurship was also found to have a relationship with student inclination
towards entrepreneurship. One-way ANOVA and independent sample t-test was carried out to
test the significant differences of demographic characteristics and family business background
on inclination towards entrepreneurship. The hypothesis testing results indicated that gender,
programmes of study, previous working experience as well as mother’s occupation did have
significant differences on university students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship. Structural
equation modelling was used to examine whether the relationships among entrepreneurship
education, image of entrepreneurship and university students’ inclination towards
entrepreneurship are moderated by the demographic characteristics and family background.
The results revealed that there were statistically significant effects in terms of university
students’ ethnicity and birth order on the relationships. Finally, based on the findings, the
implications of the study, recommendations for actions and suggestions for future research are
put forward.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I would particularly like to express my appreciation to my supervisor,
Professor Dr Christopher Selvarajah, for giving invaluable guidance, inspiration and patience
throughout the completion of this dissertation. I am deeply grateful to him. He has also been
my good mate and mentor who is always encouraging, motivating, supportive and even
willing to share every hardship and happiness of mine. I also thank Dr Denny Meyer, my
second supervisor, for her incredible assistance and dedication in helping me to analyse the
data. I would never have been able to complete this dissertation successfully without the
unfailing support from my supervisors.
I would like to extend my immense gratitude to my friends at the Australian Graduate School
of Entrepreneurship, Swinburne University of Technology for their support. My special
thanks to Dr Thi Lip Sam, Dr Yap Chee Jin and Mr Hoe Chee Hee for their constructive
comments and valuable opinions over the period of my studies, which I will never forget.
Finally, I am grateful to my family for the financial and moral support during my studies at
the Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia.
iii
DECLARATION
This dissertation contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other
degree, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, the dissertation contains no material
previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made in the
text of the thesis.
Special dedications and thanks to
Professor Chris Selavarajah, Dr. Denny Meyer, Dr Mohamed Ali Abdul Rahman, Hasniza
Mohd Taib, Ailing, Chong, Basha, Chris Dembek and all of my friends at the Malaysia Hall
and AGSE (to name a few) for your unfailing support and encouragements during my brain
tumour surgery at the St Vincent’s Hospital, Melbourne.
I really do not know what to say to you guys unless millions of thank you and I hope may
God bless all of you a good health and cheerfulness.
Last but not least, many thanks again from me to you all.
Ooi Yeng Keat
Melbourne, Australia
2008
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
DECLARATION iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS v
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS xii
LIST OF TABLES xiii
LIST OF FIGURES xvi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xvii
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Overview 1
1.2 Purpose of the study 3
1.3 Objectives of the study 4
1.4 Research questions 4
1.5 Significance of the study 5
1.6 Research model 7
1.7 Operational definitions 8
1.8 Organisation of the dissertation 9
Chapter 2 Entrepreneurship development in Malaysia: An overview 11
2.1 Introduction 11
2.2 A brief introduction to Malaysia 11
2.2.1 Geographic location and climate 11
2.2.2 Historical background 12
2.2.3 People and language 13
2.2.4 Religion 13
2.2.5 Constitution and governmental system 14
2.3 Entrepreneurship development in Malaysia 14
2.3.1 The New Economic Policy (1970-1990) 16
v
2.3.1.1 Achievements and shortcomings of the NEP 17
2.3.2 The New Development Policy (1991-2000) 19
2.3.2.1 Vision 2020 20
2.3.3 The Ministry of Entrepreneur and Cooperative
Development 22
2.3.4 Council of Trust for the Indigenous People (MARA) 24
2.3.5 SME Bank 25
2.4 Entrepreneurship education at universities in Malaysia 25
2.4.1 The development of university education 25
2.4.2 Entrepreneurship education at universities 26
2.5 Conclusion 27
Chapter 3 Literature review 28
3.1 Introduction 28
3.2 Definition of entrepreneurship 28
3.3 The main perspectives of entrepreneurship 33
3.3.1 Entrepreneurship from the economic perspective 34
3.3.2 Entrepreneurship from the psychological perspective 36
3.3.3 Entrepreneurship from the sociological perspective 38
3.4 The importance of entrepreneurship 40
3.5 Entrepreneurship and education 42
3.6 The development of entrepreneurship education: An overview 43
3.6.1 The concept of entrepreneurship education 47
3.6.1.1 Criticisms of entrepreneurship education: Business
education versus entrepreneurship education 49
3.6.2 The objectives of entrepreneurship education 50
3.6.3 The significant effects of entrepreneurship education 53
3.7 Current studies in entrepreneurship education research 55
3.8 The role of universities in promoting entrepreneurship 57
3.9 The entrepreneurship curriculum and content 62
3.9.1 Entrepreneurship course content 63
3.9.2 Pedagogical approaches 65
vi
3.10 Role models 67
3.11 Entrepreneurial internship programmes 70
3.12 Demographic and family business background variables 74
3.12.1 Demographic characteristics 74
3.12.1.1 Gender 75
3.12.1.2 Ethnicity 76
3.12.1.3 Religion 76
3.12.1.4 Birth order 77
3.12.1.5 Place of origin 77
3.12.1.6 Programmes of study 78
3.12.1.7 Previous working experience 79
3.12.2 Family business background 80
3.13 Proposed theoretical framework 82
3.14 Conclusion 82
Chapter 4 Research methodology 85
4.1 Introduction 85
4.2 Study design 85
4.2.1 Universiti Utara Malaysia 86
4.2.2 Universiti Teknologi MARA (Kedah branch) 87
4.2.3 Universiti Malaysia Perlis 88
4.3 Sources of data 90
4.3.1 Population of the study 90
4.3.2 Sample size 92
4.3.3 Hypotheses 92
4.4 Design of the questionnaire 94
4.4.1 Instrumentation design 94
4.4.2 Ethics considerations for the study 97
4.4.3 Pilot test 98
4.4.3.1 Reliability test 99
4.5 Data collection 101
4.5.1 Methods 101
vii
4.5.2 Procedures 101
4.5.3 Non-response bias 102
4.5.4 Data analysis 103
4.5.4.1 Descriptive analysis 103
4.5.4.2 Inferential analysis 103
4.5.4.2.1 Factor analysis 104
4.5.4.2.2 Correlations 105
4.5.4.2.3 Multiple regression 105
4.5.4.2.4 One-way ANOVA (one-way Analysis of
Variance) and independent sample t-test 106
4.5.4.2.5 Structural equation modelling 107
4.6 Conclusion 108
Chapter 5 Research analysis and findings 111
5.1 Introduction 111
5.2 Response rate 111
5.3 Non-response bias 112
5.4 Description of the respondents’ characteristics 112
5.4.1 Demographic characteristics 113
5.4.1.1 Gender 114
5.4.1.2 Ethnicity 114
5.4.1.3 Religion 115
5.4.1.4 Age 115
5.4.1.5 Birth order 115
5.4.1.6 Place of origin 115
5.4.1.7 Educational background 115
5.4.1.8 Previous working experience 116
5.4.1.9 Parental occupations 116
5.5 Respondents’ general responses on career perspectives 117
5.5.1 Students’ future career planning 117
5.5.2 Role models’ influence on university students’
inclination towards entrepreneurial careers 119
viii
5.5.3 Entrepreneurial courses 121
5.5.4 Entrepreneurial assessment and teaching methods 124
5.5.5 Entrepreneurial internship programmes 125
5.6 Inferential statistical analysis 125
5.6.1 Construct validity 125
5.6.1.1 Factor analysis for future career
planning and entrepreneurial inclination 126
5.6.1.2 Factor analysis for role models 128
5.6.1.3 Factor analysis for the role of universities in
promoting entrepreneurship 129
5.6.1.4 Factor analysis for the entrepreneurial
curriculum and content 131
5.6.1.5 Factor analysis for the entrepreneurial
internship programmes 133
5.6.1.6 Reliability test 135
5.7 Descriptive analysis 135
5.7.1 Means, standard deviations, maximum and minimum
values of variables 136
5.8 Inter-correlations among variables 136
5.9 The hypotheses revisited 138
5.10 Hypotheses testing 139
5.10.1 Multiple regression 139
5.10.2 An independent sample t-test and one-way ANOVA for
university students’ demographic characteristics 141
5.10.2.1 Gender and inclination towards
entrepreneurship 142
5.10.2.2 Ethnicity and inclination towards
entrepreneurship 142
5.10.2.3 Religion and inclination towards
entrepreneurship 143
5.10.2.4 Birth order and inclination towards
entrepreneurship 143
ix
5.10.2.5 Place of origin and inclination towards
entrepreneurship 144
5.10.2.6 Programmes of study and inclination towards
entrepreneurship 144
5.10.2.7 Previous working experience and inclination
towards entrepreneurship 145
5.10.3 One-way ANOVA for university students’ family business
background 146
5.10.3.1 Father’s occupation and inclination towards
entrepreneurship 146
5.10.3.2 Mother’s occupation and inclination towards
entrepreneurship 147
5.10.4 Structural equation modelling 147
5.10.4.1 Initial model testing 148
5.10.4.2 Final model structure 151
5.10.4.2.1 Comparison for gender 152
5.10.4.2.2 Comparison for ethnicity 153
5.10.4.2.3 Comparison for religion 154
5.10.4.2.4 Comparison for birth order 154
5.10.4.2.5 Comparison for place of origin 155
5.10.4.2.6 Comparison for previous
working experience 156
5.10.4.2.7 Comparison for parents’
occupations 156
5.11 Conclusion 157
Chapter 6 Discussions, recommendations and conclusions 159
6.1 Introduction 159
6.2 Summary of the major findings 159
6.3 Discussion of the findings 160
6.4 Implications of the study 170
6.4.1 The universities’ policy makers 170
x
6.4.2 Students’ attitudes towards entrepreneurial learning 172
6.5 Limitations of the study 172
6.6 Recommendations 173
6.7 Future research directions 176
6.8 Final remarks 178
REFERENCES 180
APPENDIX A Questionnaire (English and Malay languages) 200
B Letter of approval from the Economic Planning Unit,
Malaysia
C Research Pass
xi
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
1. Ooi, Y K, Selvarajah, C & Meyer, D 2006, ‘Pedagogical issue in entrepreneurship
education: Is there any absolute method to teach entrepreneurship?’ The
Second National Conference on Entrepreneurship and Small Business,
December 9-10, Vistana Hotel, Penang, Malaysia.
2. Ooi, Y K, Selvarajah, C & Meyer, D (forthcoming), ‘Entrepreneurship education and
inclination towards entrepreneurship: An Empirical Study of Malaysian
University Students in Northern Malaysia’, Fifth AGSE International
Entrepreneurship Research Exchange, 5-8 February 2008, Melbourne,
Australia. (Abstract accepted)
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Incidence of poverty and hardcore poverty by ethnic group (1999 and 2004 (%))
18
Table 3.1 The entrepreneurial schools of thought 30
Table 3.2 Key contributions of economic writers on the role of the entrepreneur
36
Table 3.3 The perspectives of entrepreneurship 40
Table 3.4 Chronology of entrepreneurship education in America 44
Table 3.5 Five levels of learning of entrepreneurial skills 51
Table 3.6 Study on effects of entrepreneurship education by various researchers
54
Table 3.7 Differences between courses for entrepreneurship and courses about entrepreneurship
66
Table 3.8 Demographic characteristics and entrepreneurship 80
Table 3.9 Family business background and entrepreneurship 81
Table 4.1 Faculties and programmes offered 88
Table 4.2 Distribution of respondents 91
Table 4.3 Summary of the questionnaire 95
Table 4.4 Pilot test Cronbach’s alpha values for variables 100
Table 4.5 Data analysis techniques employed 110
Table 5.1 Frequency breakdown for each discipline of study 111
Table 5.2 Non-response bias 112
Table 5.3 Respondents’ demographic characteristics 113
Table 5.4a Reasons for students’ career choices 117
Table 5.4b Likelihood to start a business after graduation 118
Table 5.4c Probability of students to start own business 118
Table 5.4d Timing to start own business 118
Table 5.4e Motives to start a business 119
Table 5.4f The likelihood of students to become self-employed in the event of unemployed
119
Table 5.5a Role models’ influences on university students’ inclination towards entrepreneurial careers
120
Table 5.5b Role models’ encouragement on university students’ inclination towards entrepreneurial careers
121
Table 5.6a Courses taken during at university 122
xiii
Table 5.6b The usefulness of entrepreneurial courses in helping to start a business
123
Table 5.6c Would co-curriculum activities help in starting a business 123
Table 5.7 Importance of assessment and teaching methods in entrepreneurship courses
124
Table 5.8 The overall evaluation of internship programmes 125
Table 5.9 Summary of factor loadings for future career planning and entrepreneurial inclination
128
Table 5.10 Summary of factor loadings for role models 129
Table 5.11 Summary of factor loadings for the role of universities in promoting entrepreneurship
131
Table 5.12 Summary of factor loadings for the entrepreneurial curriculum and content
133
Table 5.13 Summary of factor loadings for entrepreneurial internship programmes
134
Table 5.14 Reliability test for all the constructs after factor analysis 135
Table 5.15 Minimum, maximum, means and standard deviation of variables 136
Table 5.16 Correlation matrix of the major variables 137
Table 5.17 Multiple regression coefficients 140
Table 5.18 Summary of the hypothesis testing 141
Table 5.19 Independent sample t-test for gender and inclination towards entrepreneurship
142
Table 5.20 One-way ANOVA for ethnicity and inclination towards entrepreneurship
142
Table 5.21 One-way ANOVA for religion and inclination towards entrepreneurship
143
Table 5.22 One-way ANOVA for birth order and inclination towards entrepreneurship
143
Table 5.23 Independent sample t-test for place of origin and inclination towards entrepreneurship
144
Table 5.24 One-way ANOVA for programmes of study and inclination towards entrepreneurship
144
Table 5.25 Independent sample t-test for previous working experience and inclination towards entrepreneurship
145
Table 5.26 Summary of hypothesis testing 145
Table 5.27 One-way ANOVA for university students’ fathers’ occupations and inclination towards entrepreneurship
146
Table 5.28 One-way ANOVA for university students’ mothers’ occupations and inclination towards entrepreneurship
147
Table 5.29 Summary of hypothesis testing 147
Table 5.30a Modification indices 150
Table 5.30b Modification indices 150
xiv
Table 5.31 Removal of non-significant paths 150
Table 5.32 Standardised total effects of the model 152
Table 5.33 Comparison of male and female university students 152
Table 5.34a Comparison of Chinese and non-Chinese university students 153
Table 5.34b Standardised total effects on the differences between Chinese and non-Chinese
153
Table 5.35 Comparison of Muslim and non-Muslim university students 154
Table 5.36a Comparison of first- and non-first-born university students 155
Table 5.36b Standardised total effects on the differences between first born and not-first born
155
Table 5.37 Comparison of rural and urban originated university students 156
Table 5.38 Comparison of university students’ previous working experience 156
Table 5.39 Comparison of university students’ parents’ occupations 157
Table 5.40 Summary of the hypothesis testing 157
xv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Schematic diagram for examining the relationship between entrepreneurship education and inclination towards entrepreneurship
7
Figure 2.1 Map of Malaysia 12
Figure 2.2 Formulation and implementation of NEP and NDP 16
Figure 3.1 Dynamics of entrepreneurial supply 33
Figure 3.2 Entrepreneurship from three main perspectives 34
Figure 3.3 Timeline of the development of entrepreneurship history 42
Figure 3.4 Hierarchical effects of education and entrepreneur competence 52
Figure 3.5 Dominant paradigm in individualistic entrepreneurial education 60
Figure 3.6 Hypothesised conceptual model of the relationship between entrepreneurship education and inclination towards entrepreneurship in Malaysian university students
84
Figure 5.1 Scree plot for future career planning and entrepreneurial inclination
127
Figure 5.2 Scree plot for role models 129
Figure 5.3 Scree plot for the role of universities in promoting entrepreneurship
130
Figure 5.4 Scree plot for the entrepreneurial curriculum and content 132
Figure 5.5 Scree plot for entrepreneurial internship programmes 134
Figure 5.6 Proposed conceptual model (Standardised weights and correlations shown)
148
Figure 5.7 Initial model for the conceptual framework (Standardised weights and correlations shown)
149
Figure 5.8 Final model for the conceptual framework (Standardised weights and correlations shown)
151
Figure 6.1 Future research model 178
xvi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
RM Role models
INT Entrepreneurial internship programmes
PLA Personal independent learning approach
IE Image of entrepreneurship
UR Role of universities in promoting entrepreneurship
ECC Entrepreneurial curriculum and content
EI Inclination towards entrepreneurship
UUM Universiti Utara Malaysia
UiTM Universiti Teknologi MARA
UNIMAP Universiti Malaysia Perlis
MARA Council of Trust for the Indigenous People
xvii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview
The government of Malaysia recognises the importance of self-employment and entrepreneurship in employment creation and economic growth…The inculcation of entrepreneurship values and changing the mindset as to view self-employment as a viable alternative to salaried employment will be intensified including in institutions of higher education.
(Malaysia 2006a, p. 9)
The importance of entrepreneurship has been the centre of attention and is widely
recognised both politically and academically in Malaysia. Like in many other
developing countries, the growing interest in entrepreneurship in Malaysia can be seen
against the background of current developments such as globalisation and the
emergence of knowledge based economies (Ramlee and Abu 2004). It is also a solution
in response to global competition and the practice of corporate downsizing that perhaps
has contributed to the problem of unemployment, especially among graduates (Ragayah
and Smith 2005).
To date, one of the main social development problems facing the Malaysian government
is graduate unemployment. Graduates’ preference for becoming paid employees over
becoming self-employed and the current universities’ systems that promote rote
learning are believed to be among the several contributing factors to the current problem
(Fong 2005; Muszafarshah and Woon 2004). In relation to this, the Malaysian
government considers involvement in entrepreneurship as a possible solution to the
problem of graduate unemployment. This is because many economists and politicians
agree that entrepreneurship stimulates the generation of employment opportunities and
wealth creation (Dana 2001; Garavan and O'Cinneide 1994; Kong 1996).
Given the vital role of entrepreneurship as an engine of economic growth, there is an
intense interest from policy makers and academics in stimulating economic growth
1
through entrepreneurship, including entrepreneurship education (Gorman et al. 1997).
As a result, many universities internationally are currently offering entrepreneurship as
a taught subject (Kolvereid and Moen 1997). For example, in the United States, there
are more than 400 colleges and universities offering courses in entrepreneurship
education and the number of students taking entrepreneurial courses is on the rise
(Kuratko and Hodgetts 2007). In addition, these courses are not only offered by
business schools at the undergraduate and graduate levels, but they are also offered in
other faculties, such as engineering and information technology (Garavan and
O'Cinneide 1994; Leitch and Harrison 1999).
The fast growth of entrepreneurship education is evidence that those who attended
entrepreneurship courses have a higher inclination to venture into new business than
those who attended other courses (Galloway and Brown 2002; Ibrahim and Soufani
2002; Klofsten 2000). In addition, formal entrepreneurial education has been found to
affect attitudes of university students towards entrepreneurship as a career option
(Hansemark 1998).
Therefore, in Malaysia, expectation has been placed upon tertiary education to play a
leading role in developing and producing more entrepreneurially-inclined students (Din
1992). The role of tertiary education has been considered central to the implementation
of entrepreneurship education. Universities, in this regard, have been urged to promote
entrepreneurial spirit among students through a series of education programmes such as
new programmes or courses in entrepreneurship (Malaysia 2006b).
A reasonable concern is then posed about the capability of universities in preparing
university students for choosing entrepreneurship as their viable future career. To
address the concern, this study examines the effect of entrepreneurship education by
focusing on the role of universities in promoting entrepreneurship, role models,
entrepreneurial curriculum and content, and entrepreneurial internship programmes.
2
1.2 Purpose of the study
The purpose of this study is to examine the effect of entrepreneurship education on
Malaysian university students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship. In addressing this,
the research focuses on the central problem of graduate unemployment in the country.
As there are approximately 60,000 to 88,000 graduates reported unemployed
nationwide (Chapman 2004; Staff 2005b; Sujata 2006), it is not a trivial issue but needs
affirmative action to overcome it. In this respect, entrepreneurship has been identified as
the possible panacea to cure current graduate unemployment. In fact the Malaysian
government is starting to promote and emphasise the importance of entrepreneurship as
a career choice as a way of helping the country to overcome the problem (Ariff and
Abubakar 2003; Asokkumar 2005; Ramlee and Abu 2004).
Therefore universities and other institutions of higher learning have been given the
mandate to play a lead role in solving the graduate unemployment problem by
introducing entrepreneurship education to give students the necessary entrepreneurial
skills and behaviours for their future undertakings in business ventures (Staff 2006b,
2007b). Entrepreneurship education is therefore considered as an important mechanism
in inculcating and promoting entrepreneurial spirit among students.
In view of the government’s seriousness about overcoming the graduate unemployment
problem as well as developing potential entrepreneurs, it is timely to undertake this
study to develop a greater understanding of the effect of entrepreneurship education on
university students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship. Hence, the problem to be
investigated in this study is: Given that entrepreneurship is linked to job creation, is
entrepreneurship education capable of reducing the number of unemployed graduates
and at the same time increasing Malaysian university students’ interest in
entrepreneurship?
3
1.3 Objectives of the study
The main objective of this research is to examine the effect of entrepreneurship
education (independent variables) on Malaysian university students’ inclination towards
entrepreneurship (dependent variable). Particularly, this research attempts to examine
the relationship between entrepreneurship education and university students’ inclination
towards entrepreneurship. The specific objectives of this study are to:
i) determine the entrepreneurship education variables that significantly
affect university students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship;
ii) examine the effect of demographic characteristics such as gender,
ethnicity and programmes of study on university students’ inclination
towards entrepreneurship;
iii) examine the effect of family business background on university students’
inclination towards entrepreneurship;
iv) examine the moderating effect of demographic characteristics such as
gender, ethnicity and programmes of study on the relationship between
entrepreneurship education and inclination towards entrepreneurship;
and
v) examine the moderating effect of family business background on the
relationship between entrepreneurship education and inclination towards
entrepreneurship.
1.4 Research questions
Based on the research objectives of this study, the following principle research question
is posed: Does entrepreneurship education have positive effects on Malaysian university
students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship? In addition, the following secondary
research questions are:
i) Which entrepreneurship education variables affect the level of inclination
towards entrepreneurship among university students?
4
ii) Do university students’ demographic characteristics such as gender,
ethnicity and programmes of study affect their inclination towards
entrepreneurship?
iii) Does university students’ family business background affect their
inclination towards entrepreneurship?
iv) Do demographic characteristics such as gender, ethnicity and
programmes of study moderate the relationship between
entrepreneurship education and university students’ inclination towards
entrepreneurship?
v) Does family business background moderate the relationship between
entrepreneurship education and university students’ inclination towards
entrepreneurship?
1.5 Significance of the study
Notwithstanding that many countries are recognising the importance of
entrepreneurship to national economic growth (Lee 2007), there is a paucity of research
linking education to growth in entrepreneurship in regard to the creation of
entrepreneurs among university students (Peterman and Kennedy 2003). The present
research extends previous studies (Fayolle et al. 2006; Fayolle and Gailly 2005) by
examining in depth the effect of entrepreneurship education on university students’
desire to choose entrepreneurship ventures as career alternatives.
In particular, based on studies by Fayolle and Gailly (2005) and Fayolle et al. (2006),
this study investigates the relationship between entrepreneurship education variables
such as the role of universities in promoting entrepreneurship, educators’ and friends’
roles, entrepreneurial curriculum and content, and entrepreneurial internship
programmes, and university students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship.
Furthermore, the relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial
inclination, which may be moderated by personal and family business background, will
also be investigated in this study.
5
Many studies have focused on entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship education in
Malaysia. For example, Din (1992) has conducted the most comprehensive research on
entrepreneurship development so far in Malaysia, focusing on the aspect of
development of entrepreneurship and enterprise in the higher education sector. Wan
Jamaliah and Yaacob’s (2004) study shows that there is a significant relationship
between university students’ entrepreneurial conviction and their image of
entrepreneurship.
Rosli and Idris (2003) also examine the achievements of the Student Enterprise
Programme at Universiti Utara Malaysia. This programme was aimed at providing
undergraduates with necessary business and entrepreneurial skills while studying by
coaching them in planning, starting and managing an entrepreneurial venture. A study
by Cheng and Chan (2004) focuses on the development of entrepreneurship education
in terms of student knowledge regarding entrepreneurship, factors influencing students’
decisions to become entrepreneurs, and motives for establishing a new venture.
However, knowledge about the variables associated with entrepreneurship education
that affect Malaysian university students’ entrepreneurial inclination is still sketchy.
This study is an attempt to fill this knowledge gap. It is also the aim of this research to
contribute to the extant theoretical framework by identifying the variables of
entrepreneurship education that could influence students’ inclination towards
entrepreneurship, especially in the context of Malaysia.
The study makes a third contribution as a source of future reference for further research.
It also hopes to increase understanding of entrepreneurship education and
entrepreneurial inclination among university students in Malaysia as a whole. Most
importantly, the results of the study could provide useful insights into the state of
entrepreneurship education for policy makers and tertiary institutions in Malaysia in
order to overcome the graduate unemployment problem.
Finally, as this study examines university students’ inclination towards
entrepreneurship, it may provide useful practical information to university policy
6
makers in making more informed decisions on entrepreneurship programmes in order to
increase students’ participation in business in the future. The education stakeholders
such as government and universities will also have a better understanding of the factors
that influence students’ propensity towards starting up entrepreneurial ventures. The
outcomes from this research are expected to have policy implications for the future
development of entrepreneurship programmes for young people, especially students at
universities.
1.6 Research model
The model in this study is developed from extant research and is shown in Figure 1.1.
The variance in the dependent variable, i.e. entrepreneurial inclination, is explained by
four independent variables: the role of universities in promoting entrepreneurship,
entrepreneurial curriculum and content, role models, and entrepreneurial internship
programmes. In addition, the moderating effect of demographic characteristics and
family business background on both the independent variables and dependent variable is
examined.
Figure 1.1: Schematic diagram for examining the relationship between entrepreneurship education and inclination towards entrepreneurship
Independent variables Dependent variable
Inclination towards entrepreneurship
• Role of universities in promoting entrepreneurship
• Entrepreneurial curriculum and content
• Role models • Entrepreneurial
internship programmes
Demographic characteristics and family business background
7
1.7 Operational definitions
Different researchers use different definitions of variables in their studies. To give a
clearer conceptual understanding of the terms used, it is useful to define some common
terms found in the study (Hagan 2004). Hence it is imperative for a researcher to define
concepts applied in the study are operationalised and measured (Veal 2005).
Entrepreneurship: The process of creating and running a new business activity
(Edwards and Muir 2006a). It can be categorised in a range of forms: ‘new or
established businesses of all sizes (micro, small, medium and large) or as self-
employment’ (Matlay 2005b, p. 629).
Entrepreneur: Someone who is involved in entrepreneurial activity such as establishing
a new firm or entering into self-employment.
Entrepreneurship education: ‘A range of skills and attributes that are not innate and can
be developed through educational programmes’ (Kanyi 1999, p. 40). In this study, it is
measured by four variables: the role of universities in promoting entrepreneurship, role
models, the entrepreneurial curriculum and content and entrepreneurial internship
programmes.
Inclination towards entrepreneurship: An individual’s disposition or proclivity to
become an entrepreneur.
University students: In this study, university students are students studying in business,
computing and IT and engineering at the undergraduate level in the final university
calendar year.
The role of universities in promoting entrepreneurship: The university environment that
encourages the development of entrepreneurial activities among students, including
university policy, entrepreneurial infrastructure and other support systems.
8
Entrepreneurial curriculum and content: The courses and methods of assessment and
teaching of entrepreneurship that are part of the entrepreneurship education in
universities.
Role models: Those who have an influence on students in making any decision. In this
study, they are educators/lecturers and friends.
Entrepreneurial internship programmes: A field experience that is part of the education
curriculum with the purpose of exposing students to the real entrepreneurial working
conditions.
Demographic characteristics: An individual’s gender, ethnicity, age, religion,
educational background, working experience and place of origin.
Family business background: An individual’s parents’ current working status:
employed, self-employed, in between jobs, unemployed or retired.
1.8 Organisation of the dissertation
This dissertation consists of six chapters. Chapter 1 covers the background of the study,
the research problem, the research questions, objectives of the study, significance of the
study and the research model.
Chapter 2 outlines briefly the historical, political and economic background of
Malaysia. The chapter also discusses the New Economic Policy and the National
Development Policy in regard to the development of entrepreneurship in Malaysia and
the involvement of the Malaysian government and its agencies in the promotion of
entrepreneurship.
Chapter 3 contains the literature review outlining entrepreneurship development, the
concept of entrepreneurship education and its variables (the role of universities in
promoting entrepreneurship, role models, entrepreneurial curriculum and content, and
9
entrepreneurial internship programmes), demographic characteristics and family
business background. This is followed by the development of hypotheses and a model
derived from the literature.
Chapter 4 details the research methodology underpinning this study which includes the
study design, instrumentation design and data collection process.
Chapter 5 analyses the data gathered for this research.
Finally, Chapter 6 discusses the findings of the results, implications, limitations of the
study, recommendations and suggestions for future research.
10
CHAPTER 2
ENTREPRENEURSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN MALAYSIA:
AN OVERVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This chapter presents background information on Malaysia, followed by an overview of
the development and importance of entrepreneurship. This includes the New Economic
Policy (NEP), which sought to create a viable Bumiputra Commercial and Industrial
Community (BCIC) but which was succeeded by the National Development Policy
(NDP). The chapter then explains the efforts taken by the Malaysian government,
through its relevant agencies, to promote entrepreneurship among its people in general,
and the indigenous Bumiputras, in particular. Finally this chapter briefly explains the
development of entrepreneurship education in higher education institutions.
2.2 A brief introduction to Malaysia
This section presents overview information about Malaysia, including its geographic
location and climate, historical background, people and language, religion and
constitutional and governmental system.
2.2.1 Geographic location and climate
Malaysia is a sovereign member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations or
ASEAN. Malaysia is located in Southeast Asia. The country is a federation consisting
of 13 states and three federal territories that are spread over part of the island of Borneo
and Peninsular Malaysia. The total area is 330,252 sq. km. Malaysia’s immediate
neighbours are Thailand, Singapore, Brunei Darussalam and Indonesia (Malaysia 2004).
Due to its proximity to the equator, the climate in Malaysia is hot and humid throughout
the year and is characterised by high temperatures and abundant rainfall (Kaur 1999)
(see Figure 2.1).
11
Figure 2.1: Map of Malaysia
Source: http://www.infoplease.com/atlas/country/malaysia.html
2.2.2 Historical background
Malaysia had always been a melting pot of cultures, even since the early days when
traders from different parts of the world came to Malaysia to trade goods such as spices.
The most important place in Malaysia during the 15th century was Malacca. From the
1400s, Malacca had been a regionally strategic trading centre. Its location at the
convergence of major trade routes, extending eastward to China and westward to India
and Europe, made it a perfect port in the region. Therefore, circa 1400, Malacca became
one of the wealthiest places in Southeast Asia, which, in turn, became a target for many
of the European colonising powers (Jesudason 1990; Omar 1996).
In 1511, when the port of Malacca was at the peak of its international trade, it was
conquered by the Portuguese. In 1641, the Portuguese were attacked and defeated by the
Dutch. Malacca was under Dutch rule for about 140 years, and under an agreement with
the British, Malacca was transferred to the British from 1824. During the Second War
World, Japan occupied Malaysia (Malaya at that time) from 1941–1943 before the
British regained full control of Malaya in 1945 (Malaysia 2004). Under the British
administration, from the mid 1800s, immigrants from China and India were brought
over to work in the mining areas and the rubber estates.
12
The country gained its independence from the British on 31st of August, 1957, with
Kuala Lumpur declared the Federal capital. Malaysia has had experience of being
colonised by foreign powers, the British being the longest ruling colonial power (Kaur
1999). As a result many aspects of administration, law and regulation as well as the
educational system are still influenced by the British system (Jesudason 1990).
2.2.3 People and language
With a population of approximately 26.64 million, Malaysia is a multi-racial country
which is inhabited by Malays, Chinese, Indians, Bidayuhs, Ibans, Kadzans, and other
races. Out of this population, Malays, the predominant group, make up about 50.4 per
cent, Chinese constitute 23.7 per cent, followed by indigenous 11 per cent, Indians 7.1
per cent and others 7.8 per cent (Department of Statistics Malaysia). Basically,
Malaysia’s ethnic groups can be classified into two main categories: i) Bumiputra (sons
of the soil), such as Malays and other indigenous groups who share cultural affinities
indigenous to the region, and ii) non-Bumiputra, who are those whose cultural affinities
lie outside the region, for example Chinese and Indians (Jesudason 1990; Omar 1996).
In the context of this thesis, these terms are used to represent the ethnic groups in
Malaysia. Bahasa Malaysia (Malay language) is the national language in education and
administration while English is still widely used and spoken, especially in business
sectors.
2.2.4 Religion
Islam is the official religion of the Federation of Malaysia. All Malays and some
indigenous Bumiputras are Muslims (about 60 per cent); all Muslims are bounded by
the Islamic laws according to the Koran. Chinese, on the other hand, mainly follow the
teachings of Buddhism and Taoism (about 22 per cent). The majority of Indians are
Hindu (about 6 per cent), with some of them Muslims. Christianity (about 9 per cent) is
practised by some Chinese, Indians and non-Muslim Bumiputras (Malaysia 2004; Omar
13
1996). Some indigenous groups are still practising their animist traditions (about 3 per
cent) (Malaysia 2004).
2.2.5 Constitution and governmental system
Malaysia is a parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarch. Malaysia has a
centralised system of government that is modelled on the British parliament (Jesudason
1990; UNDP 2005). The King is the supreme head of the Federation of Malaysia. He is
elected for a five-year term by his fellow rulers from the other nine states (Perlis,
Kedah, Perak, Selangor, Negeri Sembilan, Johor, Pahang, Terengganu and Kelantan). In
other states, namely Pulau Pinang, Melaka, Sabah and Sarawak, the Yang Di-pertua
Negeri or Governor of the State is the head of state, appointed by the Yang Di-pertuan
Agong (Kaur 1999).
The government, based on parliamentary democracy, is headed by the Prime Minister
and members of the Cabinet. Today, the ruling party is Barisan Nasional (The National
Front), an alliance of parties representing different racial groups. At the state level, the
heads of state governments are Menteri Besar – for states with a monarchy, and Ketua
Menteri – for states without a monarchy.
The Parliament comprises two houses: the Dewan Negara (Senate), whose members are
nominated and appointed by the King, and the Dewan Rakyat (House of
Representatives), which is fully elected. Malaysia has a constitution which can only be
amended by a two-thirds in Parliament (Malaysia 2004).
2.3 Entrepreneurship development in Malaysia
Entrepreneurial activities are not unusual in Malaysian society. They can be seen as far
back as the 15th century when Malacca was a strategic entrepot as well as the business
and trading centre in the Malay archipelago (Buang 2002; Jesudason 1990). However,
during the British colonial ‘divide and rule’ policy, races were identified through
employment, such as Chinese as businessmen, Malays as farmers and Indians as
14
workers in the rubber estates. The policy caused gaps in social and economic
development (Chin 2003).
Notwithstanding Malaysia had obtained its independence from the British in 1957, the
policy left an indelible effect on Malaysian society (Gomes 1999). The disparity in
terms of economic development among Bumiputras and non-Bumiputras was widened
further. The majority of non-Bumiputras, especially Chinese, dominated the business
sector, while Bumiputras (Malays) pursued a traditional rural life as farmers and
fishermen. As a result, the worst inter-racial riot in the country’s history broke out in
1969 due to the imbalanced distribution of the country’s wealth. Consequently, the
government introduced the New Economic Policy, which was later replaced by the
National Development Policy (NDP) to bring a more equitable distribution of wealth
between races. Figure 2.2 outlines the process of both policies’ implementation.
15
Figure 2.2: Formulation and implementation of NEP and NDP
Bumiputra Economic Congress (BEC)
• Chaired by Chief Secretary to the Government
Bumiputra business community
NEP 1970-1990 NDP 1991-2000
Regulatory mechanism
• MITI • MOF • EPU
Government owned companies
• PNB • PKEN • MARA • UDA
Agencies Ministries/ Departments
Institutions
Government policies
UMNO • Dominant Malay political
party, spearheading Malaysian Government since Independence
Source: Shukor, O 2003, The Malay lost world: With emphasis on entrepreneurship, Anzagain Sdn. Bhd., Shah Alam, Malaysia.
2.3.1 The New Economic Policy (1970–1990)
The New Economic Policy (NEP) was Malaysia’s first development plan. It had two
main objectives: to eradicate poverty irrespective of race and to restructure the
disparities within the multi-racial society (Jesudason 1990; Malaysia 2006b). It was
implemented over a twenty-year period (1970–-1990) with the aim of achieving the
objective of national unity (Din 1992; Shukor 2003).
As previously mentioned, the birth of the NEP was the result of a racial riot that
happened in 1969 due to social imbalance and prevalent poverty among the Bumiputra
16
Malays (Chin 2003). Hence the NEP was introduced with the aims of balancing the
sharing of the country’s wealth and bettering the Bumiputras’ socio-economic status by
enhancing their participation in the business sector (Shukor 2003).
Some strategies were implemented to achieve the objectives of the NEP. The
restructuring of employment patterns among races was priority. The identification of
races through their employment sector was eliminated. Besides that, the NEP also set a
specific target for Bumiputra ownership (30 per cent of the corporate sector). Finally,
the government provided business loans and set up large government-owned
corporations to encourage the increase of Bumiputra participation in modern economic
sectors such as business (Cheah 1999). This was meant to create a viable Bumiputra
commercial and industrial community (Kaur 1999).
2.3.1.1 Achievements and shortcomings of the NEP
The implementation of the NEP was to ensure Malays, the predominant population in
the country, would not be left out of the economic development of the country (Buang
2002). After a twenty-year implementation, the NEP had yielded positive outcomes.
Available official statistics on poverty eradication have shown encouraging results. For
instance, the overall poverty rates declined from 49.3 per cent in 1970 to 15 per cent in
1990 (Malaysia 1991). Today, the incidence of poverty among Bumiputras has further
declined from 12.4 per cent in 1999 to 8.3 per cent in 2004, among Indians from 3.5 per
cent to 2.9 per cent, and among Chinese from 1.2 per cent to 0.6 per cent, as shown in
Table 2.1 (Malaysia 2006b).
17
Table 2.1: Incidence of poverty and hardcore poverty by ethnic group (1999 and 2004 (%))
1999 2004
Bumiputras Chinese Indians Bumiputras Chinese Indians
Hardcore Poverty • Urban • Rural
2.9 0.7 4.4
0.2 0.1 0.4
0.3 0.2 0.5
1.9 0.7 3.3
0.1 neg.1
0.3
0.3 0.2 0.5
Overall Poverty 12.4 1.2 3.5 8.3 0.6 2.9 1 Less than 0.05 %
Source: Malaysia 2006(b), Ninth Malaysia Plan 2006–2010, Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister’s Department, Kuala Lumpur.
The increasing numbers of Bumiputras in certain professions such as accountancy,
architecture, medicine and engineering also shows the success of the NEP. For example,
the Bumiputras’ participation in professional occupations including engineering and
dentistry increased from 22.2 per cent in 1985 to 29 per cent in 1990 and 33. 1 per cent
in 1995 (Malaysia 1996, 1991). In addition, many Bumiputra entrepreneurs have seized
business opportunities provided by the government and have prospered (Malaysia
1996). For instance, under the Franchise Development Programme, started in 1992 by
the Ministry of Entrepreneur and Cooperative Development, 56 Bumiputra
entrepreneurs have become franchisees in business sectors such as motel management,
printing, fast food and motor vehicle repair (Buang 2002). This type of activity was rare
among the Bumiputras prior to the NEP.
The NEP, therefore, laid the foundation for eradicating poverty among Bumiputras and
restructuring the society. In line with the government’s aspiration to create a dynamic
BCIC, which focused on building more sustainable Bumiputra entrepreneurs, many
Bumiputra entrepreneurs were given special assistance such as financial support to help
them to participate in business and industry activities (Cheah 1999).
While the implementation of the NEP has achieved some of its targets to reduce poverty
and restructure the society among the races, it has, in fact, deepened the ethnic
polarisation in terms of social and economic distribution (Heng 1997). The deliberate
intervention by the government to improve Bumiputras’ socio-economic status through
the NEP has drawn criticisms. This is because the intervention was not only in
18
economic activity but also in education and public sector employment (Jomo 2004).
Therefore, the policy was labelled as in favour of Bumiputras only (Heng 1997; Jomo
2004).
Several policies, such as the Bumiputras’ corporate equity ownership of 30 per cent,
university quotas and preferential opportunities for Bumiputra contractors to tender for
government contracts, gave economic advantage to Bumiputras at the expense of non-
Bumiputras (Jomo 1991). The other criticism of the NEP was that it created a
politically-influenced business culture (Gomez and Jomo 1999). As a result, many of
the government’s mega projects have benefited and been dominated by strongly
politically connected Malay businessmen, and non-Bumiputras are able to secure
projects through the so-called ‘Ali-Baba’ partnerships with Bumiputra businessmen
(Jomo 2004).
In summing up, the primary objectives of the NEP were to eradicate poverty and to
restructure the society inter-racially through the implementation of several policies. The
government successfully raised Bumiputra socio-economic standards and increased
participation of Bumiputras in modern economic sectors (Kaur 1999). However, the
policy was criticised due to its discriminatory implementations (Heng 1997; Jomo
2004). The policy was finally replaced by the New Development Policy.
2.3.2 The New Development Policy (1991–2000)
The New Development Policy (NDP) was introduced under the Second Outline
Perspective Plan 1991–2000 to replace the NEP (Ahmad Sarji 1993). With the aim of
bringing more balanced development, the NDP attempted to correct the socio-economic
imbalance among Bumiputras and non-Bumiputras and thus contribute towards national
unity. However, the main thrust of the NEP, the two-pronged strategy of eradicating
poverty irrespective of race and social restructuring were retained and further expanded
and strengthened (Malaysia 2001c). The NDP also determined to make Malaysia,
through the Vision 2020 policy, become a developed nation by 2020.
19
Several new changes were introduced under the NDP (Malaysia 1992, 1991). To further
eradicate the poverty in the country, the NDP focused on hardcore poverty, greater
wealth creation and generating income, as well as providing more education and
training programmes among rural Bumiputras (Malaysia 1992). On the other hand, in an
effort to stamp out the identification of races according to their economic activities,
more emphasis was given to the participation of Bumiputras in various sectors and
occupations to create a viable BCIC (Ahmad Sarji 1993; Chin 2003). To this end,
education and training programmes played a vital role (Ahmad Sarji 1993; Din 1992) by
valuing education and training for the development of skilled Bumiputra entrepreneurs
with the aim of increased participation and representation in modern and professional
sectors such as business and engineering (Malaysia 1991).
2.3.2.1 Vision 2020
Vision 2020 was embodied in the NDP. The country is envisaged to become a fully
developed country by the year 2020. This means that Malaysia will be comprehensively
developed in terms of national unity along with the other dimensions: economic,
political and social. The full utilisation of all natural resources and the potential of
multi-racial manpower are crucial to build a strong and resilient economy (Cheah 1999).
Hence national unity is vital in promoting social and political stability and eventually
sustained development in the country. In achieving the Vision, there are nine key
challenges facing the country (Ahmad Sarji 1993):
i) establishing a united Malaysian nation made up of one Malaysian race
(Bangsa Malaysia);
ii) creating a psychologically liberated, secure and developed Malaysian
society;
iii) fostering and developing a mature democratic society;
iv) establishing a fully moral and ethical society;
v) establishing a mature, liberal and tolerant society;
vi) establishing a scientific and progressive society;
vii) establishing a fully caring society and a caring culture;
20
viii) ensuring an economically just society; and
ix) establishing a prosperous society with an economy that is fully competitive,
dynamic, robust and resilient.
Vision 2020 describes the clear requirements of the developed nation that Malaysia is
going to become along with the challenges it faces. To realise the vision, participation
from all races is necessary before they can align themselves with the vision and work
collectively for its accomplishment. Several plans have been introduced such as the
Sixth and Seventh Malaysia Plan as well as the Second Outline Perspective Plan to set
the broad objectives, strategies and targets that will lead the country towards developed
nation status.
To conclude, after about three decades of the government’s efforts to increase socio-
economic status and promote an equitable distribution of wealth, especially among
Bumiputras through the notion of a Bumiputra Commercial and Industrial Community,
the importance of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial development has increasingly
become recognised (Ariff and Abubakar 2003; Mohamad 1993). In addition, with the
current serious graduate unemployment problem, entrepreneurship has also drawn the
attention of the government. In fact the Malaysian government has begun to promote
entrepreneurship as a career choice among students. This shift in focus is outlined in the
Ninth Malaysian Plan (Malaysia 2006b).
To date, at least 12 ministries and 40 governmental agencies have been established to
actively develop and promote entrepreneurial activities, including education and
training programmes (Ramayah and Harun 2005). Among the major ministries and
agencies that promote entrepreneurship are the Ministry of Entrepreneur and
Cooperative Development, the Council of Trust for the Indigenous People (MARA) and
the SME Bank.
21
2.3.3 The Ministry of Entrepreneur and Cooperative Development
The Ministry of Entrepreneur [sic] Development was set up in 1995. It was established
to expedite the process of the attainment of BCIC by developing more Bumiputra
entrepreneurs in Malaysia (Malaysia 2004). Following the change of name in 2004, it is
now known as the Ministry of Entrepreneur and Cooperative Development or MECD.
The Ministry is headed by one Minister, one Deputy, one Parliamentary Secretary and
other Heads of Departments. The establishment of the Ministry is to play a leading role
in the development of entrepreneurship in Malaysia (Othman et al. 2005).
The main objective of setting up MECD is to provide a conducive environment that
nurtures and encourages the development of quality, progressive, resilient and
competitive entrepreneurs in all sectors and to develop an entrepreneurial and co-
operative culture in Malaysian society (Malaysia 2004). Among the roles played by the
MECD are to:
• enact entrepreneurial development policies;
• establish and implement entrepreneurial development programmes;
• be a catalyst and facilitator for all entrepreneurs and would-be entrepreneurs to
start up businesses;
• form cooperation and strategic networking with private sectors at the federal,
state and international levels; and
• coordinate the implementation of entrepreneurial development policy at federal
and state levels.
In an effort to further promote entrepreneurial culture and develop more entrepreneurs,
MECD outlines several strategies that focus on the coordination of entrepreneurship
development programmes which are conducted at federal, state and private levels.
Among the core strategies of MECD are (Malaysia 2004):
22
• Inculcation of entrepreneurial culture
- A long-term and continuous process to draw the attention of all levels of
society, including students from secondary schools, universities and the
public, to the importance of entrepreneurship. Among the activities which
have been introduced are the Young Entrepreneurs Programme and
Graduate Entrepreneurship Training, to instil entrepreneurial culture among
people.
• Training and guidance programmes
- They aim to provide entrepreneurial knowledge and skills, training and
guidance to improve the performance of business. Entrepreneurs who have
any business problems are also given advice and guidance to organise their
businesses. Among the programmes available are the Basic Business
Training, the Graduate Entrepreneurs’ Scheme and the Vendor Training
Programme.
• Financing
- Several schemes such as the Franchise Financing Scheme and the
Entrepreneurs’ Group Economic Fund (TEKUN) have been made available
to help nascent entrepreneurs, in particular, in the process of starting up a
business.
All the programmes organised by the MECD are meant for two main targeted groups:
those who are interested to become entrepreneurs, and existing entrepreneurs including
small and medium sized entrepreneurs. In the meantime, the MECD has offered many
education and training programmes in entrepreneurship, especially to Bumiputras in line
with the government’s ambition to create a viable BCIC (Buang 2002).
As the MECD makes efforts to implement all the entrepreneurial development
programmes, the assistance of other agencies or departments is vital to ensure the
smooth implementation of such programmes. MARA and the SME Bank are among the
23
affiliated agencies of the MECD that provide education and training programmes as
well as financial assistance to needy entrepreneurs, especially Bumiputras.
2.3.4 Council of Trust for the Indigenous People (MARA)
Majlis Amanah Rakyat or MARA (Council of Trust for the Indigenous People) was
established in 1966 under the Parliament Act 1966 (www.mara.gov.my). It is one of the
statutory government agencies being set up as a result of the resolution reached after the
Bumiputra Economic Congress meeting (Buang 2002). However, it is responsible for
the MECD and therefore all its Board of Directors are appointed by the Minister of
Entrepreneur Development and Cooperation.
The main goal of MARA is to ameliorate Bumiputras’ socio-economic status, especially
in the areas of education, business and industry. MARA also plays a role to encourage,
guide, train and assist the Bumiputras in rural areas to actively participate in business
and industrial sectors to create a more viable and proactive BCIC (Buang 2002;
Malaysia 2004).
Since its inception, MARA has played an important role in two main activities to
achieve its objectives, namely education and training and entrepreneurial development.
Education and training aims to increase well-trained, skilled and qualified Bumiputras
for the needs of the commercial and industrial sector. Towards this end, MARA has
established MARA Junior Science Colleges, vocational institutes and Universiti
Teknologi MARA to train more Bumiputra entrepreneurs to successfully survive in the
globalised business milieu.
Generally, entrepreneurship development schemes are focused on developing
entrepreneurs and business financing among Bumiputras. These schemes are organised
to increase the number of Bumiputra entrepreneurs establishing ventures. Among the
schemes available are the Contract Financing Scheme, the Business Infrastructure
Development Scheme and the MARA Small Financing Scheme.
24
2.3.5 SME Bank
The SME Bank or Bank Perusahawanan Kecil dan Sederhana Malaysia Berhad was first
established on October 3, 2005. The founding of the bank was the outcome of the
merger between the Development and Infrastructure Bank of Malaysia and the Industry
and Technology Bank of Malaysia (Staff 2005c). It was the first bank set up to support
the development of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) in Malaysia by
providing financial loans and funds to meet the needs of the SMEs in the country.
The SME Bank has adopted the one-stop financial centre concept in its operation. All
financial loans, funding, services and programmes pertaining to SMEs are available at
the SME Bank. The country’s SME owners are eligible to apply for a loan or service
from the SME Bank as long as they fulfil the minimum requirements set by the bank.
Among the funds and programmes available for micro, small and medium entrepreneurs
under the Development Financial Assistance schemes are
(www.smebank.com.my/specialpro.asp):
• Rural Economy Financing Scheme
• Graduate Entrepreneurs Fund
• Seed Capital Scheme (Batik and craft)
• Vendor Entrepreneurial Programme.
2.4 Entrepreneurship education at universities in Malaysia
2.4.1 The development of university education
Malaysia practises a 6-3-2-2 formula in its educational system (Din 1992). This
structure represents the 6-year primary, 3-year lower secondary, 2-year upper secondary
and 2-year pre-university levels. Children enter primary school when they reach the age
of six plus. Generally, education at the tertiary level, which starts right after upper
secondary level, is provided by public or private colleges, institutes and universities.
25
To be admitted to public universities, students are required to meet the university
entrance qualifications such as Sijil Tinggi Persekolahan Malaysia (STPM) or
Malaysian High School Certificate, matriculation or diploma. STPM is an examination
designed for two-year pre-university (Upper 6) students. It is equivalent to the British
GCE ‘A’ level examination. Matriculation was a pre-university preparation programme
specially designed only for Bumiputra students to encourage them to study engineering,
medicine, dentistry and accountancy at public universities. However, it has opened a ten
per cent quota to non-Bumiputra students recently. The diploma holders are normally
from the polytechnics and Universiti Teknologi MARA graduands studying in various
areas such as business, computing and engineering.
The duration of undergraduate courses offered by the public universities ranges from
three to six years (medicine and dentistry). Postgraduate studies such as masters and
doctorates are also offered. Public colleges and institutes of education require two to
three years for certificate and diploma levels.
2.4.2 Entrepreneurship education at universities
In Malaysia, entrepreneurship education has recently become focused on universities.
This is mainly due to the affirmative action taken by the government to introduce
entrepreneurship at all public universities in the wake of graduate unemployment (Staff
2007b). Therefore universities and educational training centres have been urged to
provide and offer entrepreneurial training programmes to students.
Although entrepreneurship courses were offered in colleges and universities in the mid-
1990s (Cheng and Chan 2004), they have only become prevalent at all public
universities through the implementation of the Undergraduate Entrepreneurship
Training Programme (Malaysia 2001b). One of the strategies used by the government to
encourage entrepreneurial development is through educational institutions. Various
programmes and training courses have been initiated and introduced at all levels of
learning institutions including universities. Recently, entrepreneurship study has been
introduced as a compulsory course for undergraduates at all levels (Staff 2006a, 2007b).
26
The aim of the move is to encourage and prepare university students to become
involved in business, by providing them with some basic business knowledge and skills.
It is also hoped to enhance their competitiveness in the employment market, apart from
overcoming the unemployment problem.
Currently, the development of entrepreneurship education in the country is very
encouraging. Universiti Utara Malaysia in 2004 has become the first public university in
the country to offer a full undergraduate degree in entrepreneurship whilst most other
universities offer entrepreneurship only as a major or a single subject. In 2006, the
Malaysia University College of Technology and Management was the first private
university to establish a chair in entrepreneurship (Staff 2006c). These efforts are
significant milestones in further developing entrepreneurship education in Malaysia.
However there is still much work to be done in developing entrepreneurship education.
2.5 Conclusion
This chapter has provided a brief introduction to the development of entrepreneurship in
Malaysia. Given the importance of entrepreneurship, both to the society and the
country’s development, the Malaysian government has, through the implementation of
policies such as the NEP and the NDP, extensively promoted entrepreneurship among
the people, especially Bumiputras. The establishment of agencies such as the MECD
and MARA was to oversee the development of entrepreneurial activities in Malaysia. In
addition, universities have been given responsibility to provide education and training
programmes to students to promote entrepreneurship. The following chapter, in the
context of the literature review, will discuss the concepts of entrepreneurship and
entrepreneurship education, and how entrepreneurship education can create
entrepreneurially-inclined individuals at universities.
27
CHAPTER 3
LITERATURE REVIEW
3.1 Introduction
This chapter seeks to develop an understanding of entrepreneurship education and its
influence in shaping entrepreneurially-inclined individuals. Because this study
concentrates on entrepreneurship education, one of the fields of entrepreneurship
(Welsch and Maltarich 2004), it draws upon the literature of entrepreneurship.
Therefore, the first section of this chapter presents a discussion of the concept of
entrepreneurship. The next section provides an overview of entrepreneurship education
and training, followed by a review of the literature related to entrepreneurship
education. The major entrepreneurship education variables to be used in this study and
which form the overall framework are discussed. Finally, the possible moderating
effects of demographic characteristics and family business background are also briefly
discussed.
3.2 Definition of entrepreneurship
Recent years have witnessed a well-documented surge in entrepreneurship as a research
theme. There is also wide acceptance of the legitimatisation of entrepreneurship as an
area of academic and research inquiry (Bygrave 1991; Kuratko 2006; Teach 1997;
Vesper 2004). Davidsson (2004), on one hand, claims that research in entrepreneurship
is fun and fascinating because of the richness of entrepreneurship that spans many
disciplinary areas, theoretical perspectives and methodologies. It is, on the other hand,
frustrating, as there is a lack of common understanding about entrepreneurship.
As a result, although the field has been studied extensively and empirically,
entrepreneurship research has been criticised because there is little consensus about the
definitions of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs (Johnson 1990; Koh 1996; Lee et al.
28
2005; Lumpkin and Dess 1996; Matlay 2005b; OECD 2001; Schieb-Bienfait 2004;
Watson 2001). Instead, much difference occurs due to researchers from different areas
of inquiry developing their own thoughts by ‘using a culture, logic and methodology
established to varying degrees in their own fields’ (Filion 1997, p. 6).
There are several reasons for this dilemma. As mentioned, a lot of researchers from
multiple perspectives conceptualise and apply entrepreneurship according to their own
enquiries, mainly in economics, psychology and sociology in accordance to the
objectives of their studies (Filion 1997; Littunen 2000; van Praag 1999; Wennekers and
Thurik 1999).
Entrepreneurship can also be classified according to the level of analysis of the study
involved, namely micro, meso and macro levels of entrepreneurship (Verheul 2001). In
addition, there are several schools of entrepreneurial thought coined by the
entrepreneurship scholars to understand the entrepreneurial process which ultimately
produce divergent meanings of entrepreneurship. For example, Cunningham and
Lischeron (1991) classify entrepreneurship into six schools: great person, psychological
characteristics, classical, management, leadership and intrapreneurship. Table 3.1
briefly explains the differences of each of the entrepreneurial schools of thought
according to the central role of entrepreneurs and stages of entrepreneurial activities.
Meanwhile Kuratko and Hodgetts (2007) point out that entrepreneurship can emanate
from the macro and micro views, which can be categorised into six distinct schools of
thought, namely environmental, financial/capital, displacement, entrepreneurial traits,
venture opportunity and strategic formulation.
29
Table 3.1: The entrepreneurial schools of thought
School of thought Central focus Assumption Behaviours and skills Situation Great person school The entrepreneur has an intuitive
ability – a sixth sense and traits and instincts he/she is born with.
Without this inborn intuition, the individual would be like the rest of us mortals who ‘lack what it
takes’.
Intuition, vigour, energy and self-esteem.
Start up
Psychological characteristics school
Entrepreneurs have unique values, attitudes, and needs which drive
them.
People behave in accordance with their values; behaviour
results from attempts to satisfy needs.
Personal values, risk taking, need for achievement and others.
Start up
Classical school The central characteristic of entrepreneurial behaviour is
innovation.
The critical aspect of entrepreneurship is in the
process of doing rather than owning.
Innovation, creativity and discovery
Start up and early growth
Management school Entrepreneurs are organiser of an economic venture; they are people who organise, own, manage and
assume the risk.
Entrepreneurs can be developed or trained in the technical functions of management.
Production planning, people organising, capitalisation and
budgeting.
Early growth and maturity
Leadership school Entrepreneurs are leaders of people; they have the ability to adapt their style to the needs of
people.
An entrepreneur cannot accomplish his/her goals alone
but depends on others.
Motivating, directing and leading.
Early growth and maturity
Intrapreneurship school
Entrepreneurial skills can be useful in complex organisations;
intrapreneurship is the development of independent units
to create, market and expand services.
Organisations need to adapt to survive; entrepreneurial activity leads to organisational building
and entrepreneurs becoming managers.
Alertness to opportunities, maximising decisions.
Maturity and change
Source: Cunningham, JB & Lischeron, J 1991, ‘Defining entrepreneurship’, Journal of Small Business Management, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 45–61
30
To date, many definitions of entrepreneurship have been coined and accepted.
Among the definitions that are commonly quoted by many entrepreneurship
researchers are:
Levie (1999b)
Entrepreneurship is the process of creating new business activity.
Reynolds et al. (1999, p. 3)
‘Any attempt at new business or new venture creation, such as self-employment, a new business organisation, or the expansion of an existing business, by an individual, a team of individuals or an established business’.
Thompson (1999)
Entrepreneurship is about spotting and exploiting opportunities and thus an entrepreneur is someone who envisions a new opportunity to act on.
Morris et al. (2004, p. 92)
‘The process of creating value by bringing together a unique package of resources to exploit an opportunity’.
Schaper & Volery (2004, p. 6)
‘Entrepreneurship is the process brought about by individuals of identifying new opportunities and converting them into marketable products or services’.
Hisrich et al. (2005, p. 8):
‘Entrepreneurship is a process of creating something new and assuming the risks and rewards’.
Based on the above definitions, there seems to be no absolute definition of
entrepreneurship. However, the definitions contain some underlying common
aspects, such as opportunity identification, risk-taking, and newness (Wouter
2004). Therefore entrepreneurship can be defined as a process of action where an
individual searches for a business opportunity, takes the calculated risks and
finally launches a new venture. Anderson (2002) further elaborates that
entrepreneurship involves the process of carrying out new combinations of
enterprise, and the individuals whose function is to carry them out are called
entrepreneurs.
Entrepreneurs, in this instance, are the main actors who ensure this smooth
entrepreneurial process happens. This raises pertinent questions about
entrepreneurs: Who is entrepreneur? Where do they come from? How do they
31
successfully become entrepreneurs? (Laukkanen 2000). Before discussing the
term entrepreneur, the etymological sense of the word ‘entrepreneur’ should be
considered. The term ‘entrepreneur’ was coined from the French verb
‘entreprendre’ and the German word ‘unternehmen’, which are both translated as
‘to undertake’ (Cunningham and Lischeron 1991).
As with defining entrepreneurship, many entrepreneurship scholars have
conceptualised the term ‘entrepreneur’ according largely to their domains of
enquiry. According to Kuratko and Hodgetts (2007, p. 4), entrepreneurs are
‘individuals who recognise opportunities where others see chaos or confusion’.
Drucker (2004, p. 25) describes an entrepreneur as ‘someone who always searches
for change, respond to it and explain it as an opportunity.’
Ibrahim and Ellis (1993, p. 15) define an entrepreneur as ‘an individual who sees
an opportunity that others do not, and marshals the resources to exploit it.’ Hence,
they argue that an entrepreneur per se is one who creates a business in the face of
risk and uncertainty. Entrepreneurs are also seen as those who exist for the
purpose of achieving profit and growth by identifying opportunities and
assembling the necessary recourses to capitalise on them (Scarborough and
Zimmerer 2003). In summary, entrepreneurship is defined as a process of creating
and running a new venture and an entrepreneur is someone who aspires to do this
(Edwards and Muir 2006a).
Some scholars (e.g. McClelland 1961; Watson et al. 1998) have gone
considerably further to distinguish between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs
in terms of their personal traits and characteristics. This is based upon the surmise
that entrepreneurs differ from non-entrepreneurs in that they have unique values
and attitudes towards work and life that will satisfy their needs (Hansemark 1998;
Shaver 1991).
Previous studies have also found that entrepreneurs can be classified into different
categories. In their seminal article on entrepreneurship across five large
32
developing and transition countries, Djankov et al. (2004) suggest that there are
two mainstreams of entrepreneurs: entrepreneurs by opportunity and
entrepreneurs by necessity. The former are always aware of the existing business
opportunities and seize and/or exploit an opportunity which is congruent with the
Schumpeterian theory of true entrepreneurs (see Section 3.3.1). The necessity
entrepreneurs largely exist as a result of economic downturn, loss of jobs or
unemployment upon graduation.
Wickham (2004) points out that an individual moves to consider entrepreneurship
as viable career option mainly to meet the three main needs of individuals:
economic, social and development needs. He further postulates that an individual
has two choices to decide whether to become an entrepreneur or become a paid-
employment employee which involve a so-called start-up and fall-out process.
The former happens when an individual moves from the conventional labour pool
to become entrepreneur and the latter is a vice versa process as shown in Figure
3.1.
Figure 3.1: Dynamics of entrepreneurial supply
Start-up
Source: Wickham, PA 2004, Strategic Entrepreneurship, 2nd edition, Pearson
Fall-out
Entrepreneurs Conventional labour pool
Education Limited, Essex, England.
3.3 The main perspectives of entrepreneurship
As previously mentioned, entrepreneurship has varied definitions because it is a
multifaceted discipline. Many scholars from diverse disciplines of study have
studied entrepreneurship from the perspective of their own disciplines such as
33
economics, psychology, anthropology and sociology (Din 1992). However, this
study concentrates mostly on the three main perspectives of entrepreneurship:
entrepreneurship from the perspective of economics, psychology and sociology,
as shown in Figure 3.2 (Littunen 2000; van Praag 1999).
Figure 3.2: Entrepreneurship from three main perspectives
Economics perspective
Psychological perspective
Perspectives of entrepreneurship
Sociological perspective
Source: Developed for the study
3.3.1 Entrepreneurship from the economic perspective
Underscoring this perspective is the function of economics. There are many
economic writers and scholars that could be included when looking at the role of
entrepreneur. However, in this study, only major entrepreneurship contributors
from the economic perspective are discussed. Cantillon, an economist in the early
eighteenth century (circa 1700), described an entrepreneur as any individual who
undertakes entrepreneurial activities with uncertain and/or unpredicted return.
This means an entrepreneur buys at certain and known prices but sells at uncertain
and unknown prices (Carton et al. 1998). Jean Baptise Say (circa 1800), on the
other hand, augmented the definition by describing the entrepreneur as a
coordinator and supervisor of production. Due to his major contributions to the
area of entrepreneurship, he has been dubbed the father of entrepreneurship
(Filion 1997).
34
Schumpeter, on the other hand, has provided incomparably a far better definition
of entrepreneurship (Din 1992). He has been credited for his contributions to the
study of entrepreneurship from the economic perspective (Outcalt 2000). An
entrepreneur, according to him, is conceptualised as an innovator (Dana 2001).
Innovation is regarded as the most essential role of the entrepreneur. Thus
Schumpeterian entrepreneurs are perceived as innovators who introduce new
goods and services, operate new markets and also discover new sources of supply
(Dana 2001; Robinson et al. 1991). It is particularly important for Schumpeterian
entrepreneurs to be innovative as they are the ones who are always competing
with others so as to ensure their existence in the market (Gray 2003).
For Kirzner, an entrepreneur is someone who is alert to profitable opportunity for
exchange. Therefore to the Kirznerian entrepreneurs, the main objective of
becoming an entrepreneur is to reap profit by identifying business opportunity
instead of establishing a new entity (Dana 2001). An entrepreneur is a person who
is willing and prepared to take risks; the rewards are an exchange for bearing
uncertainty and uninsurable risks (Deakins and Freel 2003; Ibrahim and Ellis
1993).
Also, entrepreneurs are the people who are responsible for breaking or disavowing
the status quo or equilibrium of the economy, which results in them being known
as disturbers of the equilibrium (Grebel 2004; van Praag 1999). They are the
primary agents of change in all economic systems. The changes or innovations are
made by finding and exploiting market opportunities through the new
‘combinations’ that can take shape in different forms: i) the introduction of new
technology, process, products; ii) the opening of new markets; and iii) the creation
of new industries organisations (Grebel 2004).
Table 3.2 shows some of the most renowned economists with their contributions
to the field of entrepreneurship.
35
Table 3.2: Key contributions of economic writers on the role of the entrepreneur
Economist Key role of entrepreneur Additional insights
Say Organiser of factors of production Catalyst for economic growth Cantillon Organiser of factors of production Catalyst for economic growth Kirzner Ability to spot opportunity Entrepreneur’s key ability is
‘creative’ alertness Schumpeter Innovator Entrepreneur as ‘hero’ figure
Knight Risk-taker Profit is reward for risk-taking Casson Organiser of resources Key influence of the
environment Shackle Creativity Uncertainty creates
opportunities for profit Source: Deakins, D & Freel, M 2003, Entrepreneurship and small firms, 3rd edition,
McGraw-Hill Education, UK.
3.3.2 Entrepreneurship from the psychological perspective
Claiming that entrepreneurs possess certain unique characteristics that distinguish
them from others, the psychological approach to entrepreneurship lies in the
assumptions of how personal traits affect one’s inclination towards
entrepreneurship or why some individuals start a firm and are much more
successful than others (Baron 2000; Koh 1996; Littunen 2000). According to
Derville (1982, p. 1), psychology ‘is the scientific study of behaviour’. Hence
psychologists in entrepreneurship attempt to look at distinct behaviours or
characteristics that distinguish entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs.
Much research on entrepreneurship study from the psychological perspective (e.g.
Green et al. 1996; Ibrahim and Ellis 1993) has attempted to draw fine distinctions
between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs. McClelland, who is the foremost
researcher in the personality traits that bring about entrepreneurship, characterised
an entrepreneur as an individual who possesses high need of achievement
(Ibrahim and Ellis 1993). In other words, McClelland delineates entrepreneurs as
those with high need for achievement and who normally show more initiative and
exploratory behaviour than non-entrepreneurs. A similar conclusion is also made
by Gray et al. (2006) in their study about Moroccan entrepreneurs. They found
that successful entrepreneurs possess high need for achievement and need for
36
independence, which are important determinants of entrepreneurial psychological
traits.
On a slightly different note, Gray (1987) defines the achievement-oriented
individual as someone with a tendency to take challenges and test his/her abilities
to their limit. Successful entrepreneurs are not ambivalent about their success but
concentrate on the way to succeed, and not on what will happen if they fail.
Another characteristic that differentiates entrepreneurs from others is locus of
control, where individuals believe that they can control their own fate or future
(Schaper and Volery 2004). For greater elaboration, Gray (1987) interprets
internal locus of control as the belief that one controls one’s success or failure,
and that this is not decided by luck or external events. Hence, the higher the
internal locus of control a person possesses, the most strongly he/she believes that
his/her destiny can be controlled. In his comparison study between entrepreneurs
and managers, Rahim (1996) found that entrepreneurs have a statistically
significant higher internal locus of control than managers.
Entrepreneurs are also expected to be able to take or evaluate any business risks.
This is because entrepreneurs inevitably encounter business risks as they are often
dealing with uncertainties. According to Kuratko and Hodgetts (2007), successful
entrepreneurs are not gamblers; they take calculated and well thought-out
approaches when deciding on venturing into a business. They share their financial
or business risks, for instance, with other shareholders or partners whenever
possible.
Gurol and Atsan (2006) have conclusively found that entrepreneurs have certain
unique personalities, attitudes and values that discriminate them from others, as
well as the personality determinants that make a successful entrepreneur. By
synthesising many researchers’ different personality and traits models, it can be
summarised that entrepreneurs, in general, possesses characteristics such as locus
of control, risk taking propensity, desire for independence, need for achievement,
37
self-confidence, creativity, tolerance for ambiguity and need for power that make
them act entrepreneurially (Carton et al. 1998; Gray et al. 2006; Gurol and Atsan
2006; Rahim 1996; Schaper and Volery 2004; Shane et al. 2003; Watson et al.
1998).
Despite the fact that entrepreneurs can be distinguished from non-entrepreneurs in
terms of their personality traits, critics (e.g., Robinson et al. 1991) have
questioned the ability of this approach in measuring and studying entrepreneurs.
They argue that research methodologies used in the study of personality traits
were not specifically designed to measure entrepreneurship. Johnson (1990)
stresses that more attention should be given to environmental factors (such as role
of culture and push and pull factors) which may influence the emergence of
entrepreneurs.
3.3.3 Entrepreneurship from the sociological perspective
Sociology is the study of social life, social change, and the social causes and consequences of human behaviour. Sociologists investigate the structure of groups, organisations, and societies, and how people interact within these contexts (American Sociological Association 2005).
The definition suggests that the sociological perspective of entrepreneurship
touches upon the different social norms, values, and social networks which may
directly influence an individual’s social environment for the emergence of
entrepreneurship (Din 1992; Schaper and Volery 2004). Therefore sociological
variables such as role expectation of children and parents, attitude towards wealth
and innovation, migration and social class deviance are among the important
factors that influence individuals’ inclination towards entrepreneurship (Vesper
1980).
The contributions of sociologists to the studies of entrepreneurship should not be
overlooked. Sociologists have enriched the entrepreneurial knowledge especially
in the theories and models of entrepreneurship propounded over the decades. Max
38
Weber (1864–1920), Emile Durkheim (1858–1917) and Everett Hagen (1962) are
among the prominent sociologists in entrepreneurship studies. For instance, Max
Weber, a German sociologist, is probably the best known sociologist in the area of
entrepreneurship (Vesper 1980). His work emphasised how religious beliefs could
be a determining factor in the entrepreneurial behaviour in society; he discussed
this widely in his eminent book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism
(Vesper 1980).
Hagen (1960) argues that dissatisfaction or the economic marginalisation of low
stratum groups in society has fuelled them to become entrepreneurs.
Entrepreneurs, according to Hagen’s theory, are seen as rebels and risk takers,
overlooked by societal institutions. Involvement in entrepreneurial activity,
therefore, could help them to ameliorate their social economic status in the eyes of
social elites (Kendrick 1998). Vesper (1980), on the other hand, considers these
groups of people as ‘outcast groups’, having better entrepreneurial advantages as
they are free to pursue their own goals without being restricted by formal
employment from doing things; in turn they are more creative in achieving their
ambitions.
Additionally, social networks are also considered another crucial factor for the
successful launch of new ventures (Schaper and Volery 2004). As entrepreneurs
require business-related information, capital, skills and labour, especially at the
start-up phase, their social ties provide a good avenue in accessing such resources
(Tesfom 2006). Bates (1997) provides in-depth analysis in his study on immigrant
entrepreneurs in the United States and shows that Chinese and Korean immigrant
entrepreneurs use their viable social networks such as family, friends and former
owners as a source of capital in helping them to fund their new start-up
businesses.
In brief, the study of entrepreneurship can be carried out from various
perspectives. Therefore, the emphasis of the subject matter and line of inquiry
under study is different according to the area the researchers come from (Kruger
39
2004). Inquiry can also be conducted under a combination of the three main
perspectives of entrepreneurship, as shown in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3: The perspectives of entrepreneurship
Perspectives Research subjects Line of inquiry Economic Relationship between
economic environment and entrepreneurship
Effects (what)
Psychological: traits and behaviour
Entrepreneurs’ characteristics and entrepreneurial process
Causes (why)
Sociological: social and cultural
Entrepreneurs of different social or cultural backgrounds
Causes (why)
Adapted from: Kruger, ME 2004, Creativity in the entrepreneurship domain, PhD thesis, University of Pretoria, South Africa.
3.4 The importance of entrepreneurship
The centrality of entrepreneurship in contributing to individual, social and
national development has enticed the interest of many researchers (e.g., Fayolle
and Degeorge 2006; Matlay and Westhead 2005; Venkatachalam and Waqif 2005;
Wennekers and Thurik 1999). The words entrepreneurship and entrepreneur have
become everyday buzzwords and have drawn the attention of policy makers,
economists, practitioners, academics and even entrepreneurs (Béchard and
Toulouse 1998; Matlay 2005a; Schaper and Volery 2004). For most of them, the
popularity of entrepreneurship is largely due to its positive effect as a catalyst that
creates wealth and job opportunities (Gurol and Atsan 2006; Laukkanen 2000;
Matlay 2005b; Othman et al. 2005; Postigo and Tamborini 2002)
Thus many policy makers hail entrepreneurship as one of the best economic
development strategies to boost a country’s economic growth today (Antonites
2003). Entrepreneurship is a critical input in economic development because it
creates lots of job opportunities, stimulates innovative thinking and also acts as a
‘stabiliser’ for countries and societies (Formica 2002; Postigo and Tamborini
2002). More specifically, entrepreneurship is a major engine driving most nations’
economic growth, innovation and competitiveness. There is a positive relationship
40
between entrepreneurship and economic growth in terms of job creation, firm
survival and technological change (Gorman et al. 1997; Karanassios et al. 2006;
Laukkanen 2000; Lena and Wong 2003; OECD 2001).
Much study has also shown a strong relationship between a nation’s economic
prosperity and entrepreneurial activity levels (Kuratko 2006; Reynolds et al. 1999;
Scarborough and Zimmerer 2003; Tervo and Niittykangus 1994; Wennekers and
Thurik 1999). For example, Wennekers and Thurik (1999) confirm a close link
between entrepreneurship and economic growth. A study by Reynolds et al.
(1999), on the other hand, indicates that countries with higher rates of
entrepreneurial activities have higher levels of employment. This is largely
because new products or services are more likely to be created when more
entrepreneurs exist. When more products or services are offered, more workforce
is certainly needed, and this directly generates more new jobs and reduces the
problem of unemployment (Sergeant and Crawford 2001).
This remark is supported by Mgaya and Megembes (2003) and Co and Mitchell
(2006), who assert that entrepreneurship is one of the only ways for African
countries to overcome unemployment problems and economic recessions. In
addition, entrepreneurship is presumably able to bring people out from living in a
poverty cycle, which would help to create and increase their wealth besides
providing secure jobs (Pearce 2005). In view of this, for most social science
researchers, entrepreneurship is, for a range of reasons, considered one of the
viable ways to invert bad fortune to a new, prosperous life (Saboe et al. 2002).
Entrepreneurship is not something novel for modern societies. It has existed since
the beginning of time and can be dated back to the hunter/gatherer age, the
agriculture age, the mercantile age, the industrial age and the service age (Figure
3.3) (Coulter 2003; Harfst 2005; Maranville 1992). Realistically, we are now in
the era of entrepreneurship in this century as every corner of the globe is now
experiencing the unprecedented so-called ‘entrepreneurial effect’ (Scarborough
and Zimmerer 2003). This is evident and obvious in the United States, where
41
more than a thousand new businesses are created every hour of every working day
(Bygrave 2004).
Figure 3.3: Timeline of the development of entrepreneurship history
Eighteenth century
Nineteenth century
Twentieth century
Early Late 1803 Late 1934 1964 1700s 1700s 1800s
Joseph Schumpeter (economist) described entrepreneur as someone who is an innovator and someone who ‘creatively destructs’
Richard Cantillon (economist) coined term entrepreneur (go-between’ or ‘between-taker’)
Entrepreneur bears risks and plans, supervises, organises and owns factors of production
Distinction made between those who supply funds and earn interest and those who profit from entrepreneurial abilities
Jean Baptise Say (economist) proposed that the profits of entrepreneurship were separate from profits of capital ownership
Peter Drucker (management author) described the entrepreneur as someone who maximises opportunity
Source: Coulter, MK 2003, Entrepreneurship in action, 2nd edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddler River, N.J.
Hence it is unquestionable that the burgeoning demands for entrepreneurship have
contributed to the growing amount of research, and that substantial progress has
been achieved that focuses on studies of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs (Katz
2003; Low and MacMillian 1988; Matlay 2005a).
3.5 Entrepreneurship and education
Much of the literature in entrepreneurship studies has shown the significant
contributions made by entrepreneurship. Among the vital contributions are its
inextricable links to economic growth (Wennekers and Thurik 1999). The ability
42
and capability of entrepreneurs to harness the available resources are vital in
contributing to economic growth. Also, a strong belief has emerged that
entrepreneurship can be developed through systematic development and planned
efforts (Gorman et al. 1997; Schieb-Bienfait 2004; Sethi 2006; Vesper 1994). The
factors of production such as resources cannot automatically be transformed into
profitable goods or produce economic value; this is made possible by the presence
of entrepreneurs (Sethi 2006).
Therefore, the myth that entrepreneurs are born not made is no longer sustained
(Cone 2006; Kuratko 2006; Menzies and Paradi 2003; Volkmann 2004). Today,
most research has debunked the myth and emphasises that the necessary skills
such as problem solving and leadership can be learnt and taught through education
and training programmes (Gorman et al. 1997; Henderson and Robertson 2000;
Young 1997). In this regard, the role of education and training is important in the
development of entrepreneurs (Breen 2004; Finkle and Deeds 2001).
In recent years, much initiative has been taken to develop the field of
entrepreneurship in academia. This is evidenced by the rapid development of
entrepreneurship education in colleges and universities worldwide (Cooper et al.
2004). There is an overwhelming number of entrepreneurship courses on offer as
well as many students studying entrepreneurship, either at undergraduate or
postgraduate levels (Brockhaus 1991; Fleming 1996; Henry et al. 2003; Ibrahim
and Soufani 2002; McHugh and O'Gorman 2006).
3.6 The development of entrepreneurship education: An overview
The history of entrepreneurship education can be dated back to 1938 when
Shigeru Fijii, who was a teaching pioneer at Kobe University, Japan, initiated
education in entrepreneurship (Alberti et al. 2004). Despite this beginning, most
of the entrepreneurship courses and programmes were pioneered and introduced
in American universities. Many American universities have a comparatively long
tradition as entrepreneurship education providers through their business schools
43
and have well documented entrepreneurship courses, paving the way for
entrepreneurship studies as a legitimate academic area (Franke and Luthje 2004;
Raichaudhuri 2005).
The first entrepreneurship course was offered in an MBA course titled
‘Management of New Enterprise’ at Harvard Business School in 1947 (Katz
2003), followed by New York University in 1953, then Babson College in 1968
with the introduction of the first undergraduate major in entrepreneurship. The
University of Southern California offered the first entrepreneurship major at the
MBA level in 1972 (Finkle and Deeds 2001). The chronology of the development
of entrepreneurship education in America is shown in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4: Chronology of entrepreneurship education in America
Year Events 1947 Management of New Enterprises, first MBA entrepreneurship
course started at Harvard. 188 students took the course. 1953 Entrepreneurship and Innovation offered at New York
University by Peter Drucker. 1954 Small Business Management, first MBA small business course
offered at Stanford. 1958 MIT’s entrepreneurship course offered by Dwight Baumann. 1963 First endowed position, the Bernard B. and Eugenia A.
Ramsey Chair of Private Enterprises, created at Georgia State University.
1967 First contemporary MBA entrepreneurship courses introduced at Stanford University and New York University.
1968 First undergraduate entrepreneurship concentration, Babson College.
1971 First MBA entrepreneurship concentration, University of Southern California.
1972 First undergraduate entrepreneurship concentration, University of Southern California.
1975 Karl Vesper reported 104 colleges/universities with entrepreneurship courses.
1979 263 post-secondary schools with courses in entrepreneurship or small business.
1981 First Babson entrepreneurship research conference and first publication of Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research.
1982 First undergraduate entrepreneurship course in Marketing Department at University of Illinois – Chicago.
1983 First entrepreneurship course in an engineering school, University of New Mexico.
44
1986 590 post-secondary schools with courses in small business or entrepreneurship.
1991 102 endowed positions. 1991 57 undergraduate and 22 MBA programmes with
entrepreneurship concentrations. 1995 Over 450 schools participating in the Small Business Institute
programme. 1996 First Family Business major offered, Texas Tech University. 1998 Small Business Institute programmes at 220 schools 1999 Special Research Forum on International Entrepreneurship to
publish in Academy of Management Journal. Source: Katz, JA 2003, ‘The chronology and intellectual trajectory of
American entrepreneurship education’, Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 283–300.
The efforts made by the American universities signified the starting point for
entrepreneurship education and the number of courses offered has increased
greatly since then. For almost the past two decades much attention has been paid
to the field of entrepreneurship education, which has enjoyed exponential growth
internationally (Henry et al. 2003; Raichaudhuri 2005).
The prevalence of entrepreneurship education in colleges and universities is aptly
attributed, among other factors, to the higher demand from students who are
searching for the educational programmes that could provide them with the
essential entrepreneurial knowledge and skills in planning, managing and running
a business (Brown 1999; Postigo et al. 2006). They are also looking for an
educational programme that will equip them with the right skills and attitudes to
exploit and turn an opportunity into a real business (Volery and Mueller 2006;
Weaver et al. 2002).
As a result, entrepreneurial courses have been introduced by many universities in
an effort to promote entrepreneurship and professional careers (Postigo and
Tamborini 2002). In the United States, for instance, there are more than 2200
courses in entrepreneurship and small business management at over 1600 colleges
and universities to some 15,000 students; 277 endowed positions, and 44 refereed
academic journals (Finkle et al. 2006; Kuratko 2005; Scarborough and Zimmerer
2003). Many colleges and universities in the USA, the UK and some European
45
countries have taken initiatives to offer programmes in entrepreneurship; and
some have led to degree programmes in entrepreneurship (Falkang and Alberti
2000).
Entrepreneurship education is also expanding more than ever. It is not only
embedded in business major curricula, but also it is mushrooming and is widely
accepted by non-business majors such as engineering and information technology
(Wouter 2004). Henry et al. (2003) affirm that there has never been such an
overwhelming demand for entrepreneurship education.
Studies in entrepreneurship have experienced an enormous growth (Solomon et al.
2005). One of the key factors is that wages employment or ‘secure’ employment
is no longer guaranteed, especially in the public sector for university graduates
(Collins et al. 2004; Postigo et al. 2006). Further, the changing structure of society
and technology, and re-engineering and decentralisation exercised by most
organisations have reduced job opportunities available for graduates (Hynes
1996). As a result, graduates are now searching for a quality education that can
equip them with necessary business knowledge and skills to succeed in running
businesses or to create jobs by seizing existing entrepreneurial opportunities
(Brown 1999; Henry 2003).
Education is, to some extent, viewed as a factor that could increase and foster the
right mindset and skills of an individual to embrace entrepreneurship (Formica
2002; Hannon 2005; Li 2006). For this reason, appropriate education and training
programmes in entrepreneurship are expected to increase the number of people
becoming entrepreneurs because ‘the better educated the population the higher the
level of entrepreneurial activity’ (Reynolds et al. 1999, p. 26). Education
promotes the awareness of entrepreneurship in terms of self-employment and the
formation of new business (Keogh 2004). In Australia, a research report from
Sergeant and Crawford (2001) shows that young Australians exhibit higher
interest in starting up a business after they have gone through entrepreneurship
courses.
46
In brief, there is a growing recognition of the field of entrepreneurship in
academic circles. The proliferation of entrepreneurial courses offered by colleges
and universities worldwide is evidence of the acceptance of entrepreneurship as a
legitimate field of study. The current employment patterns and the contribution of
entrepreneurship to job opportunities are among the factors that have
revolutionised the field of entrepreneurship in academia.
3.6.1 The concept of entrepreneurship education
Career decisions and starting a business are planned and do not happen by chance
(Krueger et al. 2000; Littunen 2000). Therefore the decision to opt for a career in
entrepreneurship can be developed and encouraged among students through the
function of education. At the same time, certain requisite knowledge and skills
such as creativity and analytical thinking are the main determinants to start up a
venture (Venkatachalam and Waqif 2005). Towards this end, entrepreneurship
education is crucial in increasing the higher start-ups rate among graduates
(Galloway and Brown 2002; Hannon 2006; Peterman and Kennedy 2003). Dyer
(1994) claims that entrepreneurship education acts as a socialisation process that
can influence an individual’s choice to consider entrepreneurship as an interesting
alternative job.
Most importantly, educational background is one of the features that differentiate
entrepreneurs from non-entrepreneurs, and most entrepreneurs, though not all, are
found to possess a college or university degree (Bates 1995). Hence the ideal
education for entrepreneurship should provide the fundamental concepts and skills
of entrepreneurship and should be application-oriented (Kourilsky and Walstad
1998).
So what is entrepreneurship education? How does entrepreneurship education
develop and stimulate young people’s interest in entrepreneurship? To define
entrepreneurship education is, however, as difficult as defining entrepreneurship
47
and entrepreneurs, due to its inconsistency and heterogeneity (Fayolle and
Degeorge 2006). To date there is no absolute definition available to explain what
entrepreneurship education is. Instead, different terms for the teaching of
entrepreneurship programmes have been used such as entrepreneurship education
and enterprise education. Both terms seem to have created confusion and indeed
‘suffering’ among entrepreneurial scholars (Garavan and O'Cinneide 1994;
Hansemark 1998).
It is worth noting that entrepreneurship education is a general term used in North
America, while in the UK, Ireland and some European countries, the term
enterprise education is widely used (Hagan 2004). For the purpose of this study,
the term entrepreneurship education is employed as it has been broadly accepted
by most Malaysian universities.
Entrepreneurship education, according to Binks (2005, p. 2), refers ‘to the
pedagogical process involved in the encouragement of entrepreneurial activities,
behaviours and mindsets’. From the definition, entrepreneurship education is
perceived as a means of developing entrepreneurial awareness through certain
teaching processes. Functionally, entrepreneurship education has been lauded as
an effective means to create and increase awareness as well as promote self-
employment as a career choice among young people (Clayton 1989; Fleming
1996).
Therefore the role of entrepreneurship education is mainly to build an
entrepreneurial culture among young people that, in turn, will affect their career
choice towards entrepreneurship (Deakins et al. 2005). Kao (1995) is of the
opinion that entrepreneurship education should be seen more broadly within the
educational context. Entrepreneurship education, according to Kao, is perceived
as giving more priority to the curriculum to develop an entrepreneurial mindset,
knowledge and application. In achieving this, the design of the entrepreneurship
education curriculum needs to be creative, innovative and imaginative and, most
48
importantly, to tie ‘academic learning to the real world’ (Robinson and Haynes
1991, p. 51).
3.6.1.1 Criticisms of entrepreneurship education: Business education versus
entrepreneurship education
Entrepreneurship education has gained much attention from academia globally. In
particular, the pedagogical aspect of entrepreneurship in terms of whether it can
be taught, who is going to teach it and what the content should be have become
increasingly important issues in academic research (Gibb 2002(a); Young 1997).
However, some critics have questioned the effectiveness of entrepreneurship
education in achieving its goal of developing an individual’s interest in
entrepreneurship and, in turn, changing his or her mindset towards
entrepreneurship as a potential career.
The major criticism is that entrepreneurship education is ‘‘passive’, ‘mechanistic’,
and contrasts with the reality of the entrepreneur operating with intuition and
limited information under acute time pressure’ (Henderson and Robertson 1999,
p. 238). This can be explained by the fact that, to date, many entrepreneurship
courses are still adopting a business management approach since the courses are
housed and taught at business or management schools (Cooper et al. 2004; Matlay
2005b; Matlay and Carey 2007). As a result, entrepreneurial students have learnt
business management in the name of entrepreneurship education (Niyonkuru
2005).
In recent years, the business management curriculum has been criticised by
scholars for its deficiencies (Binks et al. 2006; Plaschka and Welsch 1990).
Business education is mainly concerned with a delivery of ‘passive’ knowledge
and is ‘product-oriented’, which impedes the development of entrepreneurship
(Garavan and O'Cinneide 1994; Gibb 1996; Mentoor and Friedrich 2007). In a
welcoming speech, Michael Cox, the founder of Rushmore University in the US,
quotes remarks by Jeffrey Pfeffer, Professor of Stanford Business School:
49
One of the problems is that much of the business school curriculum has remained unchanged since the 1960s. Business schools rely on outmoded teaching methods and do not afford students an opportunity for practical experience (Cox, 2006).
Some have expanded the above criticism by stating that business or management
schools follow a ‘product’ approach rather than a ‘customer’ approach and put too
much emphasis on information delivery (Douglas 2006), and that coursework is
deemed irrelevant in developing entrepreneurial courses (Hagan 2004).
In the same vein, Volery (2004, p. 2) argues that ‘entrepreneurship has to be
different, or at least more than management’. Hence, the design of the curricula of
entrepreneurship courses should encourage creativity, innovation, imagination and
self-direction, because entrepreneurial students are action-orientated and tend to
learn in unstructured and ambiguous environments (Du Toit 2000; Kruger 2004;
Mentoor and Friedrich 2007). Consequently, the issues of entrepreneurial
curriculum, content and pedagogy have become another debate, as their
appropriateness remains unclear and lacking in consensus (Breen 2004; Mentoor
and Friedrich 2007; Young 1997). This leads to the discussions of the content and
curriculum of entrepreneurship courses and the pedagogical issues in Section 3.8.
3.6.2 The objectives of entrepreneurship education
In general, the purpose of entrepreneurship education is ultimately creating and
increasing the awareness of and positive behaviour towards entrepreneurship as
new venture creation and as a feasible career option (Charney and Libecap 2003;
Fayolle and Gailly 2005; Hannon 2005; Lena and Wong 2006; OECD 2005).
However, providing the right education to nurture the right individuals in the right
place should be the main concern for entrepreneurship educators as individuals
vary according to their stages of learning (Lena and Wong 2006). Some
individuals require a particular entrepreneurial skill at a particular stage, for
example at an early stage of schooling or at a later stage of life (Ashmore 2006;
50
Onstenk 2003; Phan et al. 2002). Therefore, regardless of the stage at which a
person considers starting a business, an ongoing process of entrepreneurial
learning is needed to ensure individuals are really being exposed to the thrust of
entrepreneurship and are equipped with the skills to encourage them to
confidently start a venture (Galloway and Brown 2002).
Johannisson (1991), in this regard, explains that entrepreneurship education has
five levels of entrepreneurial skills that can be developed when learning
entrepreneurship: know why (attitudes, values and motivation), know how
(abilities), know who (short and long term social abilities), know when (long-term
social skills) and know what (knowledge) ( Table 3.5).
Table 3.5: Five levels of learning of entrepreneurial skills
Levels of learning Individual Context
Know why Self-confidence, motivated to achieve, perseverance, acceptance of risk
Entrepreneurial spirit, sponsors, models
Know how Technical abilities Complex structures on both career and business levels
Know who Ability to develop network
Production and social networks
Know when Experience and intuition Industrial traditions
Know what Encyclopaedism, institutional facts
Information networks, technical training, diversified cultural life
Source: Johannisson, B 1991, ‘University training for entrepreneurship: A Swedish approach’, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 67–82.
Compared to Johannisson (1991), Blenker et al. (2006) posit a hierarchical effect
describing how different levels of education and entrepreneurial competences
would apply and affect the different student groups and learning objectives in the
process of learning entrepreneurship (Figure 3.4). For example, student groups
from the ‘know why’ and ‘know how’ levels are known to be highly oriented
towards entrepreneurship and thus they definitely need more knowledge about
51
entrepreneurship in terms of starting businesses, rather than an early exposure to
entrepreneurship.
Figure 3.4: Hierarchical effects of education and entrepreneur competence
WHAT KNOW WHAT KNOW WHY KNOW HOW
Attention Interest Understanding Action
From nothing to an increased degree of knowledge and skills
Attention formation Competence development Source: Blenker, P, Dreisler, P & Kjeldsen, J 2006, Entrepreneurship education –
the new challenge facing the universities: A framework or understanding and development of entrepreneurial universities communities, viewed April 23 2006, www.hha.dk/man/cmsdocs/WP/2006/2006-02 ENG.pdf
Gibb (2002(b)) and Laukkanen (2000) have recommended two different
entrepreneurial learning objectives: education for entrepreneurship and education
about entrepreneurship. Education for entrepreneurship aims to produce students
who are capable of dealing with real entrepreneurial activity in a practical way
and to increase their awareness of self-employment as a career option (Breen
2004). Education about entrepreneurship is concerned with teaching
entrepreneurship theories as a required subject in the syllabus via traditional
methods (Gibb 2002(a); Laukkanen 2000). Similarly, Guzmán and Liñán (2005)
outline four categories of entrepreneurship education objectives: i) entrepreneurial
awareness education, ii) education for start-up, iii) continuing education for
existing entrepreneurs and iv) education for entrepreneurial dynamism.
In summary, as entrepreneurship education is variable and mostly designed to
meet certain educational programme objectives, it is crucial for entrepreneurial
educators to consider the main objective of providing entrepreneurship education
to students. Practically, entrepreneurship education should be designed to
eventually produce entrepreneurs with high levels of entrepreneurial values, and
learning competences equipped with suitable ‘know why’ and ‘know how’
(Laukkanen 2000).
52
3.6.3 The significant effects of entrepreneurship education
Research suggests that education in entrepreneurship plays a great role in shaping
and raising individuals’ interest in entrepreneurship (Le 1999; Low 2005; Luthje
and Franke 2003). According to Holmgren and From (2005), education that
emphasises entrepreneurship is the precursor to changing students’ attitudes in
considering entrepreneurship as a viable career option. Volery and Mueller (2006)
highlight the possibility of the role of entrepreneurship education in influencing
an individual’s decision to become an entrepreneur. Gorman et al. (1997) in their
seminal work reviewing ten years of literature agree that formal entrepreneurial
education programmes influence students’ predisposition towards
entrepreneurship.
In their study on Australian university students who have attended
entrepreneurship programmes, McMullan and Gillin (1998) indicate that students
who are in entrepreneurship programmes are more likely to start up a venture
compared to those who are in non-entrepreneurship programmes. They also
contend that individuals can be educated to become entrepreneurs even if they had
no initial intention of doing so.
Peterman and Kennedy (2003) point out that attendance at an entrepreneurship
programme has positive effects on both the desirability and feasibility of students
starting up a new venture. Kolvereid and Moen’s (1997) study similarly shows
that entrepreneurship education has great impact on influencing graduates to act
more entrepreneurially, as those ‘who have taken a major in entrepreneurship
have stronger entrepreneurial intentions and act more entrepreneurially than other
graduates’ (p. 159). Entrepreneurship education, to this end, has shouldered a big
responsibility in changing students’ mindset as it is ‘the key to improving
perceptions and attitudes within society and within higher education’ (Galloway
and Brown 2002, p. 399). Table 3.6 lists several studies in the area of
entrepreneurship education.
53
Table 3.6: Study on effects of entrepreneurship education by various researchers
Author(s) Objective of the study Samples Findings
Peterman & Kennedy (2003)
To study the effects of enterprise education on the perceptions of entrepreneurship among adolescents.
Secondary schools students who have participated in the Young Achievement Australia (YAA) programme.
Participants in the YAA have positively shown the changes of perceptions on entrepreneurship and are more entrepreneurially inclined and thus more likely to start up a business.
Galloway & Brown (2002)
To examine the effects of entrepreneurship education in improving the quality of business start-up among students
Students and alumni of the University of Strathclyde, United Kingdom.
Attendance of entrepreneurship courses has increased the number of business start-ups as various responses had been given pertaining to the intention to launch a venture upon graduation.
Seet & Seet (2006)
To examine the impacts of entrepreneurship education on undergraduates’ perception of entrepreneurship compared to polytechnic students.
Three university and four polytechnic students in the 2002/2003 academic year from Singapore.
University students exhibited the same entrepreneurial intention as polytechnic students in entrepreneurship.
Noel (2001) To examine the impacts of entrepreneurship education on the intention to start a business among graduates.
84 graduates who had earned undergraduate entrepreneurship degrees.
The study showed that entrepreneurship graduates were somewhat more interested in starting a business than non-entrepreneurship graduates within 2–5 years and had more developed self-efficacy.
Hansemark (1998)
To find out whether there are changes in the need for achievement and locus of control among participants in the entrepreneurship programme.
Second and third year high school students.
Higher levels of need of achievement and locus of control were developed after the participants took part in the entrepreneurship programme.
Lewis (2005) To evaluate the influence of Youth Enterprise Scheme (YES) on students’ career intention and employability.
512 questionnaires were received from the YES participants.
YES has, to a certain degree, influenced students’ entrepreneurial inclination, and the impact is greater for those who have enterprising role models such as family.
54
Charney & Libecap (2003)
To evaluate the effects of the Berger Entrepreneurship Programme on graduates in comparison with non-entrepreneurship business graduates.
406 non-entrepreneurship alumni and 105 entrepreneurship alumni.
Entrepreneurship graduates were found to be three times more likely to initiate a new venture and become self-employed compared to non-entrepreneurship graduates.
Hatten & Ruhland (1995)
To examine college students’ entrepreneurial characteristics and attitudes towards entrepreneurship.
220 college students participated in the Small Business Institute (SBI) programme.
College students showed positive changes of attitudes towards entrepreneurship after taking part in SBI programme.
Fletcher (1999)
To review the outcomes of the participants of the Scottish Graduate Enterprise Programme (GEP).
64 questionnaires out of 122 participants completed and returned.
53 participants (83%) of the GEP embarked on their own business after graduation with 38 (59%) becoming self-employed and 15 (24%) launching a venture.
Lee et al. (2005)
To identify the differences in the impact of entrepreneurship education on US and Korean students’ interest and intention in venture creation.
The respondents were divided into four main groups: 60 American students who took entrepreneurship course(s) 102 American students who did not take entrepreneurship course(s) 102 Korean students who took entrepreneurship course(s) 115 Korean students who did not take entrepreneurship course(s).
The results of the study showed that Korean students who had taken entrepreneurship education had significant higher intention to start up ventures compared to their American counterparts.
Source: Developed for the study
3.7 Current studies in entrepreneurship education research
There are numerous extant studies indicating the importance of entrepreneurship
education due to its vital role in producing entrepreneurial individuals (e.g.,
Edwards and Muir 2005; Hansemark 1998; Mentoor and Friedrich 2007;
55
Peterman and Kennedy 2003). However, our knowledge of the relationship
between education and growth in entrepreneurship in relation to the creation of
entrepreneurs among university students remains scarce (Charney and Libecap
2003; Peterman and Kennedy 2003). There is still a lack of empirical evidence to
measure the effect of entrepreneurship education on university students in many
developing countries (Brockhaus 1991; Mentoor and Friedrich 2007; Schieb-
Bienfait 2004). This is despite the fact that a lot of effort has been initiated by
governments to foster entrepreneurship.
With regard to entrepreneurship education research, Vesper and Gartner (1997)
have listed at least 18 evaluation criteria for measuring entrepreneurship
education. Among the top five criteria are: the number of courses offered;
publications by the faculty members; impact on community; business exploitation
by graduates; and innovations.
According to Naffziger et al. (1994), there are five major determinants that
influence the decision to behave entrepreneurially: personality characteristics; an
individual’s environment; a relevant business environment; the specific business
idea; and the goals of the individual.
Other researchers have also examined the various dimensions used in researching
entrepreneurship education. Levie (1999b) outlines seven dimensions that have
been used to examine the development of entrepreneurship education in higher
learning institutions in England. These are: class sizes; course syllabi; teaching
materials; teachers’ qualifications; students’ numbers and types; methods used in
teaching; and students’ attitudes towards entrepreneurship.
Fayolle and Degeorge (2006) investigated the effects of entrepreneurship
education based on three dimensions: learning process, institutional environment
and resources. On the other hand, Fayolle et al. (2006) examined the variables of
56
entrepreneurship education programmes such as institutional setting, content and
teaching methods in assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education.
Similarly, Schieb-Bienfait (2004) is of the view that entrepreneurial course
content, pedagogical issues, new learning approaches, characteristics of educators,
and students’ needs require thorough study to understand the effects of
entrepreneurship education on students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship.
The present study extends the scope of previous studies (Fayolle et al. 2006;
Fayolle and Gailly 2005) to examine the relationship between entrepreneurship
education variables and inclination towards entrepreneurship among university
students. Further, Lena and Wong (2006) conclude that future research should
focus on the positive influence of entrepreneurship education in relation to an
individual’s inclination towards entrepreneurship. The following section discusses
major entrepreneurship education variables which will form the overall
framework of this study.
3.8 The role of universities in promoting entrepreneurship
Given the rapid changes in socio-economic and socio-political factors, universities
are now playing a more significant role in the development of social and national
economic growth (Co and Mitchell 2006; Mok 2005). Many universities are
focusing more on the role of promoting economic and social development than on
their traditional function of research and teaching (Blenker et al. 2006; Mok
2005). This is helping universities to become part of an important societal
subsystem in which education takes place through entrepreneurial activities
(Blenker et al. 2006).
With regard to entrepreneurial development, universities, as a seedbed of
entrepreneurship, play a functional role in promoting entrepreneurship education
to develop regional economies and societies (Binks et al. 2006; Bygrave 2004; Co
57
and Mitchell 2006; Hartshorn 2002; Wilson et al. 2003). Menzies (2003) states the
two essential roles of universities in promoting entrepreneurship education are to:
i) provide credit courses as electives for business and management
students and more recently for non-business students
ii) encourage and nurture self-employment, small business creation and
growth, and the creation of potential high growth start-ups.
Mahlberg (1996) agrees with these remarks by stating that universities have a key
role to play in fostering entrepreneurship, since educational institutions are
considered the ideal place for shaping entrepreneurial cultures and aspirations
among students in order for them to survive in today’s robust business milieu
(Autio et al. 1997; Klapper 2004; Landstrom 2005). Gasse and Tremblay (2006),
in a similar vein, affirm that universities have an important role in developing
entrepreneurship by providing supported activities such as training, business
advice and even helping students to raise funds. It is suggested that universities
should improve the image of entrepreneurship and promote entrepreneurship as a
possible career choice among students by providing suitable entrepreneurial
networks and good role models in teaching entrepreneurship (Luthje and Franke
2003).
Hence it is important within the university environment to present students with a
positive image of entrepreneurship as a career option by providing appropriate
resources and other facilities. This is because even though individuals may have
the business knowledge and skills, if they do not possess a positive image about
entrepreneurship, they may not successfully venture into business (Alberti et al.
2004).
Young (1997) offers two main reasons why students may want to study
entrepreneurship: they may want to start up their own ventures, and they may
wish to obtain knowledge which will be helpful in their careers. In this regard,
education or, more specifically, universities play a role in promoting
58
entrepreneurship to their students in preparing them to face the real business
world (Gorman et al. 1997). Hence, Hannon (2005) suggests that universities
should change the present curriculum by embedding entrepreneurship as a core
course and making it more available so as to develop and instil entrepreneurial
spirit among students.
According to Laukkanen (2000), the dominant concept of entrepreneurship
education is based on an individual-centred mindset. This implies that
entrepreneurship education aims to produce enterprising or entrepreneurially-
inclined individuals who possess high levels of personal capabilities and who, in
turn, become economic actors after the completion of educational programmes
(Figure 3.5).
Universities must be able to develop an individual entrepreneurship education
strategy by emphasising the training in formation of new ventures along with the
campus atmosphere that can increase students’ interest in entrepreneurship
(Laukkanen 2000). Environment factors are vital in producing a would-be
entrepreneur. Therefore, the utilisation of universities resources and the
development of entrepreneurial environments will foster students’ entrepreneurial
interests (Bygrave 2004). Universities need to provide a harmonised
entrepreneurial environment, in both classrooms and university campuses, to
ensure establishment of positive attitudes towards entrepreneurship.
59
Figure 3.5: Dominant paradigm in individualistic entrepreneurial education
Business function knowledge
Business process skills
Social stature, legitimisation
Entrepreneurial attributes
An enterprising individual
Search and launch behaviour propensity
New business embryos and ventures
New
business firms (SM
Es)
Institutional boundary
Educ
atio
nal c
onte
xt, c
onte
nt a
nd d
eliv
ery
syst
ems
Institutional sphere (university) observable or assumed phenomena
External sphere (economy, society), expected behaviours
Source: Laukkanen, M 2000, ‘Exploring alternative approaches in high-level entrepreneurship education: Creating micro-mechanisms for endogenous regional growth’, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, vol. 12, pp. 25–47.
In their study on the entrepreneurial intentions of technology and science students
across four countries, Autio et al. (1997) consistently conclude that the university
teaching environment is the most influential factor in students’ perceptions of an
entrepreneurial career and their entrepreneurial convictions. Similarly, a study by
Gasse and Tremblay (2006) demonstrates that university students who gain
entrepreneurial experience from a university entrepreneurial environment are
attracted to entrepreneurship. Gasse and Tremblay advocate the important role of
universities in teaching entrepreneurship.
However, Fleming (1996) argues that most universities and colleges fail to
prepare students for self-employment as a career option, resulting in the loss of
many potential entrepreneurs. The majority of graduates lack interest in venturing
into their own business and prefer a career in the corporate sector instead.
Furthermore, Postigo and Tamborini (2002) believe that universities and colleges
60
promote education that leads students towards professional careers rather than
fostering a entrepreneurial mentality among students
Therefore, universities need to develop skilful graduates who understand both the
value of business and job creation processes. This means that the promotion of
entrepreneurship as a possible career path, together with the relevant fundamental
business knowledge and skills, is crucial for students to have a realistic attitude
towards entrepreneurship (Li and Matlay 2005; Postigo et al. 2006).
Towards this end, universities need to provide a conducive learning and creative
entrepreneurial environment in order to ‘see’ entrepreneurially-inclined
individuals, since the environment can either support or inhibit entrepreneurial
activity (Kozan et al. 2006). In actuality, the creation of an entrepreneurial culture
across campus is expected to influence students’ decisions about entrepreneurship.
Students’ career preferences are easily influenced by the environmental conditions
in which they are interacting as they are young and always looking for new and
appropriate models to pursue or emulate (Fayolle and Degeorge 2006; Gnyawali
and Fogel 1994). McLarty’s (2005) study of the entrepreneurial potential of
graduates in the UK supports the view that universities have a real influence on
graduates’ decisions to embark on a business.
In brief, in order to encourage and nurture entrepreneurially-inclined students,
students need to be continuously exposed to entrepreneurial competencies and
skills to recognise untapped business opportunities. This is the environment that
has to be created and sustained by universities. The role of universities in
promoting entrepreneurship is inextricably linked to entrepreneurial development
(Autio et al. 1997). All students are potential entrepreneurs who need an
entrepreneurial environment to foster their growth and development and stimulate
their entrepreneurial interest (Postigo et al. 2006). Ensuring a conducive and
supportive entrepreneurial learning environment, and other entrepreneurial
supports such as infrastructure and funds to facilitate and support the development
of new ventures among students, can be challenging, but it is vital for universities
61
to produce the new economic actors in a country’s social and economic
development (Hynes 1996; Luthje and Prugl 2006).
Given the strong role that universities can play in fostering entrepreneurship
among university students, it is hypothesised that:
H1: There is a positive relationship between the role of universities in
promoting entrepreneurship and university students’ inclination towards
entrepreneurship.
3.9 The entrepreneurial curriculum and content
As previously discussed, it is noticeable that entrepreneurship education has been
a central interest for universities and colleges worldwide (Solomon 2007). As a
result, the entrepreneurial curricula are being developed by many entrepreneurial
educators with the aim of preparing students for self-employment (Kruger 2004).
However, research in entrepreneurship education linked to curriculum has been
plagued with a number of problems, including the lack of consensus on the
appropriateness of entrepreneurial content as well as pedagogical approaches
(Garavan and O'Cinneide 1994; Gibb 1996; Mentoor and Friedrich 2007;
Solomon 2007).
According to Niyonkuru (2005), there are several questions concerned with the
entrepreneurial curriculum, including ‘How is entrepreneurship education
defined? How does it differ from business education or business management
training? What are the critical components of entrepreneurial training/education?’
(p. 20). The first two questions have been briefly discussed in Section 3.6 and
Section 3.6.1.1 of this chapter. The critical components of entrepreneurial
training/education, which focus upon entrepreneurial course content and
pedagogy method, are discussed in this section.
62
3.9.1 Entrepreneurship course content
According to Posner (1995), content is considered the heart of any educational
curriculum or programme. The issue underscoring the concern about the
entrepreneurial curriculum is the knowledge that is believed to be important for
the achievement of target objectives. Du Toit (2000) posits that the challenge of
designing entrepreneurial curriculum and content is teaching creativity and
analytical skills while teaching business basics at the same time.
A range of suggestions as to what should be incorporated in the content of
entrepreneurship education has been widely published in the literature. Brown
(2000) emphasises that the entrepreneurial curriculum should consider the
features needed to start up a venture as well as teach the fundamentals of
employment skills. On the other hand, Brown (1999) indicates that the
entrepreneurship course content should be informal, with an emphasis on hands-
on teaching methods. She then outlines the core structure for the teaching of
entrepreneurship courses:
• Critical thinking
• Reliance on experience – successful courses accessing students skills and
needs
• Thinking about entrepreneurship as a career; and
• Using guest speakers who are experienced entrepreneurs.
Rae (1997) states that the skills traditionally taught in business schools are
essential but not sufficient to make a successful entrepreneur. He further suggests
including some skills in the content of entrepreneurial courses: creativity,
leadership, problem solving, time management and critical thinking.
Alternatively, Vesper (2004) categorises four kinds of knowledge useful for
entrepreneurs, recommending that entrepreneurship course content should be
developed according to these kinds of knowledge:
63
i) business-general knowledge applies to most firms, including new
ventures;
ii) venture-general knowledge applies to most start-ups, but not so much
to going firms;
iii) opportunity-specific knowledge is about knowledge regarding the
existence of un-served markets and about how resources need to be
ventured in; and
iv) venture-specific knowledge is about knowledge on how to produce a
particular product or goods.
Kourilsky (1995) points out the three main components that should constitute the
entrepreneurial content: opportunity identification, the marshalling and
commitment of resources, and the creation and operation of business ventures.
Fleming (1999) supports Kourilsky’s three components of an effective
entrepreneurial curriculum by identifying the ability of entrepreneurial course
content to prepare students to recognise business opportunity, pursue the
opportunity and turn it into a viable business venture. She further suggests the
focus of entrepreneurial content should include innovation, creativity, business
planning and new product development.
To sum up, the content of entrepreneurship education should emphasise practical
experience in order to achieve a more practical way of teaching entrepreneurship.
More specifically, the entrepreneurship course content needs to be balanced,
focusing on two aspects, namely the teaching of creative and analytical skills and
the teaching of business basics (O'Neill 1995).
In relation to this, an appropriate pedagogical method is apparently a necessary
complement to the achievement of the objectives of entrepreneurial content. This
is because without a good teaching method, it is impossible to impart the
knowledge of the content to learners effectively. This leads to an analysis of the
assessment and teaching methods suitable for entrepreneurship education.
64
3.9.2 Pedagogical approaches
A plethora of different teaching methods has been suggested by various
entrepreneurial researchers (e.g., Garavan and O'Cinneide 1994; Solomon et al.
2005). As with the entrepreneurial curriculum, it is arguably impossible to seek a
consensus on appropriate entrepreneurial teaching methods (Niyonkuru 2005).
This is mainly because different entrepreneurial course objectives might require
different delivery methods to successfully impart the relevant knowledge and
skills (Charney and Libecap 2003; Du Toit 2000).
Based on the extant literature, many methods of teaching entrepreneurship have
been proposed by entrepreneurial researchers (see Garavan and O'Cinneide 1994;
Gorman et al. 1997; Solomon et al. 2005). However, very little is known about the
most effective methods of teaching entrepreneurship (Brockhaus 2001; Solomon
et al. 2005). Young (1997) advocates that there is room for further research in the
area of entrepreneurship education in terms of instructional delivery; for instance,
the development and evaluation of pedagogies.
In view of this, the issues related to pedagogical methods have been addressed by
and become main concerns of many researchers. For example, Solomon et al.
(2005) ask ‘What pedagogies were most appropriate for the transfer of
entrepreneurial knowledge and skills?’ (p. 340). Similarly, Hannon (2006) offers a
fundamental question on the teaching of entrepreneurship education: ‘How do
curricula design and development processes enhance the entrepreneurial learning
process of students?’ (p. 297).
Levie (1999b) contends that the decision to use a teaching method in
entrepreneurship is generally based on whether the courses are for
entrepreneurship or about entrepreneurship. The former is aimed at producing
students who are capable of dealing with real entrepreneurial activity or
transforming students’ entrepreneurial knowledge and skills in practical way.
Courses about entrepreneurship are concerned with teaching entrepreneurship as a
65
required subject in the syllabus via traditional methods (Gibb 2002(a)). The
differences in courses for and about entrepreneurship in terms of teaching
methods used are shown in Table 3.7.
Table 3.7: Differences between courses for entrepreneurship and courses about entrepreneurship
Courses for entrepreneurship Courses about entrepreneurship • Case studies • Guest speakers • Group projects • Group business plans • Class participation assessed
• Lectures • Individual essays • Individual end-of-term written
exams
Source: Levie, J 1999, Entrepreneurship education in higher education in England: A survey, Department for Employment and Education, UK, viewed July 7 2005, http://www.entrepreneur.strath.ac.uk/research/surv.pdf
Traditionally, lectures, essays and text readings are among the methods used to
teach entrepreneurship courses (Browne and Harms 2004; Co and Mitchell 2006;
Fiet 2000a). For example, Fiet (2000a) stresses that textbook reading is very
important as the premier source to build students’ basic knowledge and cognitive
skills in entrepreneurship. It also provides students with everything they need to
master a subject content area under the guidance of competent lecturers (Browne
and Harms 2004).
However, critics (e.g. Garavan and O'Cinneide 1994; Shepherd and Douglas
1997) have criticised the traditional methods of teaching entrepreneurship for their
failure to actually promote logical and creative thinking. Garavan and O’Cinneide
have gone further, describing using traditional methods to teach entrepreneurship
as like driving using the rear-view mirror. Instead, entrepreneurial scholars (e.g.,
Co and Mitchell 2006; Cooper et al. 2004; Mentoor and Friedrich 2007; Shepherd
and Douglas 1997) have contended that delivery methods need to be changed
from traditional to practical, such as by using business plans, field trips and guest
speakers to enhance students’ entrepreneurial learning. Kruger (2005) supports
these researchers’ remarks, suggesting ‘traditional methods of teaching
entrepreneurship give way to new methods that balanced lecture-based classes
with active experimentation (active and hands-on pedagogies)’ (p. 31).
66
Another interesting issue that has attracted entrepreneurship education researchers
is the evaluation of entrepreneurship courses (Kruger 2004). Generally, the
outputs of entrepreneurship education can be assessed on tangible and intangible
bases (Fleming 1999). Tangible outputs include assignments, presentations and
written reports, while intangible outputs can be achievements, problem solving
and knowledge.
Fleming (1999) reports that formal examinations are the common methods of
assessment at the University of Limerick in Ireland. Similarly, Cooper et al.
(2004) point out that group projects account for 50 per cent of the total Venture
Management Programme at the University of Strathclyde in Scotland, of which 35
per cent is given to the project itself and 15 per cent for the presentation. The
remaining 50 per cent is evaluated by an individual assignment.
In brief, despite the lack of consensus on the appropriate entrepreneurial content
and pedagogical methods, it is perceived that the end-result of entrepreneurship
courses is to be able to create entrepreneurially-inclined graduates that are capable
of developing an understanding of the formation of new ventures theoretically and
practically. Content is also expected to increase students’ interest in
entrepreneurship so that they will eventually create and operate new ventures.
Therefore, it is hypothesised that:
H2: There is a positive relationship between entrepreneurial curriculum and
content and university students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship.
3.10 Role models
The effect of role models on inclination towards entrepreneurship is widely
discussed in the literature (e.g., Krueger et al. 2000; Van Auken et al. 2006).
According to Hisrich et al. (2005), role models are ‘individuals influencing an
entrepreneur’s career choice or styles’ (p. 68). They further accentuate that role
models have a vital influence on individuals in determining entrepreneurial
67
careers as they provide useful business-related information and guidance apart
from moral support.
Role models, in this context, are imperative because they provide individuals with
training for socialisation (Postigo et al. 2006; Rajkonwar 2006). Further, they
provide observational learning experience (Bygrave 2004; Van Auken et al.
2006). The reasoning is that by directly seeing successful persons in business, an
individual will wish to imitate in order to become similarly successful (Caputo
and Dolinsky 1998; Postigo et al. 2006).
Hence many studies have focused extensively on role models such as parents
(Henderson and Robertson 2000; Kirkwood 2007; Krueger et al. 2000; Van
Auken et al. 2006), close friends and relatives (Dunn 2004; Ghazali et al. 1995;
Gray et al. 2006) and educators (Birdthistle et al. 2007; Deakins et al. 2005) who
have influenced students’ entrepreneurial career choices. Dunn (2004)
demonstrates that role models have been the dominant and/or encouragement
factor for the prediction of status choice among Australian students, either self-
employed or employees. More interestingly, Venkataraman (2004) states that role
models are one of the seven entrepreneurship intangibles that provide conditions
to enable entrepreneurship to thrive in a locality.
When discussing education and training, the role of educators is acknowledged as
important (Boyle 2007). According to Hytti and O’Gorman (2004), educators are
a critical element in the development of effective enterprise education initiatives.
Educators or teachers play a vital role in the learning process as their teaching
styles and attitudes towards entrepreneurship will have significant impact on
students. Therefore, whether the entrepreneurship education programme achieves
its overall objective mainly depends on the capability of educators (Birdthistle et
al. 2007). Moreover the role of teachers is indispensable in education as they
‘prepare, encourage and cultivate students’ (Boyle 2007, p. 12). This view is
supported by studies by Hee and James (1994) and Fayolle and Degeorge (2006)
68
which show that those in the teaching professions are able to influence the career
choices of their students.
The role played by educators, in this instance, is as facilitators, guides or partners
in the entrepreneurial learning process by providing real-life business experiences
(Birdthistle et al. 2007; Hannon 2005). This is because educators are influential in
encouraging entrepreneurial learning styles among students by requiring students
to participate rather than by imparting knowledge to passive students (Henderson
and Robertson 2000). Educators have a significant effect on students’ minds as
students tend to absorb whatever an educator delivers and teaches (Bligh 1998).
A survey of young Australians’ attitudes towards entrepreneurship conducted by
Sergeant and Crawford (2001) finds that teachers have an influence on young
people’s decisions to launch a business. Likewise, Deakins et al. (2005) point to
the critical role of head teachers in influencing and supporting students’ attitudes
towards entrepreneurial activities in schools.
However, a study by Dunn (2004) on nascent entrepreneurs in Australia found
that teachers have not significantly influenced individuals’ desires to start new
businesses. Similarly, Henderson and Robertson (2000) reveal that teachers are
perceived to have very little direct impact on whether young people in the UK
become entrepreneurs as they are seen to lack knowledge in small business and
entrepreneurship.
On the other hand, friends are also found to influence a person’s inclination
towards entrepreneurship. Dillard and Campbell (1981) point out that White
American students seem to be influenced more by non-parental factors such as
peers when deciding on their career development. This might be due to students’
belief that friends are the best source of advice and even capital (Schaper and
Volery 2004). Nanda and Sorensen (2006) acknowledge the role of peers in
influencing one’s decision to become an entrepreneur. Peers who have had
previous experiences in self-employment do have an impact on an individual’s
69
decisions to consider entrepreneurship during a transitional career from the
present occupation.
Djankov et al. (2004) in their studies in five countries on the development of
entrepreneurship conclude that those who have childhood friends who become
entrepreneurs are most likely to follow in their footsteps. Similarly, surveys on
young Australians’ attitudes towards entrepreneurship conducted by Kennedy et
al. (2003) and Sergeant and Crawford (2001) agree that friends, among other
factors, significantly influence young people’s decisions to start up a business.
Dunn’s (2004) study also shows that friends have a positive impact on the
readiness and preparedness of a student to venture into business. Thus it can be
concluded that friends play an important role in determining an individual’s
inclination towards entrepreneurship.
In brief, given the important role of educators and friends in influencing students’
inclination towards entrepreneurship (Peterman and Kennedy 2003; Wong and
Lena 2005), an examination of their roles must be conducted. Furthermore, Luthje
and Franke (2003) suggest that future study should examine the influence of
educators on students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship. Therefore:
H3: There is a positive relationship between role models and university
students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship.
3.11 Entrepreneurship internship programmes
Talk to me and I will listen Show me and I will observe Involve me and I will learn
(Hackney et al. 2003)
The above proverb emphasises that personal involvement is important in making
an individual understand more deeply about what he or she is doing or studying.
Due to global economic uncertainties and corporate downsizing practices,
70
students are investigating the possibility of establishing a business as an
alternative job opportunity (Henry et al. 2003; Luthje and Franke 2003;
Wennekers and Thurik 1999). With this in mind, students are seeking business
education that can provide them with real business experience that enables them
to start a venture (Dilts and Fowler 1999).
Therefore, it is a challenge to many universities around the world to include the
element of practical training in the pursuit of excellent entrepreneurial learning for
the main stakeholders, namely students (Cooper et al. 2004). This is largely
because most universities are still widely using traditional lecture-based and
didactic learning approaches, which are insufficient to provide good learning
experiences and develop students’ entrepreneurial competencies (Cooper et al.
2004; Fregetto 2006; Schieb-Bienfait 2004). Consequently a gap exits between
students’ academic experience and the needs of employers (Hornsby and Johnson
1991).
In response to this challenge, universities must be capable of shifting from the
traditional learning paradigms to a more unconventional approach (Huitt 1999;
McDonald and Postle 1999). This means more universities are exhorted to
integrate internship programmes in curricula to ensure students’ employability
and their ability to handle real business issues (Mihail 2006; Nabi 2003). In other
words, universities should pay attention to the view that ‘the practice of teaching
should involve the teaching of practice’ (Hackney et al. 2003, p. 1).
Eentrepreneurial internship programmes, in this circumstance, are considered to
be a way of bridging the gap (Dilts and Fowler 1999).
While there have been significant studies on the influence of role models (Fisher
and Padmawidjaja 1999; Kirkwood 2007; Krueger et al. 2000), environmental
factors (Cuervo 2005; Gnyawali and Fogel 1994) and motivational factors
(Kolvereid 1996; Moy et al. 2003; Naffziger et al. 1994; Shane et al. 2003) on
students’ inclination to become entrepreneurs, very little attention has been paid to
71
whether entrepreneurial internship programmes are an effective way of learning
that might affect students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship (Moser 2005).
Entrepreneurial internship, according to Gault et al. (2000, p. 46) is ‘generally
part-time field experiences and encompasses a wider variety of academic
disciplines and organisational settings’. It aims to lead students to become self-
employed by providing them with the necessary hands-on experience in the real
business milieu (Dilts and Fowler 1999). Ideally, the learning process of
entrepreneurship should not be confined to classroom discussions. Instead,
students should be exposed to the working world with the necessary skills to
supplement their classroom learning (Mihail 2006).
Interaction with today’s dynamic business environment is vital because ‘critical
entrepreneurial skills can only be developed and refined if they are practised’
(Dilts and Fowler 1999, p. 52). Furthermore, Henry et al. (2005) propose that
entrepreneurs developing high technology small firms learn through experience
and trial and error and not through structured teaching.
With internship programmes, students can gain business experience by feeling,
seeing and touching the business activities (Cooper et al. 2004; McIntyre and
Roche 1999). This kind of experience is vital to increase the capability of students
to develop business strategy and build business networking in the process of
establishing a new venture (Gray et al. 2006). It is also found that students who
have attended and completed internship programmes are more likely to venture
into businesses upon graduation compared to those who have not completed such
programmes (Callanan and Benzing 2004; Moser 2005). This may be because
individuals can learn from their previous business experiences and are more
confident to launch a new business (Gray et al. 2006).
Another advantage of entrepreneurial internship programmes is that they allow
universities and business organisations to enjoy ‘win–win’ situations (Brightman
1989; Knemeyer and Murphy 2002; Pianko 1996). Employers, on one hand, could
72
use internships to cream off the best would-be employees for their organisations.
Students who participate in entrepreneurial internship programmes, on the other
hand, can either inspire new ideas or show their loyalty towards an organisation.
If an intern is recruited, both parties know best what they are expecting from each
other (Pianko 1996).
Recognising the importance of internship programmes as a popular channel to
bridge the transition from classroom learning to theoretical application in the
business world, a number of studies have revealed the significant contributions of
internship programmes (Callanan and Benzing 2004; Hornsby and Johnson 1991;
Toncar and Cudmore 2000). For example, a study by Gault et al. (2000) concludes
that interns who have participated in internship programmes tend to have higher
career preparation for their jobs and higher intrinsic and extrinsic reward
satisfaction. Hence, acquiring applicable entrepreneurial experience does have a
positive relation to an individual’s intention and readiness in pursuit of business
opportunities because of their early exposure to business environments (Cooper et
al. 2004).
Mihail (2006), in his explorative case study of Greek university students’
internships, indicates that internship programmes serve to link theoretical
knowledge and practice, which enhances students’ employability. Moser (2005)
concludes that students who attend internships exhibit high levels of interest in
entrepreneurship and are ready to pursue their interest in starting up a business.
However, a study by Frazier and Niehm (2006) shows that university students
who have completed internship programmes are not more favourably disposed to
choosing entrepreneurship as a career choice than those who have not completed
such programmes.
In conclusion, considering the benefits of internship programmes to students,
many researchers suggest that entrepreneurial internship programmes should
become a compulsory component of students’ entrepreneurial education
(Hiltebeitel et al. 2000). This, in turn, can make internship programmes an integral
73
part of today’s entrepreneurship education in preparing university students for
their entrepreneurial careers (Raymond and McNabb 1993). Van Auken et al.
(2006) conclude that entrepreneurial internships can have a strong effect on
students’ interest in becoming entrepreneurs. In other words, having good
entrepreneurial internship programmes will cause more university students to
have higher interest in entrepreneurship, thus suggesting the following hypothesis:
H4: There is a positive relationship between entrepreneurial internship
programmes and university students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship.
3.12 Demographic and family business background variables
This section will examine the literature from past studies related to demographic
and family business background and the inclination towards entrepreneurship.
Much research has suggested the influence of demographic and family
background on a person’s inclination towards entrepreneurship (e.g., Breen 1998;
Dunn 2004; Kirkwood 2007; Koh 1995, 1996; Lin et al. 2000; Reitan 1997; Smith
2005; Veciana et al. 2005). The common premise is that personal entrepreneurial
characteristics and the good influence brought by family contribute to higher
inclination towards entrepreneurship (Din 1992; Kirkwood 2007; Koh 1996;
Mazzarol et al. 1999).
3.12.1 Demographic characteristics
Demographic characteristics have been included as part of this study to examine
their influence on the independent and dependent variables. Reitan (1997)
recommends that demographic factors such as gender deserve to be further
investigated, as individuals’ perceptions or attitudes towards new venture creation
might be influenced by those factors. It has also been suggested by Carolis and
Saparito (2006) that the inclusion of demographic characteristics may have
moderating influence on individuals’ entrepreneurial behaviour or new venture
success.
74
Carsrud et al. (1993, p. 53) define demographics in entrepreneurial research as:
Demography means the study of the entrepreneurial population by statistical methods through the measurement of size, growth or decline of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial firms. Within this narrower definition, demographics include the various ethics, social, biological, psychological, and economic variables used to interrelate specific characteristics of the entrepreneurs, their firms and the specific behaviours of that population
Therefore, in this study, seven demographic characteristics are examined because
of their potential influence on the inclination towards entrepreneurship.
3.12.1.1 Gender
There have been strands of studies suggesting that gender differences do occur in
inclination towards entrepreneurship or entrepreneurial behaviours. In particular,
much research has shown that males are more likely to venture into business
compared to females (e.g., Crant 1996; Dunn 2004; Kolvereid 1996; Phan et al.
2002; Veciana et al. 2005).
The studies of Ghazali et al. (1995), Phan et al. (2002) and Wang and Wong
(2004) on entrepreneurship among Singapore university students consistently
indicate that male students tend to be more likely to venture into businesses. This
coincides with Koh’s (1996) study on 54 MBA students in Hong Kong. His
findings indicate that the graduates who are more entrepreneurially-inclined tend
to be males. Crant’s study of 181 undergraduate and postgraduate students in the
US (1996) also indicates that male students exhibit significantly higher
entrepreneurial intention compared to female students. Perhaps this is mainly due
to the fact that many female students do not choose entrepreneurship as a major
study as remarked by Menzies and Tatroff (2006).
However, Chamard and Fitzgerald’s (1998) study of 513 students in Australia
point out that female students (47 per cent) have higher interest in contemplating
75
starting a venture compared to males (40.1 per cent). To conclude, based on most
empirical evidence, it is suggested that males are more interested in
entrepreneurship. Traditionally, it is perceived that entrepreneurship is the domain
of males (Wang and Wong 2004).
3.12.1.2 Ethnicity
Ethnicity is another demographic factor that has been found to have a relationship
to the inclination towards entrepreneurship. Some researchers (e.g., Fitzsimmons
and Douglas 2005; Ghazali et al. 1995; Wang and Wong 2004) have shown that
entrepreneurs often come from certain ethnic or minority groups. In their study of
414 MBA students’ entrepreneurial intentions from four countries, Fitzsimmons
and Douglas (2005) indicate that Chinese and Thai students possess, on average,
higher intentions to launch a venture compared to Australian and Indian students.
In a comparison study of graduate and non-graduate entrepreneurs in Malaysia,
Othman et al. (2006) point out that there is a statistically significant difference
between ethnicity and entrepreneurship, i.e., more entrepreneurs are Chinese.
Hence it is believed that Chinese students are more likely to be inclined towards
entrepreneurship.
However, a study by Wang and Wong (2004) of 5326 undergraduate students
rejects the ethnicity factor in students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship.
Specifically, their findings show that there is no statistically significant difference
between Chinese, Malay and Indian students and their entrepreneurial inclination
in Singapore.
3.12.1.3 Religion
Much research has claimed the strong influence of religion on an individual’s
decision to be involved in entrepreneurship (e.g., Carswell and Rolland 2007;
Graafland et al. 2006; Hagen 1960; Kotey and Meredith 1997). In their studies of
2000 New Zealander entrepreneurs, Carswell and Rolland (2007) found that non-
76
Christians such as Muslims, Buddhists, Jews and Hindus are more likely to be
involved in entrepreneurial activity than Christians. They further argue that little
research has been conducted on non-Christian values. Some religions such as
Islam have regarded entrepreneurship in a very positive way. This corollary is
presented by Graafland et al. (2006), who say that business is considered as an
important aspect in Islam and thus Muslims are encouraged to choose business
and entrepreneurship as their main source of livelihood and as part of their social
responsibility. As Muslims are the predominant group in Malaysia, it is interesting
to examine if Muslim students are more likely to be involved in entrepreneurship
than non-Muslim students.
3.12.1.4 Birth order
Robinson and Hunt (1992) found that being first-born in the family is significantly
related to entrepreneurial inclination:
The use of birth order as a variable associated with entrepreneurship has centred on the assumption that individuals born first in their family inherit or develop a set of personality characteristics that predispose those individuals to entrepreneurial behaviours at some point during their lives (p. 291).
Koh’s (1995) study on business students in Hong Kong supports the finding of
Robinson and Hunt. However, Robinson and Hunt’s (1992) study of the
relationship between entrepreneurship and birth order points out that there is no
significant difference between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs based on birth
order. Similarly, in their demographic comparison study of 80 Chinese and Malay
entrepreneurs in Malaysia, Othman et al. (2005) conclude that there is no
significant difference between Chinese and Malay entrepreneurs and birth order.
3.12.1.5 Place of origin
In terms of places of origin, in their comparison study between American
entrepreneurs and Malaysian entrepreneurs, Zainal et al. (1995) conclude that
77
American entrepreneurs are likely to come from rural areas while Malaysian
entrepreneurs are more urbanised.
3.12.1.6 Programmes of study
Numerous attempts have been made by some researchers to investigate a link
between student’s programme of study and inclination towards entrepreneurship.
From the findings, many have justifiably claimed that business or
entrepreneurship major students are more likely to show a higher interest in
entrepreneurship. For example, a study by Lena and Wong (2003) examined that
attitudes of 11,660 Singaporean university students towards new venture creation.
They point out that the level of start-up activities is statistically higher for
business students than for other majors. Kolvereid and Moen’s (1997) study of
374 Norwegian graduates also provided a similar result in which business
graduates with entrepreneurship majors are more likely to venture into businesses
and have higher entrepreneurial intentions that graduates in other majors.
However, unexpectedly, a study by Kristiansen and Indarti (2004) reveals that
Indonesian business and economics students are less entrepreneurial than non-
business and economics students, while there is no statistical impact of area of
study among Norwegian students. In a survey of 512 engineering students at
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Luthje and Franke (2003) found that 54.6
per cent of the respondents expressed the possibility of running their own
businesses after graduation.
Therefore it would appear that business or entrepreneurship major students do not
necessary show higher interest in entrepreneurship than students from other
majors. As a result, it is interesting to further explore in this study which major
has more impact on Malaysian student’s inclination towards entrepreneurship.
78
3.12.1.7 Previous working experience
The effect of previous working experience is adequately expressed by Gasse
(1982):
Experience may have two different and opposite effects on entrepreneurial performance. On one hand, it can provide the entrepreneur with a set of guidelines or knowledge conducive to performance; on the other hand, it may create habits that are hard to change and may act as obstacles to adaptation and better performance (pp. 62–63).
Taking Gasse’s first remark, much research (e.g., Gasse 1982; Henry et al. 2003;
Lena and Wong 2003; Mukhtar et al. 1999) has recognised that individuals’
previous working experience positively or negatively influences entrepreneurial
performance. Successful entrepreneurs may have acquired the necessary
knowledge and skills to succeed in the ventures that they are already familiar
with, and so would be able to capitalise on their experience in new ventures.
Mukhtar et al. (1999) conclude that individuals with previous working experience
tend to have higher inclination towards small- and medium-sized employment.
Similarly, when studying MBA students’ preparedness for entrepreneurship at the
Australian Graduate School of Entrepreneurship, Swinburne University, Thandi
and Sharma’s (2004) findings demonstrate that students who had working
experience of at least five years considered themselves better prepared for
entrepreneurial ventures than those with less or no working experience.
However, in their study of entrepreneurial intention among university students,
Kristiansen and Indarti (2004) found no statistically significant differences among
Indonesian and Norwegian students with entrepreneurial intention in relation to
whether or not they had work experience.
In summary, based on the empirical evidence, there appears to be variation in
results from previous studies about demographic characteristics and inclination
towards entrepreneurship. Therefore these characteristics deserve to be re-
examined in order to compare the present findings with previous studies and thus
79
provide some new insights. Table 3.8 shows some of the scholarly research that
has been conducted on demographic characteristics and entrepreneurship.
Table 3.8: Demographic characteristics and entrepreneurship
Characteristics Researched by
Gender Ghazali et al.(1995); Kourilsky and Walstad (1998); Phan et al.(2002); Dunn (2004); Ramayah and Harun (2005); Seet and Seet (2006)
Ethnicity Blau (1985); Wang and Wong (2004); Othman et al. (2005)
Religion Graafland et al. (2006); Kotey and Meredith (1997) Birth order Koh (1995); Othman et al. (2005) Place of origin Zainal et al. (1995) Programmes of study Crant (1996); Koh (1995); Lena and Wong (2003);
Ramayah and Harun (2005) Previous working experience
Ghazali et al. (1995); Kristiansen and Indarti (2004); Othman et al. (2005; 2006)
Source: Developed for the study
3.12.2 Family business background
Besides the influence of demographic characteristics, there have been strands of
studies revealing that an individual’s family business background has a vital role
in terms of influencing, motivating and providing support for an individual’s
intention to be involved with entrepreneurial activity (Matlay 2005b; Raijman
2001). For many people, family is a main source of information and provides
funds as well as networks (Cuervo 2005; Sergeant and Crawford 2001).
Furthermore, having being brought up by parents who owned a business, the
children of these business-owning parents are expected to possess higher
propensity to launch a business in the future (Raijman 2001; Schindehutte et al.
2003; Van Auken et al. 2006; Veciana et al. 2005).
Phan et al. (2002) indicate that Singaporean students who have parents with
businesses are more likely to start up businesses after graduation compared to
those whose parents have no business background. Breen (1998) supports Phan et
al.’s findings, showing that Australian teenagers’ family business background
does influence their interest in becoming self-employed. The parents, in this
80
instance, tend to be seen as good examples and potential sources of financial and
unpaid labour for their children’s ventures (Raijman 2001; Sanders and Nee
1996). More specifically, numerous studies have shown that fathers’ self-
employment has stronger influence on their children’s decisions to become
entrepreneurs than mothers’ self-employment (e.g., Dunn 2004; Kirkwood 2007).
In short, Aldrich and Cliff (2003) argue that more research is needed to examine
the effect of parents’ self-employment on individuals’ new venture creation
decisions. Therefore, in this study, the effect of father and mother entrepreneurial
models is examined to determine which has greater influence on students’
inclination towards entrepreneurship. Table 3.9 shows some of the studies
conducted on the influence of family background on entrepreneurship.
Table 3.9: Family business background and entrepreneurship
Researched by Parents’ business background and entrepreneurship
Crant (1996); Dunn (2004); Fisher and Padmawidjaja (1999); Kirkwood (2007); Koh (1996); Sanders and Nee (1996); Schindehutte et al. (2003); Tkachev and Kolvereid (1999); Veciana et al. (2005); Wang and Wong (2004)
Source: Developed for the study
On the basis of the variation in results of previous studies, this study aims to re-
examine the effect of university students’ demographic characteristics and family
business background on the inclination towards entrepreneurship. It also examines
the moderating effect of demographic characteristics and family business
background on entrepreneurship education and inclination towards
entrepreneurship. These assumptions are tested using the following hypotheses:
H5(a): There is a difference in university students’ inclination towards
entrepreneurship in the demographic groups defined by the following
variables:
i) gender
ii) ethnicity
iii) religion
81
iv) birth order
v) place of origin
vi) programmes of study
vii) working experience.
H5(b): There are differences in university students’ inclination towards
entrepreneurship related to:
i) father’s occupation
ii) mother’s occupation.
H6: The relationship between entrepreneurship education variables and
entrepreneurial inclination is stronger for students who
H6i) are males
H6ii) are Chinese
H6iii) are Muslim
H6iv) are eldest in the family
H6v) are from urban areas
H6vi) have previous working experience
H6vii) have at least one parent running a business.
3.13 Proposed theoretical framework
Based on the literature review, the theoretical framework developed for this study
is shown in Figure 3.6.
3.14 Conclusion
This chapter covers a review of relevant literature in entrepreneurship and
entrepreneurship education. The first part of this chapter provides the concept of
entrepreneurship, focusing on three main perspectives, namely economic,
psychological and sociological, and the contribution of entrepreneurship to
economic growth and job creation. It also briefly examines the relationship
82
between entrepreneurship and education. The second part of the chapter discusses
the concept and development of entrepreneurship education. The increase in the
number of entrepreneurship education courses and the impact on individuals’
inclination towards entrepreneurship has prompted researchers to examine
entrepreneurship education variables such as the role of universities in promoting
entrepreneurship, role models, the entrepreneurial curriculum and content as well
as entrepreneurial internship programmes. These variables are discussed in this
chapter. Demographic characteristics and family business background are also
discussed due to their possible effects on the variables under study. Finally, based
on the empirical evidence as discussed in the literature, the hypotheses and
theoretical framework are developed. In the next chapter, the research
methodology pertaining to this study will be discussed.
83
Figure 3.6: Hypothesised conceptual model of the relationship between entrepreneurship education and inclination towards entrepreneurship in Malaysian university students
Entrepreneurship education variables
Demographic characteristics and family background
H6i, H6ii, H6iii, H6iv, H6v, H6vi, H6vii
H5(a), H5(b)
The university’s role in promoting entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurialcurriculum and content
Role models H3
Entrepreneurship internship programmes
Inclination towards entrepreneurship
H1
H2
H4
84
85
CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.1 Introduction
This chapter outlines the quantitative methods employed in the study to investigate the
effect of the entrepreneurship education variables (the role of universities in promoting
entrepreneurship, role models, entrepreneurial curriculum and content and
entrepreneurial internship) on Malaysian university students’ entrepreneurial
inclination. The description includes the sources of data, questionnaire design and data
collection procedures. The chapter also explains the reliability tests and statistical
techniques employed in analysing each research question and hypothesis.
4.2 Study design
This is a quantitative research project. The main objective of the research is to
investigate the effect of entrepreneurship education on Malaysian university students’
inclination towards entrepreneurship. A survey-based method, where respondents
complete a questionnaire without involvement or presence of the researcher (Dane
1990), was used. The respondents in this study were students from three universities:
Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM), Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) Kedah branch
and Universiti Malaysia Perlis (UNIMAP) located in the northern region of Malaysia
(see Figure 2.1).
The following section briefly discusses the three universities that make entrepreneurship
education available to their students, either as a major or minor in a programme or as a
degree programme itself.
4.2.1 Universiti Utara Malaysia
Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM) was established in 1984. In plan and in reality, UUM
is a university specialising in management education. To do this, the School of
Management and Accountancy was set up with the establishment of the university,
along with three other schools.
One of UUM’s main objectives is to produce knowledgeable and managerially
competent and capable undergraduates who will become self-employed entrepreneurs.
To achieve this aim, UUM has pioneered various programmes in entrepreneurial
development such as students’ business programmes or Siswaniaga, entrepreneurship as
a co-curricular subject, business games, and the Bachelor of Entrepreneurship degree.
The University has even made Principles of Entrepreneurship a compulsory subject for
all undergraduates (Hoe 2006).
In addition, the Institute for Entrepreneurial Development or Institut Pembangunan
Keusahawanan was set up in 1 November 1993 on the campus to further strengthen the
promotion of entrepreneurship among its students. It organises many entrepreneurial-
related training programmes, workshops, seminars and colloquiums in order to develop
entrepreneurial knowledge and skills that will directly increase students’ interest in
entrepreneurship. Among the programmes offered under the institute are the Business
Graduates’ Training Programme (PLUS), the Graduate Entrepreneurship Basic Course
Programme (KAKS) and the Graduate Entrepreneurs Development Programme (PPUS).
Hence all efforts made by UUM in promoting entrepreneurship are to prepare a
platform for students to experience for themselves a real business venture. This is
imperative as entrepreneurial learning should be practical, requiring students to obtain
hands-on knowledge, and not be confined to classroom learning.
86
4.2.2 Universiti Teknologi MARA (Kedah branch)
MARA University of Technology, better known by its Malay acronym UiTM, was
upgraded to university status from an institute in 1999, with Shah Alam becoming its
main campus. Currently, it has three satellite campuses, 14 branch campuses, seven city
campuses and 25 franchise colleges. UiTM is the only Malaysian university that has a
branch campus in every state. UiTM offers a very wide range of studies through its
respective faculties – management, medicine, information technology, tourism and
hospitality and engineering.
Perhaps UiTM was the first higher institution of learning in the country that
concentrated on producing entrepreneurial graduates in line with the university’s
objective ‘to inculcate entrepreneurial skills among their graduates’ (Din 1992). In
achieving this objective, Fundamentals of Entrepreneurship (ETR 300) has been
introduced to all diploma students at UiTM. It is interesting to note that the majority of
UiTM undergraduate students are from its diploma programmes, in which it is
compulsory to take an entrepreneurship course. So it could be said that almost all
undergraduates at UiTM have an early exposure to entrepreneurship.
In support of the government’s aspiration to create more Bumiputra entrepreneurs and
inculcate entrepreneurial culture among students, the Malaysian Entrepreneurship
Development Centre or MEDEC was established within the university in 1975 (Dana
2001; Din 1992). The main purpose of the centre is to plan and implement
entrepreneurship development programmes, such as training, research and consultancy.
Among the programmes offered by the centre are the Entrepreneurship Development
Programmes, the Graduate Enterprise Programmes and the Entrepreneur Development
Programme for Personnel in the Civil Service.
Since this study has been conducted in Kedah state, the following brief descriptions are
focused on the Kedah branch campus. UiTM opened its eleventh branch in Kedah in
October 1997. Currently the campus offers 13 programmes, including four degree
87
programmes, eight at diploma level and one pre-diploma course through its seven
faculties. The seven faculties are (see Table 4.1):
Table 4.1: Faculties and programmes offered
Faculty Programme(s) offered
Faculty of Accountancy Diploma in Accountancy Faculty of Business Management
Diploma in Business Studies; Diploma in Banking; Bachelor of Business Management (Honours) Islamic Banking, Bachelor of Business Administration (Honours) Marketing
Faculty of Law Pre-degree in Law Faculty of Information Technology and Quantitative Sciences
Diploma in Computer Science; Diploma in Quantitative Science; Diploma in Information Management
Faculty of Administrative Science and Policy Studies
Diploma in Public Administration, Bachelor of Administrative Science (Honours)
Faculty of Arts and Design Diploma in Industrial Design Faculty of Information Management
Bachelor of Science (Honours) Library and Information Management
Compared with other universities, UiTM Kedah branch is relatively small in terms of
the number of the programmes offered as well as its students. According to the
university’s Academic Affairs Department’s statistics, 3,424 full-time students are
currently pursuing studies in various fields on campus.
4.2.3 Universiti Malaysia Perlis
Universiti Malaysia Perlis or UNIMAP was formerly known as the Northern
Engineering University College of Malaysia or KUKUM. The change of name was
made following the decision by the Malaysian government to upgrade all its university
colleges to universities to meet the increasing demands from students for quality higher
education.
This university was established in 2001. The objective in establishing UNIMAP was to
offer a ‘lab intensive approach’, combining both theoretical and practical knowledge, in
the field of engineering. Since becoming a full-fledged university, UNIMAP houses
eight schools that offer 15 engineering programmes at the undergraduate level and six
88
programmes at diploma level. Among the programmes offered at UNIMAP are
microelectronics, manufacturing and materials engineering, which lead to the award of
Bachelor of Engineering.
UNIMAP provides a special engineering learning approach. That is, besides studying
engineering courses, UNIMAP students are equipped with entrepreneurial skills. This
makes its students different compared to students from other universities that confine
themselves to an engineering-based curriculum.
To this end, the Centre for Communication Skills and Entrepreneurship is given
responsibility for developing and implementing entrepreneurship education at
UNIMAP. Engineering Entrepreneurship is offered as a two-credit-hour compulsory
course for all students. Other entrepreneurship courses are also offered as optional for
those interested in studying entrepreneurship in depth.
The unique characteristic of the entrepreneurship courses offered at UNIMAP is that
students are exposed to entrepreneurship through its industrial exposure programme or
Industrial Entrepreneurship programme. During the one-week exposure programme,
students visit companies, including small- and medium-sized companies, the MECD
and other agencies that encourage the development of entrepreneurship. This
programme is intended to stimulate and inculcate entrepreneurship among students.
Additionally, students are required to carry out projects focusing on entrepreneurship.
They are encouraged to develop a project that is feasible and marketable by using the
university facilities and resources. Other entrepreneurship development programmes are
also available to students under the patronage of the MECD such as the Graduate
Entrepreneurial Training Programme, Graduate Basic Entrepreneurial Course and
Graduate Entrepreneur Development Programme. All these are designed to increase the
propensity of students towards entrepreneurship, including ‘technopreneurship’ among
the engineering students.
89
4.3 Sources of data
4.3.1 Population of the study
Defining the relevant population for the study is the first step in the sampling process
(Le Roux 2003). The population is a group of potential respondents to whom the results
of a study can be generalised (Salkind 2006). Sekaran (2003, p. 265) defines population
as ‘the entire group of people, events or things of interest that the researcher wishes to
investigate’.
The population for the study was final year students from three Malaysian public
universities. The students were taught entrepreneurship as a core subject as part of their
study programmes in the areas of business, computing and IT and engineering. These
three public universities are located in Kedah and Perlis, the northern states of
Peninsular Malaysia. At these universities, entrepreneurship is a compulsory or
university core course for all undergraduates. The student population of these
universities is mainly from three racial groups: Malays, Chinese and Indians, reflecting
the dominant ethnic groups that comprise Malaysian society.
The population definition was based on the assumption that students who had
undergone the entrepreneurial learning process and were in the final year of studies
would have a better understanding regarding future careers (Super 1990). Given that
they were in the final stages of their undergraduate studies and that the majority of the
students would be looking for a career, it was deemed that the population selected
would reflect student intention and inclination. In other words, those students would be
in a better position of firming their vocational goals based on their interest.
Furthermore, these students would have a degree of competence and have undergone
the necessary exposure to entrepreneurship, and would therefore be in a better position
to decide about their future careers. Their choice at this stage, given their exposure to
entrepreneurship studies, may have expanded to include self-employment as an
alternative to becoming a wage-earner. Another interesting point expounded by
researchers such as Thomas and Mueller (1998) and Veciana et al. (2005) is that
universities, as an extension of the wider community, will have a latent pool of would-
90
be entrepreneurs, and universities should provide opportunity and resources to develop
and nurture these individuals.
Due to the universities’ confidentiality and privacy policies, the researcher was only
given the number of final year students in three areas of study, with no way of
contacting students individually. This made random sampling impossible. In total the
population for this study was 2,395 (see Table 4.2).
In this study, 500 questionnaires were distributed to the following groups of students
using a random sample of classes. This means that a cluster sampling approach was
used:
i) Business students at UUM and UiTM
ii) Engineering students at UNIMAP
iii) Computing and IT students at UUM and UiTM
Table 4.2: Distribution of respondents
Programmes
of study/Universities
Population (Number of
students)
Number of classes in
population
Number of classes chosen in sample
Sample (number
of students)
Business
UUM: 946 UiTM: 279
UUM: 5 UiTM: 4
UUM: 4 UiTM: 2
270
Computing and IT UUM: 403 UiTM: 117
UUM: 4 UiTM: 2
UUM: 2 UiTM: 1
110
Engineering UNIMAP: 650 7 5 120 Total 2395 22 14 500
Source: The departments of student affairs from the respective universities
In the analyses that follow it is assumed that the respondents represent a random sample
from the population. Though group access was the method employed, responses were
from individual students, a method of inquiry supported by Burns (1997). It is also a
common research method used in university student studies (see Gurol and Atsan 2006;
Lena and Wong 2003).
91
4.3.2 Sample size
The total population for this study was 2,395 (see Table 4.2). Roscoe (1975) suggests
that:
i) sample size bigger than 30 and less than 500 is appropriate for most research
ii) in multivariate research (including multiple regression), the sample size
should be several times (preferably 10 times or more) as large as the number
of variables in the study.
Other studies (e.g., Hair et al. 1998) indicate that a minimum of 50 respondents is
needed in order to allow a meaningful level of statistical analysis. Krejcie and Morgan
(cited in Sekaran 2003, p. 294) have produced a table for determining sample size.
Based on the table, a minimum of 331 students is required for a population size of
2,400. After discarding incomplete questionnaires, 417 questionnaires remained, a
sufficient sample size according to Krejcie and Morgan’s proposed table for
determining sample size.
4.3.3 Hypotheses
According to Sekaran (2003, p. 418), a hypothesis is ‘an educated conjecture about the
logically developed relationship between two or more variables, expressed in the form
of testable statements.’ The null hypothesis often states that there is no difference
between groups or no correlation between measured variables. The corresponding
alternate hypothesis indicates the opposite notion of the null hypothesis in that there is a
difference between groups or there is a correlation between measured variables (Cavana
et al. 2001).
To answer the research questions, the following alternate or research hypotheses were
formulated in this study to examine the effect of entrepreneurship education on
university students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship:
92
H1: There is a positive relationship between the role of universities in promoting
entrepreneurship and university students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship.
H2: There is a positive relationship between entrepreneurial curriculum and content
and university students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship.
H3: There is a positive relationship between role models and university students’
inclination towards entrepreneurship.
H4: There is a positive relationship between entrepreneurship internship
programmes and university students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship.
H5(a): There is a difference in university students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship
in the demographic groups defined by the following variables:
i) gender
ii) ethnicity
iii) religion
iv) birth order
v) places of origin
vi) programmes of study
vii) previous working experience.
H5(b): There are differences in university students’ inclination towards
entrepreneurship that relate to:
i) father’s occupation
ii) mother’s occupation.
H6: The relationship between entrepreneurship education variables and
entrepreneurial inclination is stronger for students who
H6i) are male
H6ii) are Chinese
H6iii) are Muslim
H6iv) are eldest in the family
H6v) are from urban areas
H6vi) have previous working experience
H6vii) have at least one parent running a business.
93
4.4 Design of the questionnaire
4.4.1 Instrumentation design
A questionnaire, when designed well, will provide accurate and useable data (Cavana et
al. 2001). Most importantly, in educational research, the questionnaire is the most
widely used tool in gathering research information from a large group of people (Brown
and Dowling 1998). The questionnaire was printed in booklet form as suggested by
Dane (1990) so that it looked well-organised and professional. In addition, the
questionnaire was developed carefully in order to ensure its validity, reliability and
freedom from bias.
A questionnaire in the form a 13-page booklet was used in this study. Before
administration, the questionnaire was back translated to Bahasa Malaysia (see appendix
A). Basically, the questionnaire was divided into the following seven variables:
• Demographic characteristics and family background
• Future career planning and entrepreneurial inclination
• Role models
• The role of universities in promoting entrepreneurship
• The entrepreneurial curriculum and content
• Assessment and teaching methods for entrepreneurship course(s)
• The entrepreneurial internship programmes.
The design of the questionnaire adopted the funnel approach (Oppenheim 2000a). That
is, the questionnaire started with broad or general questions such as demographics and
family background, and progressively narrowed down to specific questions about the
variables in this study. The first page of the questionnaire described general information
about the objectives of the study as well as the respondents’ rights to confidentiality. It
also included the importance of the results of the study in helping students to decide on
their future career, especially in entrepreneurship. In addition, to minimise response set
bias and the halo effect (Koh 1996), some questions were deliberately reverse-scored, so
as to ensure respondents were consistent in their thinking and that they had given due
94
attention while responding to the questions. The details of the questionnaire are
summarised in Table 4.3:
Table 4.3: Summary of the questionnaire Section Items Sources
Section A: Demographics and family background – includes gender, race, age, area of study and working experience.
A1–A15
Adapted from Din (1992)
Section B: Future career planning and entrepreneurial inclination – includes respondents’ future career decisions whether to become self-employed or wage earner. They were also asked on their inclination towards an entrepreneurial career.
B1–B23
*B9, B11, B14, B20
Adapted from Din (1992) and Wouter (2004)
Section C: Role models – includes questions on who encourages and influences respondents most in making career decisions.
C1–C8 Adapted from Din (1992) and Kennedy et al. (2003)
Section D: The role of universities in promoting entrepreneurship –questions asked on the university environment that encourages the development of entrepreneurial activities, including university policy, entrepreneurial infrastructure and other support systems that promote entrepreneurship among students.
D1–D14
*D4, D7, D10
Replicated from Autio et al. (1997) and University of South Dakota website: www.usd/edu/oorsch/survey/studentsurvey.html
Section E: The entrepreneurial curriculum and content – questions touch on the usefulness of courses offered and taken by respondents in helping them to start a business.
E1–E18
*E7, E12, E16
Adapted from Sexton and Bowers-Brown (1988)
Section F: Assessment and teaching methods of entrepreneurship course(s) – pertaining to the methods of assessment and teaching entrepreneurship that respondents considered most important.
F1–F11 Adapted from Din (1992)
95
Section G: The entrepreneurial internship programmes – questions include the importance of entrepreneurship internship programmes in enhancing respondents’ interest towards entrepreneurship.
G1–G14
*G9, G11, G14
Adapted from Martin (1997)
* Reverse-scored questions
In terms of the language, it is worth noting that Bahasa Malaysia (Malay Language) is
the official language and the medium of instruction at educational institutions in
Malaysia, albeit English is a second language and widely used in universities. As Lewin
(1990) advised, it is best to use questionnaires in the native language for an audience
not proficient in English as respondents may have difficulties understanding an English
questionnaire.
The level of English proficiency among university students in Malaysian universities is
still comparatively low (Hamidah 2007). Therefore, the back-translated Malay version
of the English questionnaire was used to collect the data. The back translation technique
as described by Behling and Law (2000, pp. 19–20) was utilised in this study.
To ensure the accuracy of the Malay version questionnaire, it was reviewed by two
native speakers who are experts in the language. One of the reviewers was a lecturer
who holds a Doctor of Philosophy and specialises in Malay Language Studies and the
other was the Head of the Department of Malay Language Studies. Both reviewers
teach at the Faculty of Modern Languages and Communication, Universiti Utara
Malaysia. As part of the back-translation process, the Malay version of the
questionnaire was back-translated to English by a bilingual who is proficient in both
English and Malay.
Many different scaling techniques, including the semantic differential scale and Likert
scale, are used in research (Cavana et al. 2001; Sekaran 2003). However, Scott and
Fisher (2001) state that the Likert scale is the most often-used response format. The
questionnaire for this study used the Likert 5-point scale (with 1= strongly disagree, 2=
disagree, 3= no opinion, 4=agree, 5= strongly agree) for each closed question. This
96
scale was expected to increase the reliability of the responses; also, the intensity of
respondents’ feelings on the subject studied could be verified (Wiseman 1999).
Most of the questions were closed with rating scales. This means that respondents were
provided with a range of multiple answers for each question. Descriptive analysis
(frequencies, percentages, means) and inferential analysis (factor analysis, correlation,
one-way ANOVA, independent sample t-test and multiple regression) were employed to
analyse the data using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) 14 as well as
AMOS version 7.0 for the structural equation modelling.
4.4.2 Ethics considerations for the study
Ethics is an important consideration when conducting research in Australia. A research
student, either local or overseas, must obtain approval from the university’s Ethics
Committee prior to commencing fieldwork. As part of Swinburne’s Human Research
Ethics Committee requirements, this study abided by ethical principals while
conducting the data collection process as described in the National Statement of Ethical
Conduct in Research.
There were a number of potential ethical issues in this study, especially when dealing
with humans; for example, the respondents’ rights to privacy and participation. All the
potential risks of possible physical harm or unforeseen events which might occur were
addressed in the application to the Committee. The respondents’ right to privacy was
always the main concern of this study. In addressing this, participation in this study was
voluntary and there was no recording of names or any other information that could
reveal identities.
Since the sample in this study involved university students, efforts were made to obtain
the approval of the authorities of the participating universities. An introduction letter, a
letter of consent and an information sheet were sent to the respective university
authorities for the purpose of seeking permission to conduct the research at their
97
universities. The contact details of the researcher, the name of the chief investigator and
the approval from Swinburne’s Human Research Ethics Committee were provided.
Also, in order to comply with the Malaysian government’s rules regarding the conduct
of research in Malaysia, an application to obtain approval to carry out a study in
Malaysia was made. The application was sent to the Economic Planning Unit (EPU),
which is the coordinating body for processing applications under the aegis of the Prime
Minister’s Department. A letter of approval (see Appendix B) and a Research Pass (see
Appendix C) from the Research Promotion and Co-ordination Committee, EPU, must
be obtained prior to commencing fieldwork.
4.4.3 Pilot test
Most of the questions used in the study were adapted from previous studies such as
Sexton and Bowers-Brown (1988) and Autio et al. (1997). Prior to the main study, a
pilot test was undertaken to ascertain the validity and reliability of the measures used.
The objective of a pilot study is also to replicate the study on a smaller scale so as to
avoid possible mistakes being made in the final research (Wiseman 1999). According to
Oppenheim (2000a, p. 47):
Questionnaires do not emerge fully-fledged, they have to be created and adapted, fashioned and developed to maturity after many abortive test flights. In fact, every aspect of a survey has to be tried out beforehand to make sure that it works as intended.
The main purpose of conducting a pilot test, with a recommended minimum of ten
respondents, is to obtain feedback pertaining to the questionnaire that will be used in the
main study (Fink 1995). It helps the researcher to know how long the questionnaire
takes to complete, and whether the instructions and questions are clear and understood
(Mcmillan and Schumacher 2001). Hence in order to ensure that the questionnaire used
for the main study has minimum error or bias, a pilot test can be carried out to obtain
initial feedback and to assess respondents’ understanding of the appropriateness of the
items used (Brown and Dowling 1998).
98
The pilot test was conducted among 30 engineering students who were studying at the
National Technical University College of Malaysia (KUTKM). They were given a
revised Malay version of the questionnaire. Generally, the respondents were able to
complete the questionnaire without any assistance. The overall pilot test showed that
there was no major change or revision needed and therefore the questionnaire could be
used for the main survey. The time taken to complete the questionnaire was under
fifteen minutes.
To conclude, the results of the pilot test indicated that:
i. the questions were clearly stated and understood;
ii. the questionnaire could be administered within fifteen minutes; and
iii. all the instructions and formats in the questionnaire were clear.
4.4.3.1 Reliability testing
Various scales were developed using the responses to the questionnaire. There is a
variety of methods available to measure scale reliability, but, for the purpose of this
study, internal consistency measured using Cronbach’s alpha was used for assessing
reliability as it is a popular approach in research (Sekaran 2003).
Although there is no specific minimum value for the alpha coefficient, ‘a higher value
indicating a higher degree of internal consistency or reliability’ (Gravetter and Forzano
2003, p. 391) is expected. In this study, a reliability coefficient of 0.50 is set as the
minimum level for acceptability (Felder and Spurlin 2005; Helmstater 1964).
Some questions were taken out of the questionnaire after the pilot study. The
amendments were done in order to increase the reliability of the corresponding scales.
The scales were constructed, excluding the items indicated below:
Career planning and entrepreneurial inclination:
• I can make more money working for someone else than as an entrepreneur
99
• I am a risk taker
• Nothing is more exhilarating than seeing my ideas become truth.
The role of universities in promoting entrepreneurship:
• At my university, there is no fund to support students’ business-related
activities.
The entrepreneurial curriculum and content:
• The course(s) provided an opportunity to show my capabilities as an individual
• The instructor did not seem to care about us as students and was not sensitive to
our educational needs
• The instructor provided a support network when I needed help.
Entrepreneurial internship programmes:
• Colleagues gave helpful feedback on how I was going
• It was often hard to discover what was wanted.
From the pilot result in this study, all scales have satisfactory alpha coefficients of more
than 0.7. Scales with a Cronbach’s alpha of above 0.70 are regarded as reasonably
reliable while scales with a Cronbach’s alpha of above 0.80 are regarded as definitely
reliable (Hair et al. 1998). The final scales and their reliability values are given in Table
4.4.
Table 4.4: Pilot test Cronbach’s alpha values for variables
Variable
Number of items
(Likert scale)
Items dropped
Cronbach’s alpha
Career planning 18 3 0.725 Role model 6 - 0.812 The role of universities in promoting entrepreneurship
15 1 0.818
The entrepreneurial curriculum and content
17 3 0.888
Entrepreneurial internship programmes
13 2 0.736
100
4.5 Data collection
4.5.1 Methods
A self-administered survey method through questionnaires was employed to collect
data. High response rate and minimum intervention bias from the researcher are the
advantages of this method of data collection (Oppenheim 2000b). Likewise quick,
efficient and accurate accessing of information is a reason for employing this method
(Zikmund 2003). The questionnaires were distributed to groups of students using a
random sample of classes during the normal lecture sessions.
4.5.2 Procedures
Prior to administrating and distributing the questionnaires, the researcher contacted the
teaching staff. After that, the questionnaires were hand-delivered personally by the
researcher to them at their offices. The questionnaires were then distributed with the
help of the teaching staff at the selected classes during the seventh and eighth weeks of
Semester 1 of 2007. The teaching staff instructed students to return the questionnaires
by placing them in a box at the reception desk located at the nominated faculties. The
method employed was similar to that of the study conducted by Lee et al (2006). One of
the stated objectives in choosing this method by Lee at al (2006) was to yield a higher
response rate among students as a sample.
The students were provided with an information sheet and written instructions on the
first page that briefly explained the purposes of the study. They were notified that this
was an academic project pertaining to the effect of entrepreneurship education on
university students’ entrepreneurial inclination. The survey was conducted with the
permission of the university authorities and the teaching staff concerned. To avoid any
coercion during the administration process, students were given one week to return their
completed questionnaires.
As long as the questionnaires were returned, students were assumed to have give
permission to take part in this study. However, their identities were treated strictly
101
confidentially and were not be revealed for any purpose. In order to ensure the correct
and smooth administration of the survey, the chief thesis supervisor visited the
researcher in Malaysia at one of the identified universities to observe how the researcher
organised the survey administration process.
4.5.3 Non-response bias
In most research, not all the questionnaires sent out are returned. Some of the
respondents fail to return the questionnaire or return it outside the stipulated time due to
reasons such as forgetfulness or not wishing to participate in the research. This is known
as non-response bias. When a high non-response rate occurs it may affect the reliability
of the overall results, so the researcher may need to carry out extra work to check the
reasons for non-response. However, Macmillan and Schumacher (2001) advise that this
needs to be done only if the return rate is lower than 70 per cent. Diamantopoulos and
Schlegelmilch (1997), on the other hand, advocate some actions to reduce the non-
response rate. For example, giving a monetary reward for participation would certainly
have a positive impact on reducing the non-response rate.
Armstrong and Overton (1982) suggest a time-trend extrapolation method for
estimating the effects of non-response bias. They further argue that respondents who
respond late have similar characteristics to non-respondents. This means that the
characteristics of respondents who respond early or late must be compared. It is
assumed that non-response bias does not exist if the two groups do not differ in their
responses.
Since this study allowed students to return their questionnaires within a week, a non-
response bias analysis is possible. An analysis using a two-sample independent t-test
was performed to examine if there were differences in the responses for students who
responded within three days and after three days.
102
4.5.4 Data analysis
After all the questionnaires were collected, they were coded for data entry into SPSS.
Prior to entering the data, all the questionnaires returned by the respondents were
strictly checked and filtered. This was to ensure that the respondents met the research
criteria, namely completion of at least one entrepreneurship course at the university and
participation in an internship programme. There was also a check for missing responses
or incomplete questionnaires. To do this, a research assistant was hired. The data were
then entered into the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) for Windows
version 14. The data analysed were subjected to descriptive and inferential analysis.
4.5.4.1 Descriptive analysis
Descriptive analysis (such as frequencies, means and standard deviations) was
computed to analyse the respondents’ demographic characteristics such as age, race,
religion, educational level and working experience. Information on these variables was
used to describe the characteristics of the respondents. The frequency and percentages
of the profiles of the respondents are presented in Chapter 5.
4.5.4.2 Inferential analysis
Inferential statistics was employed to test
i) the relationship between variables (correlation);
ii) whether the dependent variable (inclination towards entrepreneurship)
can be explained by the independent variables (multiple regression);
iii) for scale differences for demographic and family background variables
(independent sample t-test and one-way Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA)); and
iv) if the relationships between the independent and dependent variables are
moderated by the demographic and family background (structural
equation modelling).
103
4.5.4.2.1 Factor analysis
Factor analysis is a generic name assigned to a group of multivariate statistical methods,
the main purpose of which is to reduce the large number of underlying variables into a
smaller or manageable set of factors (Hair et al. 1998; Hinton et al. 2004). It is often
used for investigating construct validity. This means that factor analysis is needed for
identifying the items which measure the important underlying variables. In other words,
factor analysis is ‘a mathematical procedure that groups the variables by taking account
of all the correlations’ (Veal 2005, p. 285). It is suggested that a sample size of at least
300 is needed to run a factor analysis as it ‘will probably provide a stable factor
solution’ (Field 2000, p. 443).
Generally, there are several steps involved in factor analysis. The first step is assessing
factorability of the data. To do this, two main criteria are used: i) Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
(KMO) value with more than 0.5 or greater should be considered satisfactory to perform
the factor analysis; and ii) if Bartlett’s test of sphericity (BTS) is significant, the factor
analysis can be performed (Pallant 2007). The second step is the extraction of factors.
To decide the number of factors to be retained, a scree plot is used while rotation is used
to ensure meaningful factors (Hinton et al. 2004). The final step is the definition of the
factors. It is suggested that items with higher loadings (normally greater than 0.3) be
chosen to represent a factor (Hair et al. 1998).
Factor analysis was employed in this study to regroup the data into a smaller set of
variables which are used to measure the following variables:
• Future career planning and entrepreneurial inclination
• Role models
• The role of universities in promoting entrepreneurship
• The entrepreneurship curriculum and content
• The entrepreneurial internship programmes.
104
4.5.4.2.2 Correlations
A Pearson’s product moment correlation analysis was used to test the hypotheses in this
study. This method was chosen in line with the intention of this study to examine the
direction or effect of the relationship between the variables under study. The strength of
a correlation is indicated by a correlation coefficient ranging from 0 (no relationship) to
1 (a perfect relationship) in absolute value, while the direction of a correlation is
specified by a sign. A plus (+) sign shows that there is a positive relationship and a
minus (–) sign indicates a negative relationship. To interpret the value differences from
0 to 1, Pallant (2007, p. 132) provides the guideline as: small (.10 to .29); medium (.30
to .49) and large (.50 to 1.0). To conclude, correlation coefficients range from +1.00
(indicating a perfect positive correlation), to –1.00 (indicating a perfect negative
correlation) (Hair et al. 1998; Hinton et al. 2004).
The level of significance for the hypotheses tests was five per cent, which is widely
accepted in conventional research (Hair et al. 1998). This means that 95 times out of
100, there is a true correlation between the two variables when the null hypothesis of no
correlation is rejected and only 5 per cent chance that a linear relationship does not
really exist. Hence the researcher can conclude that variables are associated or
correlated if there is a relationship with p<0.05.
4.5.4.2.3 Multiple regression
Multiple regression is one of the techniques used in this study to examine the
relationship between entrepreneurship education and inclination towards
entrepreneurship. The reason for selecting multiple regression is because it allows the
investigation of the relationship between several independent variables and a dependent
variable at one time (Hair et al. 1998; Pallant 2007). Therefore, multiple regression was
carried out to investigate the effect of the independent variables (entrepreneurship
education variables) of this study on the dependent variable (inclination towards
entrepreneurship).
105
For Hypothesis 1 to Hypothesis 4, multiple regression was used to test the hypothesised
relationships between the independent variables and the dependent variable,
determining how much of the variance in the dependent variable (inclination towards
entrepreneurship) was explained by the set of predictors (independent variables). R or
the multiple correlation coefficient, which ranges between 0 and 1.00, represents the
strength of the relationship (Hinton et al. 2004). Meanwhile, R2 represents the
percentages of variance in the dependent variable that can be explained by the
independent variables.
Beta coefficients, on the other hand, allow the researcher to compare the relative
importance of each independent variable. The larger the beta coefficient in absolute
value the greater its importance for explaining the dependent variable (Field 2000).
A critical level of significance, a priori, at the level of 0.05 was set as the benchmark for
the accepted level for all the hypotheses developed in this study. This criterion was
selected based on the premises made by Burns (1997), who asserts that in education, a
five per cent level of significance is conventionally used to reject the null hypothesis. In
rejecting or accepting the hypotheses developed in the study, the null hypothesis is
rejected if the level of significance, p value, is less than 0.05 and vice versa.
4.5.4.2.4 One-way ANOVA (One-way Analysis of Variance) and independent
sample t-test
The independent-sample t-test is used when a researcher has two groups of populations
to compare and has to assess whether the difference between the mean of the population
from which the sample is drawn from normal distribution is the same as the
hypothesised mean. Using an independent sample t-test, the differences between the
sample mean and the hypothesised mean can be determined by referring to the two-tail
significance. If the two-tail significance is less than 0.05, then the difference is
significant between the two means (Field 2000; Hair et al. 1998).
106
The purpose of one-way ANOVA is to investigate whether there is a significant
difference between groups of subjects (normally more than three groups) (Hair et al.
1998). An independent sample t-test produces the same results as a one-way ANOVA
when there are only two groups (Field 2000). It is used to determine whether there is a
statistically significant difference in the mean values from two or more groups
(Zikmund 2003).
In this study, one-way ANOVA was performed to test for significant differences
between demographic groups and family business background in terms of inclination
towards entrepreneurship (Hypothesis H5(a) and (b)). When the results of the ANOVA
are statistically significant at p<0.05, the null hypothesis can be rejected (Pallant 2007),
and post hoc tests are conducted to determine which groups differ significantly (Field
2000).
4.5.4.2.5 Structural Equation Modelling (SEM)
Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) is an advanced statistical tool that is widely used
in educational and social and behavioural research (Raykov and Marcoulides 2000). The
advantage of SEM is that it allows researchers to examine or study multiple
relationships simultaneously (Bentler and Yuan 1999; Byrne 2001). It also allows the
investigation of direct effects (one variable has a direct relationship with another) and
indirect effects (the relationships of variables are mediated by another variable)
(Raykov and Marcoulides 2000).
To measure such effects, path diagrams are useful for describing the effects of variables
by drawing links between variables (Hair et al. 1998). As the researcher is interested in
examining the effect of different variables, the analysis is conducted using path
diagrams to indicate the relationships of the variables.
With regard to the sample size, there is no mandatory sample size for SEM; however,
the bigger the sample size the better (Schumacker and Lomax 1996). According to
107
Schumacker and Lomax, a minimum simple size ranging from 250 to 500 is acceptable.
Hair et al. (1998), on the other hand, suggest that 100 to 200 is acceptable for analysis.
Various criteria are used to determine the goodness-of-fit of the model. In this study,
five criteria were considered: χ2, χ2/DF, p-value, CFI, and RMSEA. The chi-square
value or χ2 provides ‘a test statistic for the goodness of fit of the model’ (Raykov and
Marcoulides 2000, p. 36). The model fit is considered good if the χ2 value is not too
large (with p>0.05 or p>0.10 as a cut-off point) (Hulland et al. 1996). Therefore the test
should not be significant in order to be a good model fit (Schumacker and Lomax
1996).
χ2/DF or Chi-square/df is the minimum discrepancy (model error) divided by its degrees
of freedom. The model fit is considered good when χ2/DF ranges from 3 to 1 (Carmines
and McIver 1981). When the CFI or Comparative Fit Index values are close to 0.9 or
more, it shows a good-fit model (Byrne 2001; Hair et al. 1998). If the Root Mean
Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) value ranges from 0.05 to 0.08, the model
provides a good approximation of the data, and when it is zero, it suggests an exact fit
(Byrne 2001; Hair et al. 1998).
In this study, SEM is employed largely because the researcher would like to investigate
the goodness of fit of the existing model. It is the main concern of the study to confirm
and understand the significant effect or relationship between entrepreneurship education
and university students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship as highlighted in the
literature. Additionally, the invariance test is conducted to determine whether the
differences between demographic groups and family business background have a
significant impact on the model (Hypothesis 6).
4.6 Conclusion
This chapter focused on the research methodology, including the study design,
instrumentation design, ethics considerations, data collection procedures and the
methods of analysis. The data in this study are analysed using SPSS version 14.0. The
108
respondents’ demographic and family backgrounds are analysed and presented in
percentage and frequency distribution tables. The more advanced statistical methods
such as factor analysis, correlation analysis, multiple regression and structural equation
modelling are employed to test the hypotheses and to determine which of the
independent variables contribute most to university students’ inclination towards
entrepreneurship. The next chapter presents the findings of the analyses.
The details of the data analysis employed in this study are summarised in Table 4.5.
109
Table 4.5: Data analysis techniques employed
Hypothesis Statistical tools
Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relationship between the role of universities in promoting entrepreneurship and university students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship.
Correlation and multiple regression
Hypothesis 2: There is a positive relationship between entrepreneurial curriculum and content and university students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship.
Correlation and multiple regression
Hypothesis 3: There is a positive relationship between role models and university students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship.
Correlation and multiple regression
Hypothesis 4: There is a positive relationship between entrepreneurship internship programmes and university students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship.
Correlation and multiple regression
Hypothesis 5: a) There is a difference in university students’ inclination
towards entrepreneurship in the demographic groups defined by the following variables: i) gender ii) ethnicity
iii) religion iv) birth order v) places of origin vi) programmes of study
vii)previous working experience
b) There are differences in university students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship that relate to: i) father’s occupation ii) mother’s occupation.
one-way ANOVA and independent
sample t-test
Hypothesis 6: The relationship between entrepreneurship education variables and entrepreneurial inclination is stronger for students who
i) are male ii) are Chinese
iii) are Muslim iv) are eldest child in the family v) are from urban areas vi) have previous working experience vii) have at least one parent running a business.
Structural equation modelling
110
CHAPTER 5
RESEARCH ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
5.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the analysis and major findings of the research in response to the
research objectives as stated in Chapter 1. The results were obtained using the methods
elaborated in Chapter 4. The first section presents the response rate, non-response bias
and the description of the respondents’ characteristics and career perspectives. The
second section contains the results derived from descriptive analysis, multivariate
analysis and structural equation modelling (SEM). The data were analysed using the
Statistical Packages for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 14.0 for Windows and AMOS
7.0.
5.2 Response rate
In this study, 500 questionnaires were administered to the selected populations in the
three universities in northern Malaysia. A total of 441 were returned, and after the
screening for incomplete questionnaires and those that did not meet the selection
criteria, 417 were considered usable. Based on this set of questionnaires, a response rate
of 83.4 per cent was obtained for this study. A frequency breakdown for the three
disciplines is as follows (Table 5.1):
Table 5.1: Frequency breakdown for each discipline of study
Usable questionnaires Frequency (%)
Business (205) 49.1
Engineering (104) 24.9
Computing and IT (108) 26
TOTAL (417) 100
111
5.3 Non response bias
Due to the possible ‘last-minute’ attitude of the students, from a total of 417 responses
returned over a week, only 44 were returned within three days while 373 responses were
returned after three days (after a reminder from class lecturers). The questionnaires
received were examined for non-response bias using time trend extrapolation. It can be
assumed that there is no non-response bias if respondents who returned the
questionnaires on time respond similarly to those who returned their questionnaires late
(Armstrong and Overton 1982). In this study, the respondents were separated into two
groups, namely those who replied within and after three days. An independent sample t-
test was used to determine if there were any significant differences on selected key
variables. The analysis showed two-tailed p-values of more than 0.05, highlighting the
similarity between the groups. The difference or bias between respondents who
responded within three days and those that responded after three days was not
significant in this study, suggesting that there is unlikely to be any non-response bias.
The results of this analysis are shown in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2: Non-response bias
Measure
Within 3 days (N=44) Mean
After 3 days (N=373)
Significance (2-tailed)
Entrepreneurial inclination 3.69 3.72 0.797 Image of entrepreneurship 4.51 4.44 0.284 Role models 3.67 3.83 0.087 The role of universities in promoting entrepreneurship
4.21 4.12 0.132
Entrepreneurial internship 4.28 4.26 0.721 Personal independent learning 3.84 3.91 0.420 Entrepreneurial curriculum and content
4.32 4.10 0.091
5.4 Description of the respondents’ characteristics
The respondents’ demographic characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, educational
level, working experience, and place of origin as well as parents’ occupations are
presented and discussed in the following section.
112
5.4.1 Demographic characteristics
Section A of the questionnaire generated information based on selected demographic
characteristics of the respondents. The items selected were gender, ethnicity, religion,
age, birth order, place of origin, educational background, working experience and
parental occupations. The characteristics of the respondents are summarised in Table
5.3.
Table 5.3: Respondents’ demographic characteristics
Variable Characteristics Number of respondents
(N = 417)
Percentages (%)
Gender Male Female
137 280
32.9 67.1
Ethnicity Malay Chinese Indian Other
301 80 28 8
72.2 19.2 6.7 1.9
Religion Islam Buddhism Taoism Hinduism Christianity
306 67 6
26 12
73.4 16.1 1.4 6.2 2.9
Age 20–25 years old 26–30 years old
405 12
97.1 2.9
Birth order Only child Eldest Youngest None of the above
9 118 77
213
2.2 28.3 18.5 51.1
Place of origin Rural areas Urban areas
216 201
51.8 48.2
Willingness to leave place of origin if offered better job elsewhere
Yes No
406 11
97.4 2.6
Education qualification
STPM Matriculation Diploma
243 87 87
58.2 20.9 20.9
Programmes of study Business administration Computing and IT Engineering
205 108 104
49.2 25.9 24.9
113
Working experience Yes - Less than 6 months - 6 months–1 year - more than 1 year Government sector Private sector Helping parents or relatives
business Other No
350 239 78 33 30
244
74 2
67
83.9 68.3 22.3 9.4 8.6
69.7
21.1 0.6
16.1 Father’s working status
Employed Self-employed In between jobs Unemployed Retired Other: Passed away
159 148 14 8
65 23
38.1 35.5 3.4 1.9
15.6 5.5
Mother’s working status
Employed Self-employed Unemployed Retired Other: Passed away
89 55
202 66 5
21.3 13.2 48.4 15.8 1.2
Would parents influence students’ future careers?
Yes No
94 323
22.5 77.5
5.4.1.1 Gender
In terms of gender, the respondents were mainly females (67.1 per cent compared to
males, 32.9 per cent). This is a common phenomenon in Malaysian universities
especially at undergraduate level. The dominance of female students can be explained
by the fact that in Malaysia the university population is mainly female in a ratio of
61:39 (The Ministry of Higher Education, 2006).
5.4.1.2 Ethnicity
The majority of the respondents were Malays (72.2 per cent; N=301), followed by
Chinese (19.2 per cent; N=80), Indians (6.7 per cent; N=28), and other ethnic groups
namely Kadazans, Ibans and Bidayuhs (1.9 per cent; N=8). These figures are shown in
Table 5.3.
114
5.4.1.3 Religion
Muslims are the majority (73.4 per cent; N=306) of the total number of respondents
participating in this study. This is followed by Buddhists and Taoists (17.5 per cent;
N=73), Hindus and Christians, 6.2 per cent (N=26) and 2.9 per cent (N=12),
respectively.
5.4.1.4 Age
The vast majority of respondents were aged 20 to 25 years (97.1 per cent; N=405); 2.9
per cent (N=12) were aged 26 to 30.
5.4.1.5 Birth order
It was found that 28.3 per cent or 118 respondents were the eldest sibling in the family,
with 18.5 per cent (N=77) of the respondents being the youngest sibling in the family.
Only 2.2 per cent or 9 respondents were the only child. Finally, 51.1 per cent or 213
respondents were ‘in between’ siblings.
5.4.1.6 Place of origin
With regard to the respondents’ place of origin, more than half (51.8 per cent; N=216)
were from rural areas compared to 48.2 per cent (N=201) who were from urban areas.
The respondents were asked whether they would leave their place of origin if they were
offered a better job elsewhere. The results showed that about nine out of ten (97.4 per
cent) of the respondents said that they would do so.
5.4.1.7 Educational background
In this study, the most common highest education qualification of the respondents prior
to enrolling at university was Sijil Tinggi Persekolahan Malaysia (58.2 per cent;
115
N=243). This was followed by matriculation (20.9 per cent; N=87) and diploma (20.9
per cent; N=87) qualifications.
In terms of respondents’ programmes of study, 49.2 per cent or 205 respondents were
studying in business administration, 25.9 per cent or 108 in computing and IT and 24.9
per cent or 104 respondents in engineering (see Table 5.3).
5.4.1.8 Previous working experience
Table 5.3 indicates a majority of the respondents (83.9 per cent; N=305) had working
experience. Of those who had working experience, 68.3 per cent (N=239) had been
working for less than six months, 22.3 per cent (N=78) had between six months’ and
one year’s experience, and 9.4 per cent (N=33) had more than one year’s working
experience. In terms of work sector, 69.7 per cent or 244 of the respondents had worked
in the private sector, 21.1 per cent (N=74) had helped in their parents’ or relatives’
business, while 8.6 per cent (N=30) had worked in the governmental sector (see Table
5.3).
5.4.1.9 Parental occupations
Pertaining to the respondents’ parents’ work status, more fathers were employed
workers (38 per cent; N=159) than mothers (21.3 per cent; N=89), who were often
unemployed or homemakers (48.4 per cent; N=202). Self-employed was ranked second
highest in terms of fathers’ current occupations (35.5 per cent; N=148). Similar
proportions of respondents’ fathers and mothers had retired (15.6 per cent; N=65 and
15.8 per cent; N=66 respectively). The respondents who answered ‘other’ had deceased
parents.
The influence of the respondents’ parents’ work status on future career decisions was
examined. Interestingly, 77.5 per cent of the respondents indicated that their parents had
no influence on their future career choices (see Table 5.3).
116
5.5 Respondents’ general responses on career perspectives
This section provides an overview of the respondents’ responses regarding their future
careers, the influence and encouragement from their role models, the entrepreneurship
courses taken, the usefulness of entrepreneurship teaching methods at universities, and
their overall evaluation of entrepreneurial internship programmes attended.
5.5.1 Students’ future career planning
Based on the question about the kind of jobs the respondents would pursue, either being
an employee or starting up a business, 62.6 per cent or 261 of the respondents selected
the latter. Among the reasons given, as shown in Table 5.4a, were ‘to seize business
opportunities’ (67.8 per cent; N=177), ‘to avoid uncertainties related to employment’
(65.5 per cent; N=171) and ‘it is an interesting task to do’ (54.4 per cent; N=142).
Table 5.4a: Reasons for students’ career choices
Reasons for: Frequency (N) Percentage (%)
Being an employee: • Fixed income • Stability of employment • Lack of interest in starting a business • Less risky • Lack of new business
idea/opportunity • Lack of finance needed to start a
business
156 139 118 50 64
29
68
37.4 89.1 75.6 32.1 41
18.6
43.6
Starting own business: • Interesting task • Lack of employment opportunities • Members of family/friends are self-
employed • To avoid uncertainties related to
employment • To seize business opportunities • In response to the government’s call
to become self-employed
261 142 113
53
171
177 127
62.6 54.4 43.3
20.3
65.5
67.8 49
As shown in Table 5.4b, nearly seven out of every ten respondents (65.9 per cent;
N=275) reported that they were likely to start a business after graduation, while 17.5 per
117
cent (N=73) and 16.5 per cent (N=69) were unsure or not going to start a business after
their university studies.
Table 5.4b: Likelihood of starting a business after graduation
Frequency (N) Percentage (%)
Yes 275 65.9
No 69 16.5
Unsure 73 17.5
Total 417 100
From a total of 275 respondents who were likely to start a business, as exhibited in
Table 5.4c, 43.6 per cent or 120 responded that there was a 51–75 per cent probability
of starting their own businesses or becoming self-employed at some point in the future.
Specifically, 57.5 per cent (N=158) of respondents planned to start their own business
within five years after graduation (see Table 5.4d). This decision was made because
90.2 per cent saw a business opportunity while the remaining 9.8 per cent saw this as a
necessity (see Table 5.4e).
Table 5.4c: Probability of students to start own business
Probability of starting up a business Frequency (N=275)
Percentage (%)
0–25% 32 11.6
26–50% 88 32
51–75% 120 43.6
76–100% 35 12.7
Table 5.4d: Timing to start own business
Plan to start business: Frequency (N=275) Percentage (%)
Within 5 years after graduation
158 57.5
5–10 years after graduation 90 32.7
More than 10 years after graduation
27 9.8
118
Table 5.4e: Motives to start a business
Motives Frequency (N) Percentage (%)
See a business opportunity 248 90.2 Have to do so out of
necessity 27 9.8
The respondents were asked: In the event that you become unemployed, how likely are
you to consider self-employment?
As shown in Table 5.4f, the majority of respondents (96.1 per cent; N=401) were very
likely and likely to do so compared to just 3.8 per cent (N=16) who responded that they
would not consider self-employment.
Table 5.4f: The likelihood of students to become self-employed in the event of
unemployment Degree of likelihood Frequency (N) Percentage (%)
Very likely 169 40.5
Likely 232 55.6
Unlikely 15 3.6
Very unlikely 1 0.2
5.5.2 Role models’ influences on university students’ inclination towards
entrepreneurial careers
Previous studies have shown that role models have an important influence on young
people’s decisions to become entrepreneurs. In pursuit of this objective, data were
collected in the questionnaire to determine the level of influence role models have on
university students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship. Table 5.5a shows the effect of
role models in influencing university students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship.
119
Table 5.5a: Role models’ influences on university students’ inclination towards entrepreneurial careers
The extent of influence Role model
Least
influence
Less
influence
No
opinion
Much
influence
Most
influence
N
Mean
‘Other’ - 3.7% (1)
- 7.4% (2)
88.9% (24)
27 4.81
Mothers 3.8% (16)
4.8% (20)
26.6% (111)
33.8% (141)
30.9% (129)
417 3.83
Fathers 6.0% (25)
5.8% (24)
26.9% (112)
30.5% (127)
30.9% (129)
417 3.75
Teachers/lecturers 2.9% (12)
6.2% (26)
23.3% (97)
50.4% (210)
17.3% (72)
417 3.73
Friends 3.1% (13)
5.3% (22)
26.9% (112)
51.1% (213)
13.7% (57)
417 3.67
Relatives 13.2% (55)
17.0% (71)
39.6% (165)
23.7% (99)
6.5% (27)
417 2.93
Career counsellors 17.5% (73)
18% (75)
30.7% (128)
25.2% (105)
8.6% (36)
417 2.89
* Figures in parentheses indicate the number of responses from respondents Scale used: 1= Least influence, 2= Less influence, 3= no opinion, 4=Much influence, 5= Most influence
Parents (mothers and fathers), friends and teachers/lecturers were the most influential
persons influencing university students’ inclination to pursue entrepreneurial careers.
More than 60 per cent of respondents reported that these three role models have either
much or the most influence on them. On the other hand, relatives and career counsellors
were seen to have the least influence (Mean=2.93) or less influence (Mean=2.89) on
their decisions. It is important to point out that although ‘other’ has the highest mean
scores, only 27 respondents gave this answer, stating that they themselves and their
partners were the most influential persons in shaping their inclination towards
entrepreneurship.
120
Table 5.5b: Role models’ encouragement on university students’ inclination towards entrepreneurial careers
The extent of encouragement Role model
Least
e’ment
Less
e’ment
No
opinion
Much e’ment
Most
e’ment
N
Mean
‘Other’ - - - 15.4% (2)
84.6% (11)
13 4.85
Friends 3.4% (14)
3.4% (14)
29.3% (122)
48.2% (201)
15.8% (66)
417 3.70
Teachers/lecturers 3.4% (14)
9.1% (38)
21.6% (90)
47.2% (197)
18.7% (78)
417 3.69
Mothers 7.2% (30)
5.5% (23)
27.3% (114)
32.6% (136)
27.3% (114)
417 3.67
Fathers 8.9% (37)
7.7% (32)
28.1% (117)
27.1% (113)
28.3% (118)
417 3.58
Relatives 12.7% (53)
17.3% (72)
41.0% (171)
20.6% (86)
8.4% (35)
417 2.95
Career counsellors 18.0% (75)
24.7% (103)
29.0% (121)
20.4% (85)
7.9% (33)
417 2.76
E’ment = Encouragement * Figures in parentheses indicate the number of responses from respondents Scale used: 1= Least encouragement; 2= Less encouragement; 3= no opinion; 4=Much encouragement; 5= Most encouragement
In terms of encouragement from role models, about six out of every ten respondents
stated that friends (64 per cent) and teachers/lecturers (65.9 per cent) were the most
important persons that gave encouragement to start businesses. This is followed by
mothers (59.9 per cent) and fathers (55.4 per cent). Only about three out of every ten
respondents (28.3 per cent) indicated that career counsellors gave much or the most
encouragement to them to start a business. ‘Other’, albeit scoring the highest means
scores, was only answered by 13 respondents, who stated they themselves and their
partners were a source of much or the most encouragement to them to start a business
(see Table 5.5b).
5.5.3 Entrepreneurial courses
Table 5.6a shows the courses taken by the respondents at universities. To meet the
research criteria, all respondents had to have taken at least one entrepreneurship course
and attended entrepreneurial internship programmes. Furthermore, most respondents
had taken marketing (50.4 per cent), human resource management (42.4 per cent) and
121
finance and accounting (41 per cent) courses, whilst only 9.4 per cent (39 respondents)
had taken franchising, making it the least taken course in this study.
Table 5.6a: Courses taken at university
Course Frequency (N) Percentage (%) Marketing 210 50.4 Human resource management 177 42.4 Finance and accounting 171 41 Business planning 125 30 Technology and operation management 121 29 Managerial economics 113 27.1 Strategic management 110 26.4 Principles of management 98 23.5 Business development 51 12.2 Small business management 48 11.5 Franchising 39 9.4
Further information was asked from the respondents about the usefulness of the courses
taken in helping them to start a business. As shown in Table 5.6b, at least 85 per cent of
the respondents ranked strategic management, business planning, marketing, finance
and accounting and franchising as either useful or very useful for starting a business.
122
Table 5.6b: The usefulness of entrepreneurial courses in helping to start a business
The degree of usefulness
Course
Very
useless (1)
Useless
(2)
No opinion
(3)
Useful
(4)
Very useful
(5)
Mean
Strategic management - - 3.6% (4)
41.8% (46)
54.5% (60)
4.50 (110)
Business planning - - 4.0% (5)
46.4% (58)
49.6% (62)
4.46 (125)
Marketing - 0.5% (1)
3.8% (8)
47.6% (100)
48.1% (101)
4.43 (210)
Finance and accounting - - 5.3% (9)
47.4% (81)
47.4% (81)
4.42 (171)
Franchising - - 2.6% (1)
53.8% (21)
43.6% (17)
4.41 (39)
Small business management
- - 6.3% (3)
54.2% (26)
39.6% (19)
4.33 (48)
Business development - - 3.9% (2)
58.8% (30)
37.3% (19)
4.33 (51)
Technology & operation management
- 0.8% (1)
9.1% (11)
55.4% (67)
34.7% (42)
4.31 (121)
Human resource management
- - 9.6% (17)
58.8% (104)
31.6% (56)
4.22 (177)
Principles of management - - 9.2% (9)
60.2% (59)
30.6% (30)
4.21 (98)
Managerial economics - 1.8% (2)
4.4% (5)
67.3% (76)
26.5% (30)
4.19 (113)
* Figures in parentheses indicate the number of respondents who have taken the course In addition, the respondents were questioned on the co-curricular activities that assist
with business start-up. As exhibited in Table 5.6c, 59 per cent responded that such
activities would not help whilst 41 per cent stated that they would.
Table 5.6c: Would co-curricular activities help in starting a business
Frequency (N) Percentage (%)
Yes 171 41
No 246 59
123
5.5.4 Entrepreneurial assessment and teaching methods
With regard to entrepreneurial assessment and teaching methods, the respondents were
asked which of the eleven methods of assessment and teaching in entrepreneurship were
important in terms of developing and stimulating their interest in entrepreneurship.
Table 5.7: Importance of assessment and teaching methods in entrepreneurship courses
The degree of importance
Assessment/ Teaching method
Irrelevant
(1)
Less
important (2)
No
opinion (3)
Important
(4)
Very
important (5)
Mean
Business plan 0.2% (1)
1.4% (6)
6.0% (25)
42.0% (175)
50.4% (210)
4.41
Placements at firms (internship)
- 2.2% (9)
8.2% (34)
44.8% (187)
44.8% (187)
4.32
Group visits to businesses - 3.8% (16)
9.4% (39)
56.8% (237)
30.0% (125)
4.13
Lecturer relating own experience
0.7% (3)
3.1% (13)
11.3% (47)
57.1% (238)
27.8% (116)
4.08
Group assignments 0.5% (2)
3.4% (14)
8.9% (37)
63.1% (263)
24.2% (101)
4.07
Case studies 0.5% (2)
3.6% (15)
14.1% (59)
59.7% (249)
22.1% (92)
3.99
Guest lectures by entrepreneurs
1.2% (5)
2.9% (12)
14.1% (59)
60.9% (254)
20.9% (87)
3.97
Textbook reading and discussions
2.9% (12)
12.5% (52)
18.5% (77)
53.7% (224)
12.5% (52)
3.60
Lectures and tutorials 2.6% (11)
12.2% (51)
20.4% (85)
52.8% (220)
12.0% (50)
3.59
Video tapes 6.7% (28)
18.0% (75)
19.4% (81)
43.6% (182)
12.2% (51)
3.37
Examinations 18.2% (76)
19.7% (82)
18.5% (77)
33.1% (138)
10.6% (44)
2.98
* Figures in parentheses indicate the number of responses from the respondents
Table 5.7 shows the various assessment and teaching methods adopted by the
universities. It was found that writing a business plan (92.4 per cent; Mean=4.41) was
considered the most important assessment and teaching method. This was followed by
entrepreneurial internship, which was ranked second (89.6 per cent; Mean=4.32) and
then group visits to businesses (86.8 per cent; Mean=4.13). Conversely, conventional
methods such as examinations and video tapes were perceived as either irrelevant or the
124
least important, with 37.9 per cent (Mean=2.98) and 24.7 per cent (Mean=3.37)
respectively.
5.5.5 Entrepreneurial internship programmes
As all respondents had undergone entrepreneurial internship or industrial placement
programmes during their studies, they were asked to evaluate their overall internship
programmes. Nearly 90 per cent of the respondents (N=376) rated their internship
experiences as good or excellent, compared to only 9.9 per cent (N=41) who chose
either ‘no opinion’ or it was a ‘fair experience’, as shown in Table 5.8.
Table 5.8: The overall evaluation of internship programmes
Overall evaluation Frequency (N) Percentage (%)
Fair experience 24 5.8
No opinion 17 4.1
Good experience 265 63.5
Excellent experience 111 26.6
5.6 Inferential statistical analysis
5.6.1 Construct validity
Exploratory factor analysis was conducted to group the items used in measuring the
following variables:
• Future career planning and entrepreneurial inclination
• Role models
• The role of universities in promoting entrepreneurship
• The entrepreneurial curriculum and content
• The entrepreneurial internship programmes.
A minimum sample size of 300 is recommended for exploratory factor analysis
according to Field (2000), so the usable sample of 417 respondents obtained in this
125
study allowed a factor analysis to be carried out. The results of the analysis highlighted
the development of two new major underlying constructs, namely:
• Image of entrepreneurship
• Personal independent learning approach.
5.6.1.1 Factor analysis for future career planning and entrepreneurial inclination
Fifteen questions were used to measure the respondents’ future career planning and
inclination towards entrepreneurship. Out of these questions, four were reverse-scored
questions. In testing whether factor analysis was appropriate for these career planning
and entrepreneurial inclination items, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure of
Sampling Adequacy and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (BTS) were used. The KMO was
0.844, exceeding the required value of 0.5 (Hinton et al. 2004). Similarly, BTS
indicated a statistically significant correlation between the items (p<.001), allowing the
factor analysis to proceed. The results are summarised in Table 5.9.
A principal axis factoring using the oblimin rotation method was carried out on the
initial fifteen questions. The oblimin rotation method was used to allow correlation
between the factors (Hair et al. 1998). The items chosen to identify each factor were
those with loadings greater than 0.3. As a result, four items were omitted because they
had obtained factor loadings of less than 0.3 on all factors.
Factor analysis was conducted based on the remaining eleven questions. The scree plot
suggests a two-factor solution (entrepreneurship inclination and image of
entrepreneurship) with three and eight questions loading on these two factors
respectively (see Figure 5.1). The first factor accounted for 29.79 per cent of the
variance while the second factor accounted for 9.53 per cent of the variance.
126
Figure 5.1: Scree plot for future career planning and entrepreneurial inclination
4
2
0 Eigenvalue
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Factor Number
127
Table 5.9: Summary of factor loadings for future career planning and entrepreneurial inclination
Factor Question 1 2
1. I have seriously considered entrepreneurship as a highly desirable career option. 2. I have never thought of entrepreneurship as a career choice. (R) 3. I have already begun the planning for opening a new venture. 4. I won’t start a business because it is too risky and I am afraid of failing. (R) 5. I would like someday to start my own business. 6. If I wanted to, I could easily pursue a career involving self-employment. 7. If I pursue a career involving self-employment, the chances of failure would be very high. (R) 8. I would prefer to work in a big organisation rather than a small firm. (R) 9. I admire those who succeed in running their own business. 10. Entrepreneurship is an honourable profession and I respect people who are entrepreneurs. 11. Entrepreneurship is about job creation.
0.754*
0.739* 0.727* 0.692* 0.597* 0.492* 0.418*
0.305* 0.118 -0.017
-0.070
0.022
0.022 0.025 0.010 0.095 0.114 -0.030
-0.072
0.389** 0.723**
0.738**
Eigenvalues Percentage of Variance Explained = 39.32% KMO = 0.844 Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-square=1226.40; df=55; Sig.=.000
3.28 29.79
1.05 9.53
(R) denotes reverse-scored questions * Questions for measuring entrepreneurship inclination ** Questions for measuring image of entrepreneurship
5.6.1.2 Factor analysis for role models
Six questions were used to measure the role models. The KMO value was 0.691 with a
BTS chi-square of 406.23 (p<.001). The KMO and BTS values indicate that the
variables are suitable for factor analysis. All six questions loaded onto a single factor
with an eigenvalue of more than 1. The single factor extracted 27.45 per cent of the total
variance in responses (Figure 5.2 and Table 5.10).
128
Figure 5.2: Scree plot for role models
Eigenvalue
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
1 2 3Factor number
4 5 6
Table 5.10: Summary of factor loadings for role models
Questions
Factor 1
1. I care what my closest friends think about my employment decision. 2. I believe that my closest friends think I should become self-employed. 3. I care what my lecturers think about my employment decision. 4. I am interested in business because my friends are in business. 5. Friends are my main source of business-related information. 6. My lecturer is my main source of business-related information.
0.624 0.575 0.542 0.491 0.487 0.395
Eigenvalue Percentage of variance explained = 27.45% KMO = 0.691 Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-square = 406.23 df = 15 Sig. = .000
1.65
5.6.1.3 Factor analysis for the role of universities in promoting entrepreneurship
Fourteen items were used to measure the role of universities in promoting
entrepreneurship with three reverse-scored questions. The KMO was .845 with a BTS
chi square of 1003.14 (p<.001), justifying a factor analysis (see Table 5.11). All
fourteen items had strong loadings (exceeding 0.3) on only one underlying factor. This
129
factor explained 22.42 per cent of the variation in responses. The scree plot also
suggested a single factor solution (see Figure 5.3).
Figure 5.3: Scree plot for the role of universities in promoting entrepreneurship
Eigenvalue
Factor Number
0
4
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
130
Table 5.11: Summary of factor loadings for the role of universities in promoting entrepreneurship
Questions
Factor 1
1. My university is an ideal place to learn about starting a business. 2. More entrepreneurship and business educational programmes on campus would help students to start businesses. 3. Entrepreneurial or business related examples are included in classroom teaching. 4. Students are encouraged to pursue entrepreneurship ventures in the university. 5. The university infrastructure and policies discourage entrepreneurship. (R) 6. At my university, I get to meet lots of people with good ideas for new businesses. 7. In my university, people are actively encouraged to pursue their own business ideas. 8. My university course prepares people well for entrepreneurial careers. 9. There are no student clubs on campus which promote entrepreneurship. (R) 10. My university has infrastructure in place to support the start-up of new businesses. 11. A creative university environment inspires me to develop ideas for new business. 12. At my university, entrepreneurial activities are limited only to business students. (R) 13. Entrepreneurship courses should be made compulsory in order to stimulate entrepreneurial spirit in campus. 14. The university provides resources to assist student entrepreneurs.
0.583
0.547
0.541
0.520 0.488
0.479
0.477 0.474 0.460
0.451
0.440
0.376
0.372 0.361
Eigenvalue Percentage of variance explained = 22.42% KMO = 0.845 Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-square = 1003.14 df = 91 Sig. = .000
3.14
(R) denotes reverse-scored questions
5.6.1.4 Factor analysis for the entrepreneurial curriculum and content
Fourteen questions referred to entrepreneurial curriculum and content. The KMO was
0.832, with a significance value for BTS (p<.000), indicating that the data were suitable
for factor analysis. A principal axis factoring using the oblimin rotation method was
performed on the fourteen questions, including three reverse-scored questions. The
results of the analysis are shown as Table 5.12. Two factors were extracted. Factor One
has nine items that accounted for 25.28 per cent of the variance and Factor Two has five
131
items that accounted for 5.57 per cent of the variance. The scree plot provides further
support that a two-factor solution (the entrepreneurial curriculum and content and a
personal independent learning approach) was appropriate (see Figure 5.4).
Figure 5.4: Scree plot for the entrepreneurial curriculum and content
Eigenvalue
Factor Number
141312 11 10 98765432 1
0
4
3
2
1
132
Table 5.12: Summary of factor loadings for the entrepreneurial curriculum and content Factor
Question 1 2 1. The instructors are experienced and competent course presenters. 2. As a result of taking this course, I feel I have a better understanding about business. 3. The instructor did a good job of making this course relevant to the real world. 4. The course developed my entrepreneurial knowledge and skills. 5. The instructor did stimulate my interest in entrepreneurship through the course(s). 6. My interest towards entrepreneurship has been raised after taking the course(s). 7. The course(s) provided a new and different experience. 8. The course(s) taught me to deal with ambiguity in the real world. 9. The course(s) provided an opportunity to learn by doing. 10. I do not enjoy course(s) that require a student to deal with ambiguity. (R) 11. The course(s) exposed me to situations with uncertain outcomes. 12. I do not enjoy courses that require a student to learn by doing. (R) 13. The course(s) provided the opportunity to do things my way without conforming to formal class structures. 14. I prefer the rote learning approach to any other learning approach. (R)
0.652* 0.646*
0.638*
0.634* 0.607*
0.590*
0.540* 0.510* 0.508* 0.306 0.285 0.207 0.191
0.069
0.072 0.233
0.227
0.300 0.241
0.283
0.326 0.324 0.297
0.557** 0.467** 0.443** 0.429**
0.338**
Eigenvalues Percentage of Variance Explained = 30.85% KMO = 0.832 Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-square=1349.93; df=91; Sig.=.000
3.54 25.28
1.01 5.57
(R) denotes reverse-scored questions
* Questions for measuring the entrepreneurial curriculum and content evaluation ** Questions for measuring the personal independent learning approach
5.6.1.5 Factor analysis for the entrepreneurial internship programmes
Eleven items were used with three items reverse-scored to measure the entrepreneurial
internship programmes. The KMO was 0.849 with a BTS chi-square of 908.533
(p<.001) allowing a factor analysis. After the factor analysis was conducted, one item
(G8 - It allowed me to earn money) was dropped due to factor loadings of less than 0.3
on all factors. Only one factor was extracted with an eigenvalue of more than 1. This
factor explained 29.36 per cent of the variance (see Figure 5.5 and Table 5.13).
133
Figure 5.5: Scree plot for entrepreneurial internship programmes
Eigenvalue
Factor Number1098 7 65432 1
0
4
2
Table 5.13: Summary of factor loadings for entrepreneurial internship programmes
Questions Factor
1 1. It made me feel confident about tackling unfamiliar work-based problems. 2. I was helped to develop the ability to plan and organise my day-to-day work. 3. It helped to develop my job-related skills. 4. It provided me with a lot of new business ideas. 5. I did not learn much from it. (R) 6. It helped to develop my problem-solving skills. 7. I had lots of real business experiences that are not found in the classroom. 8. I was used as cheap labour. (R) 9. It developed my communication skills. 10. It did not increase my practical business knowledge. (R)
0.661 0.616 0.615 0.566 0.565 0.542 0.500 0.444 0.440 0.409
Eigenvalue Percentage of variance explained = 29.36% KMO = 0.849 Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-square = 908.533 df = 45 Sig. = .000
2.94
(R) denotes reverse-scored questions
134
5.6.1.6 Reliability test
The internal consistency reliability test was carried out to assess the reliability of each
of the constructs. In this study, as a rule of thumb, the value of alpha coefficients of 0.5
was used as a benchmark to assess the internal consistency reliability (Felder and
Spurlin 2005; Helmstater 1964).
All the constructs suggested by factor analysis showed an adequate level of internal
consistency. From Table 5.14, the internal reliability for the underlying variables ranged
from 0.552 for personal independent learning to 0.827 for entrepreneurial curriculum
and content evaluation. All scores were above the minimum coefficients of 0.5 and all
constructs are therefore deemed to have adequate reliability. Scales were therefore
constructed for each construct by adding the responses for each construct’s items and
then dividing by the number of items.
Table 5.14: Reliability tests for all the variables after factor analysis
Variable Items Cronbach’s alpha values
Entrepreneurship inclination 8 0.802 Image of entrepreneurship 3 0.635 Role models 6 0.682 The role of universities in promoting entrepreneurship
14 0.793
The entrepreneurial curriculum and content 9 0.827 Personal independent learning approach 5 0.552 The entrepreneurial internship programmes 10 0.794
5.7 Descriptive Analysis
Descriptive analysis was used to describe the new scales focusing on the central
tendency and the dispersion characteristics (Saunders et al. 2007). Means, standard
deviations, maximum and minimum were calculated for this purpose.
135
5.7.1 Means, standard deviations, maximum and minimum values of variables
All the variables in this study used a five-point Likert scale. So the scales have a range
of at most one to five. The data in Table 5.15 suggest that most of the university
students have relatively high inclination towards entrepreneurship, with the means of all
the variables surpassing the scale midpoint of 3.
The overall high score means on the entrepreneurship education variables, ranging from
3.81 to 4.27, indicate that entrepreneurship education is an important tool in
encouraging university students to get involved with entrepreneurial activities.
Specifically, good exposure to entrepreneurship education among university students
seemingly creates a positive image of entrepreneurship among them.
Table 5.15: Minimum, maximum, means and standard deviations of variables
Scales N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard Deviations
(SD) Entrepreneurial inclination 417 1.50 5.00 3.72 0.62 Image of entrepreneurship 417 3.00 5.00 4.44 0.42 Role models 417 1.00 5.00 3.81 0.47 The university’s role to promote entrepreneurship
417 3.21 5.00 4.14 0.36
The entrepreneurial curriculum and content
417 3.00 5.00 4.13 0.40
Personal independent learning 417 2.40 5.00 3.91 0.49 Entrepreneurial internship 417 3.20 5.00 4.27 0.37
5.8 Inter-correlations among variables
Correlations between the entrepreneurship education variables image of
entrepreneurship and inclination towards entrepreneurship showed significant bivariate
relationships among all the variables. The correlation test results are presented in Table
5.16.
136
Table 5.16: Correlation matrix of the major variables
Scales 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Entrepreneurial Inclination
1.00
2. Image of Entrepreneurship
0.239** 1.00
3. Role models 0.113* 0.199** 1.00
4. The role of universities in promoting entrepreneurship
0.302** 0.418** 0.295** 1.00
5. The entrepreneurial curriculum and content
0.319** 0.310** 0.243** 0.617** 1.00
6. Personal independent learning approach
0.167** 0.180** 0.186** 0.233** 0.335** 1.00
7. Entrepreneurial internship programmes
0.153** 0.201** 0.148** 0.316** 0.295** 0.244** 1.00
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Table 5.16 indicates that the inclination towards entrepreneurship is positively
correlated with the other scales: the entrepreneurial curriculum and content (r=0.319;
p<0.01); the role of universities in promoting entrepreneurship (r=0.302; p<0.01);
image of entrepreneurship (r=0.239; p<0.01); personal independent learning (r=0.167;
p<0.01); the entrepreneurial internship programmes (r=0.153; p<0.01) and role models
(r=0.113; p<0.05).
Therefore, it can be stated that having a stronger inclination towards entrepreneurship is
associated with the entrepreneurial curriculum and content. It is also associated with the
role of universities in promoting entrepreneurship to create a good image of
entrepreneurship among university students. An effective personal independent learning
approach, more entrepreneurial internship programmes and good role models are also
associated with university students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship. However, the
small size of these correlations indicated weak and/or very weak relationships.
It is interesting to note that the two strongest correlations occurred in the case of image
of entrepreneurship (r=0.418; p<0.01) and entrepreneurial curriculum and content
(r=0.617; p<0.01) with the role of universities in promoting entrepreneurship. It was
also noticed that role models (r=0.113; p<0.05) had comparatively weak correlation
137
with inclination towards entrepreneurship, though the correlation coefficient was
positive. Since all the scales were at most moderately correlated (below 0.70), the
possibility of multicollinearity occurrence appears very low (Nunnally and Bernstein
1994). The results of the regression test in Table 5.17 also support this conclusion with
none of the Variance Inflation Factor or VIF values more than 10.0 (Hair et al. 1998).
5.9 The hypotheses revisited
As a result of the two new constructs, i.e. image of entrepreneurship and personal
independent learning approach derived from the factor analysis results, the hypotheses
of the study were redeveloped slightly. One hypothesis was slightly changed to
accommodate the new variable:
Hypothesis 6: The relationships between entrepreneurship education, image of
entrepreneurship and inclination towards entrepreneurship are stronger
for students who
H6i) are male
H6ii) are Chinese
H6iii) are Muslim
H6iv) are the eldest child in the family
H6v) are from urban areas
H6vi) have previous working experience
H6vii) have at least one parent running a business.
Also, two new hypotheses were created:
Hypothesis 7: There is a positive relationship between a personal
independent learning approach and university students’ inclination towards
entrepreneurship.
Hypothesis 8: There is a positive relationship between a good image of
entrepreneurship and university students’ inclination towards
entrepreneurship.
138
5.10 Hypotheses testing
This section relates to the testing of the hypotheses in order to investigate the effect of
entrepreneurship education and image of entrepreneurship on university students’
inclination towards entrepreneurship. Table 5.16 suggests significant support for all
hypotheses in this study.
5.10.1 Multiple Regression
Multiple regression was employed to test the hypothesised relationships between
entrepreneurship education (role models, the role of universities in promoting
entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial internship programmes, personal independent learning
approach and entrepreneurial curriculum and content), image of entrepreneurship and
the inclination towards entrepreneurship. Table 5.17 shows the regression results, which
include un-standardised coefficients, standard errors, betas, t-values, significance level
and VIFs. The results show that the regression equation, with all six predictors, was
significantly related to the inclination towards entrepreneurship, with F(6,410)=10.677,
R2 =.135 and was highly significant (p<.001). Meanwhile, VIF statistics show that there
is no multicollinearity (VIF<10.0 in all cases).
Using the enter method, only 13.5 per cent of the variation in inclination towards
entrepreneurship can be significantly explained by the model (the independent
variables). The highest beta values indicated that entrepreneurial curriculum and content
(df=410; β=0.185; t=3.049; p=.002) has the greatest impact and positive relationship on
inclination towards entrepreneurship followed by the role of universities in promoting
entrepreneurship (df=410; β=0.120; t=1.912; p=.050) and image of entrepreneurship
(df=410; β=0.118; t=2.316; p=.021).
Interestingly, the findings show that role models (df=410; β=-.003; t=-.071; p=.943)
have a negative but not significant relationship with the dependent variable. In addition,
entrepreneurial internship programmes (df=410; β=.025; t=.497; p=.619) and personal
independent learning approach (df=410; β=.050; t=1.011; p=.313) also appear to have
139
no significant relationship with university students’ inclination towards
entrepreneurship.
In sum, the positive beta weight showed that in an effort to increase university students’
inclination towards entrepreneurship, they need to be exposed to entrepreneurship
education within an entrepreneurially-inclined campus environment and also have a
good image of entrepreneurship.
Table 5.17: Multiple regression coefficients
Unstandardised coefficients
Standardised coefficients
Model B Standard error
Beta
t
Sig.*
VIF
(Constant)
Image of entrepreneurship
Role models
The role of universities in promoting entrepreneurship The entrepreneurial internship Personal independent learning approach The entrepreneurial curriculum and content
.503
.174
-.005
.206
.042
.064
.286
.464
.075
.064
.108
.084
.064
.094
.118
-.003
.120
.025
.050
.185
1.085
2.316
-.071
1.912
.497
1.011
3.049
.279
.021*
.943
.050*
.619
.313
.002*
1.24
1.12
1.86
1.17
1.17
1.74
R = .368 R2 = .135 Adjusted R2 = .122 F value = 10.68 Level of significance = .05*
The summary of the results of the hypothesis testing are shown in Table 5.18. Note that
this table is testing for direct associations, when the other variables in the regression are
statistically controlled.
140
Table 5.18: Summary of hypothesis testing
Hypothesis Statement Result when other predictor variables are
controlled: Supported or Rejected
H1 There is a positive relationship between the role of universities in promoting entrepreneurship and university students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship.
Supported
H2 There is a positive relationship between entrepreneurial curriculum and content and university students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship.
Supported
H3 There is a positive relationship between role models (educators or peers) and university students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship.
Rejected
H4 There is a positive relationship between entrepreneurship internship programmes and university students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship.
Rejected
H7 There is a positive relationship between personal independent learning approach and university students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship.
Rejected
H8 There is a positive relationship between a good image of entrepreneurship and university students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship.
Supported
5.10.2 An independent t-test and one-way ANOVA for university students’
demographic characteristics
An independent t-test and one-way ANOVA was conducted to examine Hypothesis 5(a)
in this study. If there are two groups (dichotomous variables) to compare, an
independent t-test is used; and if there are more than two groups to compare, the one-
way ANOVA is the appropriate statistical test. Statistical significance was accepted at
the level of p<0.05/7. A Bonferroni adjustment to the usual five per cent level was
implemented in order to allow for the hypotheses tests.
The breakdown of the observation groups were as follows:
i) Gender: Males and females
ii) Ethnicity: Malay, Chinese and, Indian. ‘Other’ was excluded due to its
small number of respondents.
iii) Religion: Islam, Buddhism and Taoism, Hinduism and Christianity
141
iv) Birth order: Eldest, youngest and none of the above (including only child)
v) Place of origin: Rural areas and urban areas
vi) Programmes of study: Business, computing and IT and engineering
vii) Working experience: Yes and no.
5.10.2.1 Gender and inclination towards entrepreneurship
For gender, an independent t-test was appropriate. The results are shown in Table 5.19.
Table 5.19: Independent sample t-test for gender and inclination towards entrepreneurship
Gender N Mean SD* t Sig.
Inclination towards entrepreneurship
Male
Female
137
280
3.87
3.65
.52
.66
3.75 .000**
* SD = Standard Deviations; ** p<.05
It can be seen in Table 5.19 that male students (Mean=3.87; SD=.52) have relatively
higher inclination towards entrepreneurship compared with female students
(Mean=3.65; SD=.66). The results indicate a statistically significant difference in
inclination towards entrepreneurship (t(415)=3.75; p=.000) between genders.
5.10.2.2 Ethnicity and inclination towards entrepreneurship For students’ ethnicity, there were more than two groups (Malay, Chinese and Indian),
so one-way ANOVA was appropriate to test the significance of ethnic differences in
inclination towards entrepreneurship.
Table 5.20: One-way ANOVA for ethnicity and inclination towards entrepreneurship
Ethnicity Sum of square
Df Mean square
F Sig.
Between groups Within groups Total
.636 160.137 160.77
2 406 408
.318
.394
.806
.447
df = degree of freedom; p<0.05
142
Table 5.20 shows the comparison of the respondents’ inclination towards
entrepreneurship according to their ethnicity. The results show no significant ethnicity-
associated differences in inclination towards entrepreneurship.
5.10.2.3 Religion and inclination towards entrepreneurship One-way ANOVA was performed to study the relation between inclination towards
entrepreneurship and religion, with four main subgroups: Islam, Buddhism and Taoism,
Hinduism and Christianity.
Table 5.21: One-way ANOVA for religion and inclination towards entrepreneurship
Religion Sum of square
Df Mean square
F Sig.
Between groups Within groups Total
1.685 160.671 162.356
3 413 417
.562
.389
1.444
.229
df = degree of freedom; p<0.05
Table 5.21 shows the comparison between the religious groups and inclination towards
entrepreneurship. The high significance value, p=.229 and F=1.444, indicates that there
was no significant difference between the means of the four main religions.
5.10.2.4 Birth order and inclination towards entrepreneurship A one-way ANOVA test was conducted to examine if there was a significant difference
in inclination towards entrepreneurship associated with students’ birth order. The results
of the test are shown in Table 5.22
Table 5.22: One-way ANOVA for birth order and inclination towards entrepreneurship
Birth order Sum of square
Df Mean square
F Sig.
Between groups Within groups Total
.092 162.264 162.356
2 414 416
.046
.392
.117
.889
df = degree of freedom; p<0.05
Table 5.22 illustrates the comparison between birth order and inclination towards
entrepreneurship. The results indicate that birth order does not have a significant
relationship with inclination towards entrepreneurship.
143
5.10.2.5 Place of origin and inclination towards entrepreneurship For students’ place of origin, there were only two groups to compare; therefore an
independent sample t-test was appropriate. The results of the analysis are shown in
Table 5.23.
Table 5.23: Independent sample t-test for place of origin and inclination towards entrepreneurship
Place of origin
N Mean SD* t Sig.
Inclination towards entrepreneurship
Rural
Urban
216
201
3.75
3.68
.59
.66
1.11 .269
* SD = Standard Deviations; p<.05
There was no significant difference in inclination towards entrepreneurship between
students’ with rural and urban origins.
5.10.2.6 Programmes of study and inclination towards entrepreneurship
Table 5.24: One-way ANOVA for programmes of study and inclination towards entrepreneurship
Programmes of study Sum of
square
df Mean
square
F Sig.
Between groups Within groups Total
6.184 156.172 162.356
2 414 416
3.092 .377
8.20
.000**
df = degree of freedom; ** p<.05
From Table 5.24, it can be seen that there was a significant association between
university students’ programmes of study and their inclination towards entrepreneurship
(F(2, 414)=8.20; p<.001). A Tukey HSD post hoc test (α=0.05) revealed that business
administration and IT and computing students (Mean=3.80; SD=.61; and Mean=3.78;
SD=.57 respectively) have significantly higher inclination towards entrepreneurship
than engineering students (Mean=3.51; SD=.66; N=104).
144
5.10.2.7 Previous working experience and inclination towards entrepreneurship
Independent sample t-test was carried out to test the relationship between the
respondents’ previous working experience and their inclination towards
entrepreneurship for significance. As shown in Table 5.25, the results showed that there
was a significant difference between those who had previous working experience
(Mean=3.77; SD=.60) and those without previous working experience (Mean=3.43;
SD=.66) (t(415)=4.33; p<.001). This means that those who had previous working
experience were more inclined towards entrepreneurship than those without previous
working experience.
Table 5.25: Independent sample t-test for previous working experience and inclination towards entrepreneurship
Working experience
N Mean SD* t Sig.
Inclination towards entrepreneurship
Yes
No
350
67
3.77
3.43
.60
.66
4.33
.000**
* SD = Standard Deviations; ** p<.05
To summarise, Hypothesis 5(a) was only supported for gender, programmes of study
and previous working experience with university students’ inclination towards
entrepreneurship. The summary of the hypothesis is presented in Table 5.26.
Table 5.26: Summary of hypothesis testing
Hypothesis Statement Result: Supported or Rejected
H5(a) There is a difference in university students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship in the demographic groups defined by the following variables
i) gender ii) ethnicity
iii) religion iv) birth order v) place of origin vi) programmes of study vii) previous working experience
Supported Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected
Supported Supported
145
5.10.3 One-way ANOVA for university students’ family business background
As with the demographic characteristics, an independent sample t-test and one-way
ANOVA were conducted to examine Hypothesis 5(b) in this study. Statistical
significance was accepted at the level of p<0.05/2, allowing for a Bonferroni correction
for two hypotheses tests. The respondent groups were defined as follows:
i) Father’s occupation: Employed, self-employed, retired and other (unemployed
and passed away)
ii) Mother’s occupation: Employed, self-employed, unemployed and other (retired
and passed away).
One-way ANOVA was employed for this part of the analysis as there were more than
two groups to compare.
5.10.3.1 Father’s occupation and inclination towards entrepreneurship
To examine whether there was a significant relationship between students’ fathers’
occupations and inclination towards entrepreneurship, a one-way ANOVA was
conducted.
Table 5.27: One-way ANOVA for university students’ fathers’ occupations and inclination towards entrepreneurship
Fathers’ occupations Sum of square
Df Mean square
F Sig.
Between groups Within groups Total
2.971 159.386 162.356
3 413 416
.990
.386
2.57
.060
df = degree of freedom; p<.05
Table 5.27 shows no significant difference between father’s occupation and students’
inclination towards entrepreneurship. This means this part of the hypothesis was not
supported.
146
5.10.3.2 Mother’s occupation and inclination towards entrepreneurship
Table 5.28: One-way ANOVA for university students’ mothers’ occupations and inclination towards entrepreneurship
Mothers’ occupations Sum of square
Df Mean square
F Sig.
Between groups Within groups Total
5.077 157.279 162.356
3 413 416
1.692 .381
4.44
.004**
df = degree of freedom; ** p<.05
From Table 5.28, the results show that there was a significant relationship between
university students’ mothers’ occupations and inclination towards entrepreneurship
(F(3,413)=4.44; p=.004). A Tukey HSD post hoc test (α=0.05) indicates that university
students whose mothers are self-employed (Mean=3.97; SD=.45; N=55) have a
significantly higher mean inclination towards entrepreneurship than those whose
mothers are unemployed (or homemakers) (Mean=3.63; SD=.66; N=202). Therefore,
Hypothesis 5(b) was supported for the university students’ mothers’ occupations but
rejected for their fathers’ occupations. The summary of the hypothesis testing is shown
in Table 5.29.
Table 5.29: Summary of hypothesis testing
Hypothesis Statement Result: Supported or Rejected
H5(b) There is a difference in university students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship that relate to:
i) Father’s occupation ii) Mother’s occupation
Rejected Supported
5.10.4 Structural equation modelling
Structural equation modelling was employed in this section to determine the
relationships between entrepreneurship education variables, image of entrepreneurship,
inclination towards entrepreneurship moderated for different demographic
characteristics, and family background. This analysis is necessary in order to understand
relationships, either direct or indirect, among the variables. All the structural models
were tested using AMOS 7.0. The criteria to determine the goodness of fit of the model
147
were decided based on χ2, χ2/DF, p-value, CFI and RMSEA indices as explained in
Chapter 4 (see Section 4.5.4.2.5)
5.10.4.1 Initial model testing
As a starting point, analysis was performed on the proposed conceptual framework (see
Figure 3.6) to determine whether or not this model could be accepted for further
analysis. Figure 5.6 shows that only 11 per cent of the variation in inclination towards
entrepreneurship can be explained by the model. The result was almost the same as the
previous regression tests. However, the measurement of goodness-of-fit illustrated that
the model was indeed poorly fit: χ2=88.45, χ2/DF=17.689, p=.000, CFI=.828 and
RMSEA=.200.
Figure 5.6: Proposed conceptual model (Standardised weights and correlation shown)
IE
RM
UR
INT
PLA
.34
.30
.62
.24
.24
.23
.19 .32
.15
.30
R2=.11
EI
.12
Chi-square = 88.445 Probability = .000
CMIN/DF = 17.689 CFI = .828
RMSEA = .200
.00
.12
.03
.05
.19
error
ECC
148
The regression analysis in Table 5.17 suggested a change to this model as suggested in
Figure 5.7. In this model, there is no direct link between inclination towards
entrepreneurship and three of the variables; only an indirect link. Figure 5.7 shows the
initial model after these changes were carried out, suggesting another poor fit model:
χ2=198.78, χ2/DF=33.13, p=.000, CFI=.602 and RMSEA=.278. Hence further
modifications were need. Model modifications for Figure 5.7 were suggested using
modification indices (M.I.) (Abramson et al. 2005; Byrne 2001).
As shown in Table 5.30a, the largest M.I. (100.315) is associated with the path from the
role of universities in promoting entrepreneurship to the entrepreneurial curriculum and
content (ECC<---UR), with an expected reduction in the chi-square goodness of fit
statistic of 100.315 when a weight of 0.493 is assigned to this link. With the inclusion of
this path, the model was rerun. The highest M.I. (40.28) is associated with the path from
the role of universities in promoting entrepreneurship to image of entrepreneurship
(IE<---UR), as exhibited in Table 5.30b. This link, with a coefficient of 0.348, is
expected to reduce the chi-square statistic by 40.28.
Figure 5.7: Initial model for the conceptual model (Standardised weights and correlations shown)
R2=.08
IE
RM
R2=.18
URINT
.24
.15 .19
R2=.19
R2=.09
EI
.13
Chi-square = 198.783 Probability = .000 CMIN/DF = 33.130 CFI = .602 RMSEA = .278
.13
.21
error
ECC
.23
.21
.25
.25
.13
.11
er1
.16
.17
.15
er3
er2
PLA
149
Table 5.30a: Modification indices
M.I. Par Change ECC<---UR 100.315 .493 ECC<---IE 18.420 .181 UR<---ECC 99.236 .397 UR<---IE 44.981 .255
IE<---ECC 16.317 .199 IE<---UR 40.280 .348
Table 5.30b: Modification indices
M.I. Par Change IE<---UR 40.280 .348
IE<---ECC 16.317 .199
Therefore, both paths were added to respecify and refit the model. It was also found that
five parameters, which had p-value more than 0.05, were not statistically significant.
These parameters represented the paths from the entrepreneurial internship programmes
to the entrepreneurial curriculum and content (ECC<---INT; C.R.=1.863), personal
independent learning approach to image of entrepreneurship (IE<---PLA; C.R.=1.461),
role models to image of entrepreneurship (IE<---RM; C.R.=1.524), role models to the
entrepreneurial curriculum and content (ECC<---RM; C.R.=.994) and entrepreneurial
internship programmes to image of entrepreneurship (IE<---INT; C.R.=1.258). As a
result, these parameters were not needed and were removed one by one to obtain a more
parsimonious model (see Table 5.31). The model was then re-run and the results
showed that no further modifications or improvements were recommended.
Table 5.31: Removal of non-significant paths
Path Standard Error
Critical Ratio (CR)
p
UR<---RM .035 5.149 *** UR<---INT .045 5.418 *** UR<---PLA .035 2.763 .006** ECC<---INT .044 1.863 .062# ECC<---PLA .032 4.705 ***
IE<---PLA .040 1.461 .144# IE<---RM .042 1.524 .128#
ECC<---RM .034 .994 .320# IE<---INT .054 1.258 .208#
ECC<---UR .046 13.140 *** IE<---UR .057 7.452 ***
150
EI<---IE .074 2.463 .014** EI<---UR .106 2.028 .043**
EI<---ECC .090 3.508 *** *** Level of significance at the 0.001 ** Level of significance at the 0.05 # Paths in italic form were removed due to non-significant 5.10.4.2 Final model structure
The final model is shown in Figure 5.8. This model exhibits good goodness-of-fit
indices: χ2=14.513, χ2/DF=1.613, p=.105, CFI=.989 and RMSEA=.038. The final model
accounted for a total of 17 per cent of the variance in image of entrepreneurship, 18 per
cent of the variance in the role of universities in promoting entrepreneurship, 42 per
cent of the variance in entrepreneurial curriculum and content and 13 per cent of the
variance in inclination towards entrepreneurship.
Figure 5.8: Final model for the conceptual framework (Standardised weights and correlations shown)
R2=.17
IE
RM
R2=.18
URINT
.24
.15 .19
R2=.42
R2=.13
EI
.12
Probability = .105CMIN/DF = 1.613CFI = .989RMSEA = .038
.12
.20
error
ECC
.25
.20
.13
.23
.42
.57
er3
er2
er1
PLA
151
The findings of the final model were convincing. It suggested that universities’
promotion of entrepreneurship plays a weak (β=.12) but compelling role in university
students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship. It mediates the relationship between
inclination towards entrepreneurship and three other variables: role models,
entrepreneurial internship programmes and personal independent learning approach.
The model also suggested that image of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial
curriculum and content have a direct impact on students’ inclination towards
entrepreneurship. The role of universities in promoting entrepreneurship also serves to
strengthen these two factors.
The other important findings are reported below. There were positive correlations
between personal independent learning approach and entrepreneurial internship
programmes, entrepreneurial internship programmes and role models as well as
personal independent learning approach and role models. However these correlations
were weak. Additionally, the standardised total effects on inclination towards
entrepreneurship were the greatest for the role of universities in promoting
entrepreneurship followed by entrepreneurial curriculum and content, as shown in Table
5.32.
Table 5.32: Standardised total effects of the model
PLA INT RM UR ECC IE
UR .128 .250 .234 .000 .000 .000 ECC .276 .142 .133 .559 .000 .000 IE .054 .104 .098 .418 .000 .000 EI .079 .073 .069 .293 .204 .124
5.10.4.2.1 Comparison for gender (males=137; females=280)
The model shown in Figure 5.8 was compared for male and females students using an
invariance test.
Table 5.33: Comparison of male and female university students
χ2 DF CFI RMSEA χ2 difference
DF difference
Same weights Different weights
44.71 35.01
27 18
.965
.967 .040 .048
9.70*
9
N=417; *p>0.1 (p=.375)
152
Based on Table 5.33, the computed χ2 difference was 9.70 (p=.375) and was greater
than the critical value at the 0.1 significance level. Therefore the result suggests that the
same model weights could be used for male and female students; i.e. the same model for
entrepreneurship education, image of entrepreneurship and inclination towards
entrepreneurship can be used for male and female students. This means that gender does
not moderate the strength of the relationships shown in Figure 5.8.
5.10.4.2.2 Comparison for ethnicity (Chinese=80; non-Chinese=337)
The model shown in Figure 5.8 was compared for students of Chinese and non-Chinese
extraction using an invariance test.
Table 5.34a: Comparison of Chinese and non-Chinese university students
χ2 DF CFI RMSEA χ2 difference
DF difference
Same weights Different weights
33.38 15.82
27 18
.987 1.000
.024
.000
17.56*
9 N=417; *p<0.1 (p=.041)
Table 5.34a shows the results. The computed χ2 difference was 17.56 (p=.041) and was
smaller than the critical value at the five per cent level of significance. Hence the result
suggests that different model weights should be used for Chinese and non-Chinese
university students; i.e. there is a different relationship for Chinese and non-Chinese. To
determine the nature of the differences between these groups, further comparisons were
carried out.
Table 5.34b: Standardised total effects on the differences between Chinese and non-Chinese
PLA INT RM UR ECC IE
UR .236 (.130) -.072 (.292) .449 (.185) .000 (.000) .000 (.000) .000 (.000) ECC .394 (.279) -.029 (.167) .182 (.105) .405 (.571) .000 (.000) .000 (.000)
IE .103 (.053) -.031 (.119) .196 (.075) .436 (.407) .000 (.000) .000 (.000) EI .117 (.088) -.027 (.082) .168 (.052) .375 (.279) .094 (.254) .259 (.078)
* Figures in parentheses indicate non-Chinese
153
As shown in Table 5.34b, it is interesting to note that the role of universities in
promoting entrepreneurship has a strong impact on Chinese students’ inclination
towards entrepreneurship (standardised effect size or η2=.375) as does their image of
entrepreneurship (η2=.259). For non-Chinese students, entrepreneurial curriculum and
content have a strong role (η2=.254) as well as the role of universities in promoting
entrepreneurship because they have a stronger relationship with inclination towards
entrepreneurship. However, the role of universities in promoting entrepreneurship is
also important for these non-Chinese students (η2=.279).
5.10.4.2.3 Comparison for religion (Muslim=306; non-Muslim=111)
The model shown in Figure 5.8 was compared for Muslim and non-Muslim students
using an invariance test.
Table 5.35: Comparison of Muslim and non-Muslim university students
χ2 DF CFI RMSEA χ2 difference
DF difference
Same weights Different weights
30.76 16.52
27 18
.992 1.000
.018
.000
14.24*
9 N=417; *p>0.1 (p=.114)
In terms of university students’ religions, the results in Table 5.35 show that there is no
significant difference in the relationship for Muslim and non-Muslim university
students (df=9; χ2 difference=14.24; p=.114). This means that Muslim and non-Muslim
university students have similar responses to entrepreneurship education, image of
entrepreneurship and inclination towards entrepreneurship.
5.10.4.2.4 Comparison for birth order (first-born=118; not first-born=299)
The model shown in Figure 5.8 was compared for first and not first born students using
an invariance test.
154
Table 5.36a: Comparison of first- and non-first-born university students
χ2 DF CFI RMSEA χ2 difference
DF difference
Same weights Different weights
37.55 20.65
27 18
.978
.995 .031 .019
16.90*
9
N=417; *p<0.1 (p=.050)
The results in Table 5.36a indicate that birth order has a significant impact on the
relationships with entrepreneurship education, image of entrepreneurship and
inclination towards entrepreneurship. The χ2 difference was 16.90 and p=.050. The
results, therefore, suggest that the different model weights should be used for first-born
child and non-first-born child university students, because there is a different
relationship for these two groups. To test the differences among first-born and non-first-
born, further analyses were conducted.
Table 5.36b: Standardised total effects on the differences between first-born and non-first-born
PLA INT RM UR ECC IE
UR .301 (.046) .148 (.289) .190 (.256) .000 (.000) .000 (.000) .000 (.000) ECC .417 (.207) .068 (.177) .088 (.157) .461 (.613) .000 (.000) .000 (.000)
IE .146 (.018) .071 (.112) .092 (.099) .483 (.387) .000 (.000) .000 (.000) EI .172 (.033) .036 (.091) .046 (.081) .241 (.316) .358 (.103) .020 (.179)
* Figures in parentheses indicate not-first born
Table 5.36b shows that, intriguingly, the role of universities in promoting
entrepreneurship and image of entrepreneurship were found to have greater impact on
students who were not first-born (η2=.316 and η2=.179 respectively). Personal
independent learning approach and entrepreneurial curriculum and content were found
to be more important for first-born students (η2=.172 and η2=.358 respectively).
However, the role of universities in promoting entrepreneurship was also important for
first born students (η2=.241).
5.10.4.2.5 Comparison for place of origin (rural=216; urban=201)
The model shown in Figure 5.8 was also compared for students with rural and urban
origins.
155
Table 5.37: Comparison of rural and urban originated university students
χ2 DF CFI RMSEA χ2 difference
DF difference
Same weights Different weights
36.85 31.60
27 18
.980
.972 .030 .043
5.25*
9
N=417; *p>0.1 (p=.811)
Table 5.37 suggests that there is a similar relationship for those who originally come
from urban and rural areas (χ2=5.25; p=.811). This means that university students who
are from urban and rural areas have similar responses to entrepreneurship education,
image of entrepreneurship and inclination towards entrepreneurship.
5.10.4.2.6 Comparison for previous working experience (yes=350; no=67)
The model shown in Figure 5.8 was also compared for students with and without
working experience.
Table 5.38: Comparison of university students’ previous working experience
χ2 DF CFI RMSEA χ2 difference
DF difference
Same weights Different weights
33.53 29.48
27 18
.987
.977 .024 .039
4.05*
9
N=417; *p>0.1 (p=.908)
The computed χ2 difference was 4.05 and p=.908, which was greater than the critical
value at the 0.1 level of significance, as presented in Table 5.38. This means that there is
no significant difference between those with previous working experience and those
without previous working experience in moderating the strength of the relationships.
5.10.4.2.7 Comparison for parents’ occupations (students with at least one parent running a business=168; students with parents not running business=249)
The model shown in Figure 5.8 was compared for students who have at least one parent
running a business and those with parents not running a business.
156
Table 5.39: Comparison of university students’ parents’ occupations
χ2 DF CFI RMSEA χ2 difference
DF difference
Same weights Different weights
22.87 19.04
27 18
1.000 .998
.000
.012
3.83*
9 N=417; *p>0.1 (p=.922)
Table 5.39 shows the same relationship for university students who have at least one
parent who is self-employed and those with parents who are not self-employed
(χ2=3.83; p=.922). This means that there is no significant difference for university
students who have at least one parent running a business and those with parents not
running a business in regard to entrepreneurship education, image of entrepreneurship
and inclination towards entrepreneurship.
The results of SEM showed that Hypothesis 6 was not supported, as only two factors,
gender and birth order differences, were significant. The summary of the results is
shown in Table 5.40.
Table 5.40: Summary of the hypothesis testing
Hypothesis Statement Result: Supported or Rejected
H6 The relationships between entrepreneurship education, image of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial inclination are stronger for students who
i) are male ii) are Chinese
iii) are Muslim iv) are eldest child in the family v) are from urban areas vi) have previous working experience vii) have at least one parent running a business
Rejected Supported Rejected
Supported Rejected Rejected
Rejected
5.11 Conclusion
Generally, the results of the analyses were consistent with previous findings. The initial
four independent variables, i.e. the role of universities in promoting entrepreneurship,
entrepreneurial curriculum and content, role models and entrepreneurial internship
programme, were expanded to six variables with image of entrepreneurship and
157
personal independent learning approach added after the factor analysis. Reliability tests
were performed for each scale. Conceptually all the scales appeared to have face
validity. Demographic and family business background comparisons were performed
for these scales using independent sample t-tests and one-way ANOVA. Multiple
regression and structural equation modelling were also used to test the hypotheses. The
results of these tests showed that not all hypotheses in this study were supported. This
leads to discussion of the results, implications and recommendations for future research
in Chapter 6.
158
CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
6.1 Introduction
This chapter summarises and discusses the findings of the results arising from the
research questions and the hypotheses. Secondly, implications of the study and
recommendations for action are discussed. The chapter concludes with the limitations of
the study and future research directions.
6.2 Summary of the major findings
The summary of the major findings are as follows:
• The result shows that 62.6 per cent of the respondents would consider starting a
business as their future career.
• 65.9 per cent of the university students stated that they are likely to start a
business after graduation.
• In terms of role models, parents, friends and teachers/educators appear to have
much or the most influence on university students’ decision to pursue an
entrepreneurial career.
• The respondents agreed that teachers/educators and friends seemed to be the
most important persons in providing encouragement to university students to
pursue a career in entrepreneurship.
• The respondents stated that career counsellors neither influenced nor encouraged
them in considering entrepreneurship as a future career.
• In response to the entrepreneurial curriculum and content, most of those
surveyed indicated that apart from entrepreneurship and internship programmes,
strategic management, business planning and marketing are useful or very useful
in helping them to start a business.
159
• A high percentage of the university students consider writing a business plan as
the most important teaching method in entrepreneurship, followed by internship
programmes and group visits to businesses.
• Most of the respondents (about 90 per cent) stated that they have had good or
excellent entrepreneurial internship experiences.
• There seems to be no relationship between role models, the entrepreneurial
internship programmes, personal independent learning approach and university
students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship.
• There is a positive statistically significant relationship between the image of
entrepreneurship, the role of universities in promoting entrepreneurship,
entrepreneurial curriculum and content and inclination towards entrepreneurship
among university students.
• The university students’ gender, programmes of study and previous working
experience have a statistically significant influence on their inclination towards
entrepreneurship.
• Mothers’ occupation seems to have a statistically significant influence on
university students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship.
• University students’ ethnicity and birth order appear to have a statistically
significant relationship with entrepreneurship education, image of
entrepreneurship and inclination towards entrepreneurship.
6.3 Discussion of the findings
This section discusses the findings for each of the research hypothesis in relation to the
research questions. In interpreting the results the researcher related the findings to the
literature review.
Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relationship between the role of universities in
promoting entrepreneurship and university students’ inclination towards
entrepreneurship.
160
• It is expected that universities play a vital role in fostering and promoting
entrepreneurship in order to produce more entrepreneurially-inclined students.
The results of the analysis showed a statistically significant support for this
hypothesis. Therefore this hypothesis is supported in this study. The results
supported the view of Edwards and Muir (2005), Postigo et al. (2006) and
Nurmi and Paasio (2007) which emphasise the important role played by
universities in promoting entrepreneurship.
• Generally, universities have been viewed as the breeding ground for future
entrepreneurs (Bygrave 2004). Thus universities must utilise all resources
available in creating an entrepreneurial ambience to foster entrepreneurship.
Furthermore, the findings of the study could be also explained by the fact that
more university students are now interested in starting up their own businesses
due to the current employment pattern in the country. This study found 62.6 per
cent of the surveyed students stated they are interested in starting up a business
as their future career (see Table 5.4a). As a result, more and more Malaysian
university students seek a quality education that will equip them with necessary
entrepreneurial knowledge and skills for their future career.
• The government’s call to launch a business as well as the encouragement and
incentives provided to university students can also be one of the factors driving
more students to be involved in entrepreneurial activities. Universities, in
response to the government’s moves, need to play a more significant role than
that of a traditional knowledge disseminator. Universities must act on their
responsibility by providing greater learning opportunities for students to learn
about entrepreneurship and ultimately prepare them to start their own ventures.
Hypothesis 2: There is a positive relationship between entrepreneurial curriculum and
content and university students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship.
• The results of the analysis showed the positive relationship between the
entrepreneurial curriculum and content and university students’ inclination
161
towards entrepreneurship. Therefore the hypothesis is supported in this study.
These results are consistent with Charney and Libecap (2003), Ramayah and
Harun (2005) and Souitaris et al. (2007). They agree on the importance of
attending entrepreneurial courses or training in relation to the promotion of
entrepreneurship which, in turn, will increase students’ level of entrepreneurial
inclination. This can be explained easily because of the impact of the
entrepreneurial courses, as widely discussed in the literature.
• In this study, the students ranked strategic management, business planning,
marketing and finance and accounting as the useful entrepreneurial courses that
could help them in launching a business (see Table 5.6b). Generally, the courses
offered are similar to those underscored by Plaschka and Welsch (1990) in their
seminal article on the development of entrepreneurship course structure and
design. Essentially, basic exposure to other business courses such as strategic
management, marketing and finance and accounting is vital for entrepreneurial
skills development.
• As recommended by Rae (1997), incorporating other aspects of business skills
such as problem solving, creativity and social networking is vital to the
development of students’ entrepreneurial skills. Students could learn all these
skills from courses that are specially designed to develop and nurture their
entrepreneurial skills.
• With regard to the preferred assessment and teaching methods in
entrepreneurship, the survey results show that business planning,
entrepreneurship internship, group visits to businesses, lecturers relating their
own experience and group assignments are the top five favourite methods.
However examinations, as expected, are ranked the least favourite method (see
Table 5.7). These findings are consistent with Kelmar (1996), Cheng and Chan
(2004) and Selvarajah (2006) who found business plans and group projects are
the effective methods of teaching. In contrast, Co and Mitchell’s (2006), Cooper
et al.’s (2004) and Niyonkuru’s (2005) studies indicate that individual
162
assignments and examinations are still widely adopted in assessing
entrepreneurship for undergraduates.
Hypothesis 3: There is a positive relationship between role models and university
students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship.
• No significant relationship between role models (educators or friends) was
found regarding university students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship (see
Table 5.17). Therefore the hypothesis is rejected. The finding does however
show mixed results. In contrast to earlier findings, students’ stated that friends
and educators were influential (see Table 5.5a) and encouraged them (see Table
5.5b) to start up a business. The results contradict previous studies by Edwards
and Muir (2005) and Birdthistle et al. (2007), who point out that lecturers play
an important supportive role in influencing and encouraging students in their
inclination towards entrepreneurship.
• This is possibly based on the basic conjecture that lecturers are unable to provide
enterprising role models for their students. In general, it is notable that most of
the lecturers who teach entrepreneurship courses at Malaysian universities still
lack entrepreneurial experiences or knowledge, which makes it difficult for them
to guide students and relate study to real issues when launching a venture. A
study by Ooi and Ali (2005) demonstrates that the lack of interest among
lecturers to teach entrepreneurship is another contributing factor. Finally, the
teacher-oriented approach that is widely adopted in universities in the country
also undermine the learning process, in that students only receive what a lecturer
‘preaches’. Friends are believed to be incapable of being role models because
most of them have insufficient experience in business and probably lack the
right attitude to and interest in an entrepreneurial career.
163
Hypothesis 4: There is a relationship between entrepreneurial internship programmes
and university students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship.
• From the regression results, no significant relationship is found between the
entrepreneurial internship programmes and inclination towards entrepreneurship
although about 90 per cent stated that they had had good or excellent internship
experiences (see Table 5.8). Therefore the hypothesis is rejected in this study.
The findings are consistent with Frazier and Niehm’s (2006) findings. However,
the results are differ significantly from a number of other studies such as Dilts
and Fowler (1999), Neill and Mulholland (2003) and Mohd Shariff et al. (2000)
who have extensively discussed the benefits of entrepreneurial internship
programmes in bridging the gap between university students’ practical and
theoretical knowledge.
• Many possible reasons could contribute to this result. Generally, most of the
internship programmes in university are part of the courses to be taken by all
students. Hence some of those students who undergo the programme are doing
so just to fulfil the study programme’s requirements. The duration of internship
is also very short, normally one semester to six months. The problem arises that
it is quite difficult for students to grasp much knowledge about business within
such a short time.
• Lack of thorough understanding about the main purpose of entrepreneurial
internship programmes among most business organisations is also believed to be
another contributing factor. These organisations are reluctant to let students
handle some of the projects that relate to their studies. This may be due to the
organisation’s perceptions that students are attached to the organisation just for a
while and it is a waste of time and money to groom and train them. Instead, they
are given other tasks which have no relation to their objective in attending
internship programmes.
164
Hypothesis 5(a): There is a difference in university students’ inclination towards
entrepreneurship for the demographic groups defined by the following variables:
i) gender
ii) ethnicity
iii) religion
iv) birth order
v) place of origin
vi) programmes of study
vii) previous working experience.
• One-way ANOVA analyses indicated that there are only significant differences
between university students’ gender, programmes of study and working
experience and their inclination towards entrepreneurship. Therefore the
hypothesis is marginally supported in this study.
• Male students exhibited higher levels of inclination compared to female
students. Surprisingly, even though female students made up two-thirds of the
total respondents in this study, male students appeared to be more dominant in
entrepreneurship. In the meantime, those who were studying business
administration and computing and IT were found to have higher inclination
towards entrepreneurship compared to engineering students. Finally, the results
show that students with working experience are more inclined towards
entrepreneurship than those without working experience.
• In terms of gender, the current study is comparable to the findings of previous
studies (e.g., Ghazali et al. 1995; Kourilsky and Walstad 1998; Phan et al. 2002;
Ramayah and Harun 2005) which have consistently reported that male students
are more highly inclined or interested in entrepreneurial activity. In this instance,
it can be easily justified by the fact that in Asian culture and social structure,
men or sons are still symbolically the main breadwinner and possess a stronger
sense of responsibility for the family. However, this finding is contrary to Seet
165
and Seet’s (2006) study, which concludes that male students are not likely to
incline towards entrepreneurship.
• With regard to the programmes of study, the current finding is similar to Lena
and Wong’s (2003) and Koh’s (1995) studies, which indicated that business
major students are more prone to be interested to go into business (see Table
5.24). It may be that business students benefit from a curriculum in which they
are exposed to essential business knowledge and skills, from planning, starting
and managing a business to ensuring the success of the business creation.
However, the opposite results were found in Kristiansen and Indarti’s (2004)
study, which shows Indonesian business students have significantly lower
inclination towards entrepreneurship in comparison to non-business students.
• It was hypothesised that students with previous working experience are more
inclined to entrepreneurial activity, and the results of this study lend support to
this hypothesis (see Table 5.25). This finding is in parallel with studies by
Ghazali et al. (1995) and Othman et al. (2006) which showed having working
experience increased university students’ probability of being entrepreneurs.
This was supported to the point that having previous working experience is an
advantage for students as they have better knowledge about business creation
and, most importantly, good networking, which helps in acquiring needed
resources to confidently launch a venture. However, the findings of Kristiansen
and Indarti (2004) did not support the results.
Hypothesis 5(b): There are differences in university students’ inclination towards
entrepreneurship that relate to:
i) father’s occupation
ii) mother’s occupation.
• The results of the analysis partly supported the hypothesis. This supports the
findings of Crant (1996), who reports university students who have higher
entrepreneurial intentions have at least one parent who owned/owns a business.
166
In this study, the empirical evidence generated did not support the hypothesised
effect in inclination towards entrepreneurship between university students whose
fathers are self-employed and those fathers who are not self-employed. The
university students did not seem to be influenced by their fathers’ occupations.
The results lend support to the findings of Othman et al. (2006) but are in
contrast to Dunn’s (2004) and Kirkwood’s (2007) studies.
• The results of analysis showed that university students whose mothers are self-
employed are more inclined towards entrepreneurship than those mothers who
are not self-employed (see Table 5.28). The results of this study therefore
supported the findings of Chamard and Fitzgerald (1998), Othman et al. (2005)
and Schindehutte et al. (2003) which consistently show mothers’ occupations do
have direct effect on the propensity towards entrepreneurship among university
students. This is a somewhat intriguing and unique finding because most
literature has only considered the influence or effect of self-employed fathers
(e.g., Dunn 2004; Van Auken et al. 2006).
• Perhaps this is a reflection of the university students’ childhood upbringing as
discussed by Kirkwood (2007). As mothers play a vital role in rearing their
children, they may directly establish a special parent–child relationship and thus
easily influence their children’s decisions. Another point is that mothers are
more passionate, caring and supportive. This holds true especially in the Asian
family context, where fathers are always seen to be very strict and serious with
their children compared with mothers. A further study is recommended to verify
this observation.
Hypothesis 6: The relationships between entrepreneurship education, image of
entrepreneurship and inclination towards entrepreneurship are stronger for students who
i) are male
ii) are Chinese
iii) are Muslim
iv) are the eldest in the family
167
v) are from urban areas
vi) have previous working experience
vii) have at least one parent running a business.
• The results are mixed, as the hypothesis could not be rejected or supported
completely. However, only two demographic variables, i.e. ethnicity and birth
order, were found to have a relationship with the independent and dependent
variables. In terms of ethnicity, Chinese students are found to have a
significantly different relationship than non-Chinese students (see Table 5.34a).
This supports the studies of Othman et al. (2005) and Othman et al. (2006) who
conclude that Chinese students are more entrepreneurially-inclined than non-
Chinese (see also Schaper and Volery (2004)). This is widely accepted in that
Chinese have long been known for their knack of doing business, especially in
the Southeast Asian countries, including Malaysia. The early Chinese
immigrants considered doing business as a main source of livelihood and this
tradition has been passed down from generation to generation (Chin 2003).
• A more detailed analysis was conducted to determine the extent of the
differences among the ethnic groups. The findings are somewhat new (see Table
5.34b). It was found that the role of universities in promoting entrepreneurship
and image of entrepreneurship have greater impact on Chinese students’ image
of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurial curriculum and content and the role of
universities in promoting entrepreneurship have greater impact on non-Chinese
students. It is difficult to explain the phenomenon. Further study is needed to
verify the extent to which these variables affect Chinese and non-Chinese
university students’ propensity towards entrepreneurial activities.
• For university students’ birth order, the results indicate that there is a significant
difference between first-born and non-first-born in a family (see Table 5.36a).
This finding is consistent with Koh’s (1996) study which stated that first-born
children are more entrepreneurially-inclined. A possible explanation is that first-
168
born children, especially males, are always expected to help the parents to bear
family burdens.
• A further test was conducted to examine the differences between first-born and
non-first-born university students and the independent and dependent variables.
The results are strange and somewhat new (see Table 5.36b). It was found that
personal independent learning approach and entrepreneurial curriculum and
content are more important for first-born students. On the other hand, for non-
first-born students, the role of universities in promoting entrepreneurship and
image of entrepreneurship were found to have greater impact on their
entrepreneurial inclination. Again it is hard to explain the phenomenon. Thus, an
in-depth study is necessary to examine precisely how and to what extent such
variables have influences on first- and non-first-born university students.
Hypothesis 7: There is a positive relationship between personal independent learning
approach and university students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship.
• According to the results, there was no significant relationship between the
respondents’ personal independent learning approach and inclinations towards
entrepreneurship (see Table 5.17). Therefore the hypothesis is rejected in this
study. This finding is in agreement with Din’s (1992) study which demonstrates
that there is no relationship between university students’ enterprising behaviour
and their preference for curriculum to be based on practice and hands-on
experience.
• A possible explanation for this might be due to the learning approach adopted by
most Malaysian universities. Generally, a rote-learning and teacher-centred
approach is still widely practised at universities. As a result, students continue to
be passive learners, used to being ‘spoonfed’ in the classroom, as that was the
way they were trained to be since primary school. Indeed, this kind of learning
approach impedes the entrepreneurial learning process which requires the
development of critical and analytical thinking among students (Rae 1997).
169
Hypothesis 8: There is a positive relationship between a good image of entrepreneurship
and university students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship
• According to the results, the hypothesis is supported in this study (see Table
5.17). This implies that university students with good image of entrepreneurship,
either gained from family business background or through education and
training programmes, will be more inclined towards entrepreneurship than their
counterparts who have a poorer image of entrepreneurship. Previous studies
have reported similar results. For example, studies by Veciana et al. (2005) and
Lena and Wong (2003) on university students’ attitudes towards
entrepreneurship point out that having a positive image of entrepreneurship
among students resulted in them being more entrepreneurially-inclined.
Similarly, Autio et al. (1997) found that image of entrepreneurship influences
technology students’ career preferences and entrepreneurial inclination in four
countries in Asia, Scandinavia and the US.
6.4 Implications of the study
This study leads to a number of implications, for university policy makers as well as
students.
6.4.1 The universities’ policy makers
If universities are to promote entrepreneurship in an effective way, they need to re-
evaluate the current curriculum. The traditional lecture-based and rote-learning
approach needs to be overhauled. Instead, policy makers need to understand how to
create an entrepreneurially-friendly environment in order to foster and instil
entrepreneurial behaviour among students. It is essential for universities to create and
promote entrepreneurial activities intensively in shaping more entrepreneurial students,
for example, through the introduction of entrepreneurship courses as well as the
entrepreneurship clubs. Entrepreneurship clubs, for instance, can be set up as centres to
coordinate and organise all entrepreneurial-related activities. Universities also need to
170
introduce programmes of awareness about the contribution of entrepreneurs to socio-
economic development.
Students should be given more opportunities to transform their theoretical knowledge
into practical experience. Getting to know the needs of students by exposing them to the
real business world can help universities to incorporate such a learning approach in the
curriculum. This means that university entrepreneurial curriculum design should
consider the areas that will best meet the needs of students. Universities should be able
to provide holistic learning in today’s education in helping and supporting students to
learn more about entrepreneurship. For example, students should be given a chance to
learn from successful entrepreneurs.
It is impossible to expect everyone who has taken entrepreneurship courses to become
entrepreneurs. However, there should be a systematic development of the curriculum to
ensure, at least, that students would be able to launch a business by the end of their
study. The development of entrepreneurial curriculum and content should be aimed at
and designed to produce more new entrepreneurs. To achieve this goal, entrepreneurial
programmes must cover all aspects of business creation: planning, organising and
starting a venture. This includes teaching skills in business planning, marketing,
financial reporting and human resources, as well as entrepreneurial knowledge and
skills required to create a successful business (McHugh and O'Gorman 2006).
The entrepreneurial curriculum varies across universities (Staff 2007a), so it is crucial
for a university to decide what is the ultimate objective of entrepreneurship education to
provide courses about entrepreneurship or courses for entrepreneurship (Edwards and
Muir 2005; Levie 1999a). Generally, as far as the courses objectives at universities are
concerned, most courses offered are about entrepreneurship, in which students are learnt
about entrepreneurship through theoretical knowledge. Instead, to build and develop
entrepreneurially-inclined individuals, universities should decide on courses for
entrepreneurship that allow students more opportunities to experience entrepreneurial
activities and expose them to the real world of entrepreneurship. In relation to this,
171
universities need to make adjustments to their modus operandi, to accommodate the
need to provide an excellent entrepreneurial learning environment.
6.4.2 Students’ attitudes towards entrepreneurial learning
Based on the literature, the majority of entrepreneurial students require a different
learning approach to other students. This is because they are considered to be more
creative and proactive learners. Thus it is important for a university to understand and
design a curriculum that will meet effectively their entrepreneurial learning purposes.
Conventional teaching methods, such as lectures and examinations, seem to be unable
to produce a competitive and entrepreneurial student. Instead, students should be given
more room to hone their entrepreneurial knowledge and skills through hands-on
experiences or experiential learning. What is more important is that entrepreneurial
students should have access to much more unconventional interactive teaching methods
such as internships and simulations that enable them to practise analytical and problem
solving skills.
The assessment of students should adopt a ‘student-centred’ approach based on an
individual’s creativity and working skills, and even with the intent of changing of
behaviour towards entrepreneurship. Student performance should be evaluated
according to their continuous progress such as the ability to solve business problems
critically and plan and start a business, for example. In sum, in order to implement
successfully the new learning approach, cooperation from students is much needed.
Students, in this circumstance, have to be mentally ready to switch their current learning
approach to a more practical one.
6.5 Limitations of this study
There were several limitations that restricted the findings of this study. The most
important limitation lies in the ability to generalise the results. Due to financial and time
constraints, the data were sampled from university students in the northern region of
Peninsular Malaysia. The results of the study could not be generalised as a whole and
172
might be applicable to the northern region only. Additionally, although it was assumed
that the sample was random, it was actually drawn from only 14 of the 22 classes in the
population.
The questionnaires were distributed during mid semester, when students were busy with
their assignments and with preparing for their mid-semester examination. Hence the
students were answering the questionnaires under time pressure, so the responses might
not reflect their actual discernment. In addition, as this study was carried out at a
particular period (from 2005 to 2007), the results might only mirror a specific
circumstance and moment in time. Finally, a limitation was the uneven distribution of
the samples. The majority of respondents were in business studies (205 out of 417)
compared to engineering (104) and computing and IT (108) students; this might have
created biases or favouritism towards business studies students rather than shown
average outcomes.
6.6 Recommendations
Based on the findings of the results, the current research proposes some
recommendations for action to be considered and implemented by relevant parties
concerned in developing entrepreneurship at university:
i) Design entrepreneurial curriculum and content
The decision by the government to introduce entrepreneurship as a compulsory course
to all university students in the country is lauded as timely in providing basic
entrepreneurial knowledge and skills (Staff 2006a, 2007b). However such good effort
would become ineffective without proper courses of action or implementation. To
ensure the success of implementation, it is suggested that the following be considered:
• A more comprehensive entrepreneurial course design is needed. The content
development of the curriculum should reflect best practice in the business
world. The delivery systems need to incorporate hands-on learning along
173
with the emphasis on generic and specific business competencies such as
entrepreneurial and leadership skills. With regard to teaching methods,
practically-based teaching approaches ought to be encouraged. Students
should not only learn theories, but they should also be given an opportunity
to participate and contribute their viewpoints on topics of discussion in
classroom learning. Guest lectures by successful entrepreneur from time to
time would allow students to learn first-hand experience and knowledge
from an entrepreneur who is also directly a good role model.
• Business plan competitions and business games could be organised as a
semester-based activity for all students. With such programmes, students can
directly build on their entrepreneurial skills via their active involvement. As
the best entrepreneurial learning method is to let them find out or experience
individually the process of business creation, students should be exposed to
and guided on how to embark on an assigned project. The evaluation of the
programme should be scrutinised by experienced faculty members or even
successful entrepreneurs.
• The offerings of the entrepreneurship courses should also emphasise
important aspects of entrepreneurial knowledge and skills such as creativity,
problem-solving and critical thinking. The inclusion of specific courses
could be able to develop such knowledge and skills:
Business planning
Marketing
Entrepreneurial financial and accounting
Creativity and innovation
Entrepreneurial behaviour and skills
Individual field project
Entrepreneurial internship programmes.
174
ii) Establish linkages with business organisations
Universities should establish stronger linkages with more business organisations,
especially multinational companies. This is to give the university students greater
exposure to the real business world. It is also crucial to ensure all students have the
opportunity to apply and learn practical knowledge during their working stints. All the
universities in the country must make internship programmes compulsory for their
students. Internship programs allow students to bridge the gap between theory and
practice. The availability of such programmes as part of the curriculum would enrich the
students’ entrepreneurial learning process. To this end, there must be mutual
understanding between universities and the business organisations to keep the
collaboration a success. Most importantly, the object should be to benefit the students in
acquiring the much needed entrepreneurial and business knowledge and skills for
preparing themselves for the real world.
iii) Introduce special practical entrepreneurial short courses
Universities must be able to design specific and practical entrepreneurial short courses,
for example, courses which run for four to six months, to all interested students. These
courses could be open to members of the public who might be interested in
entrepreneurial training programmes. The courses cannot be heavily academic; instead,
they should be more practically-oriented. The courses should emphasise the pre-start
and start-up stages of business creation as these are always the most challenging stages
when someone embarks on a business venture. The ability to recognise and seize
business opportunities should also be embedded in the course curriculum. The teaching
staff needs to have vast experience in business for example faculty members, adjunct
faculty members or guest speakers from industry. All the participants should be
accredited for their interest in attending the courses. This is important to add value,
especially to students, to prepare them for later careers.
175
iv) Provide training programmes for faculty members
Faculty members are generally well educated, but their methodological skills might
need to be upgraded. This is because teaching entrepreneurship requires teaching staff
to be innovative in their teaching methods. Furthermore, many faculty members have
limited experience in business. It is worth the university’s effort to develop and train
academics for the teaching of entrepreneurial courses. In doing so, the faculties are to be
encouraged to attend entrepreneurship and/or small business training and workshops or
seminars, both locally and overseas. They could also be seconded to business
organisations, which have collaboration with the university, as part of their sabbatical
training. This would enable them to learn more about the actual operation of business
organisations. Such training programmes are essential to ensure a more effective
teaching of entrepreneurship, which will result in consistent and quality
entrepreneurship education programmes.
v) Establish student one-stop business advice and guidance centres
Inexperience in business has become a main barrier to university students who may be
interested in starting up a business. This is a problem that impedes them in pursuing
their business dream, but it could be overcome. Hence, it is valuable for each university
to set up a business advice and guidance centre. As students need one-to-one advice, the
centre can act as an advisor by providing valuable business-related information such as
sources of funding, procedures to start up a venture, product development, premises and
location advice, writing business plans, and legal advice.
6.7 Future research directions
While research in the area of entrepreneurship education is evolving, it certainly
requires continuous study. The results of this study have identified several possible
avenues for further investigation. Theoretically, the findings of the study have created
new dimensions in measuring entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial
inclination. As discussed before (in Section 6.3), the findings are new to the literature.
176
For example, the role of universities in promoting entrepreneurship and the
entrepreneurial curriculum and content have strong impact on Chinese and non-Chinese
students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship.
This study could find no explanation for this in current established literature. For this
reason, future investigation into the association of these variables with university
students’ entrepreneurial inclination is strongly needed and recommended.
Further study can also be conducted to improve and refine the model used in this study.
The inclusion of other variables such as infrastructure support (funding and
networking), technological change and pull and push factors can be considered to
examine students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship up to the realisation of new
venture creation. The role of universities in promoting entrepreneurship, image of
entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial curriculum and content as a moderator in the study
could be further assessed on their effects in the structural model (see Figure 6.1).
In making a more generalised, reliable and significant conclusion, a longitudinal study
employing larger samples from various programmes of study (social sciences, religious,
law, education and etc.) in other parts of the country is needed. At the same time a
comparison between public and private university students would be useful to examine
the rigorousness of the entrepreneurial inclination. This is because these students are
from a different educational system in the country.
Given that 65.9 per cent of the respondents stated their likeliness to start up a business
after graduation, it is desirable in any future research to further investigate the nature or
type of business they will be venturing into. It would also be useful to test a sample of
Australian university students, for example, to examine their inclination towards
entrepreneurship in comparison to their Malaysian counterparts.
177
Figure 6.1: Future research model
6.8 Final remarks
The importance of entrepreneurship is being recognised increasingly in generating a
resilient Malaysian economy as well as overcoming the graduate employment problem.
The results of this study provide more practical guidelines and directions for both
government and university policy makers for producing more entrepreneurially
oriented, creative and proactive university students able to launch business ventures
upon graduation. The introduction of entrepreneurship education is vital to develop and
nurture entrepreneurial values among university students. A systematic curriculum must
be designed to equip students with a range of relevant entrepreneurial knowledge and
skills to encourage higher interest in entrepreneurship.
In today’s highly dynamic employment market, Malaysian university students must
learn to be multi-skilled all-rounders in order to improve their marketability and
employability. On the other hand, university systems must understand the underlying
success factors for producing high quality entrepreneurial graduates. Alvin Toffler’s
IE
RM
URINT
ECC
EI
New venture creation
New variables such as infrastructure supports,
technological change and push and pull factors
PLA
178
quotation might offer good guidance to universities to play their role in developing the
nation’s human capital. He says: ‘The illiterate of the future are not those that cannot
read or write, they are those that cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn’ (Toffler, 1974). For
tens of thousands of university students and unemployed graduates in Malaysia and
even around the world, entrepreneurship education perhaps offers an absolute answer!
179
REFERENCES
Abramson, R, Rahman, S & Buckley, P 2005, 'Tricks and traps in structural equation modelling: A GEM Australia example using AMOS graphics', ABBSA Conference, Cairns, Queensland, Australia.
Ahmad Sarji, A H 1993, Malaysia's Vision 2020, Pelanduk Publications, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.
Alberti, F, Sciascia, S & Poli, A 2004, 'Entrepreneurship education: Note on an ongoing debate' 14th Annual IntEnt Conference, University of Napoli Federico, Italy.
Aldrich, H E & Cliff, J E 2003, 'The pervasive effects of family on entrepreneurship: Towards a family embeddedness perspective', Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 18, pp. 573-596.
American Sociological Association 2005, Careers in sociology, viewed 24 September 2005, http://www.asanet.org/page.ww?section=Careers+and+Jobs&name=Society+and+Social+Life.
Anderson, K 2002, 'Definition of entrepreneurship', DIGEST, vol. 02-09, 20/3/06, pp. 1-4.
Antonites, A J 2003, An action learning approach to entrepreneurial creativity, innovation and opportunity finding, DComm Business Management thesis, University of Pretoria, South Africa.
Ariff, M & Abubakar, S Y 2003, in 4th US-Japan Dialogue: Global Forum - Entrepreneurship in Asia, The Maureen and Mike Mansfield Foundation, International House of Japan, Tokyo.
Armstrong, J S & Overton, T A 1982, 'Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys', in Jain, A, Pinson, C and Ratchford, B (eds), Marketing research applications and problems, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.
Ashmore, C 2006, Entreprenerushp everywhere, viewed January 28 2006, http://www.entre-ed.org/_arc/intro.htm.
Asokkumar, M 2005, 'The centre for entrepreneurship', AEI News, vol. 3, no. 3., Universiti Malaya.
Autio, E, Keeley, R H, Klofsten, M & Ulfstedt, T 1997, 'Entrepreneurial intent among students: Testing an intent model in Asia , Scandinavia and USA', Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, vol. 17, pp. Babson College/Kauffman Entrepreneurship Research Conference, Centre for Entrepreneurial Studies, Babson College, Wellesley.
Baron, R A 2000, 'Psychological perspectives on entrepreneurship: Cognitive and social factors in entrepreneurs' success', Current Directions in Psychological Science, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 15-18.
Bates, T 1997, 'Financing small business creation: The case of Chinese and Korean immigrant entrepreneurs', Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 109-124.
Béchard, J P & Toulouse, J M 1998, 'Validation of a didactic model for the analysis of training objectives in entrepreneurship', Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 13, pp. 317-332.
Behling, O & Law, K S 2000, Translating questionnaires and other research instruments: Problems and solutions, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Bentler, P M & Yuan, K H 1999, 'Structural equation modelling with small samples: Test statistics', Multivariate Behavioural Research, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 181-192.
180
Binks, M 2005, Entrepreneurship education and integrative learning, viewed February
23 2006, http://www.ncge.org.uk/downloads/policy/Entrepreneurship_Education_and_Integrative_Learning.doc.
Binks, M, Starkey, K & Mahon, C L 2006, 'Entrepreneurship education and the business school', Technology Analysis and Strategic Managemenet, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 1-18.
Birdthistle, N, Hynes, B & Fleming, P 2007, 'Enterprise education programmes in secondary schools in Ireland: A multi-stakeholder perspective', Education + Training, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 265-276.
Blau, D M 1985, 'Self-employment and self-selection in developing country labour markets', Southern Economic Journal vol. 52, pp. 351-363.
Blenker, P, Dreisler, P & Kjeldsen, J 2006, Entrepreneurship education - the new challenge facing the universities: A framework or understanding and development of entrepreneurial university communities, viewed April 23 2006, www.hha.dk/man/cmsdocs/WP/2006/2006-02_ENG.pdf.
Bligh, D A 1998, What's the use of lectures?, Cromwell Press, Wiltshire. Boyle, T J 2007, 'A new model of entrepreneurship education: Implications for Central
and Eastern European universities', Industry & Higher Education, vol. 16, pp. 9-19.
Breen, J 1998, Encouraging an enterprising culture in Australia, viewed September 3 2006, www.sbaer.uca.edu/research/icsb/1998/pdf/130/pdf.
Breen, J P 2004, 'Enterprise, entrepreneurship and small business: Where are the boundaries?' International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, vol. 1, no. 1/2, pp. 21-34.
Brightman, D E 1989, 'How to build an internship programme', Public Relations Journal, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 29-30.
Brockhaus, R H 1991, 'Entrepreneurship education and research outside North America', Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 77-83.
Brockhaus, R H 2001, 'Foreword', in Brockhaus, R H, Hills, G.E., Klandt, H. & Welsch, H.P. (ed) Entrepreneurship education: A global view, Ashgate Publishing Limited, UK.
Brown, A & Dowling, P 1998, Doing research/Reading research: A mode of interrogation for education, The Falmer Press, London.
Brown, C 1999, 'Teaching new dogs new tricks: The rise of entrepreneurship education in graduate schools of business', DIGEST, vol. 99, no. 2, pp. 1-4.
Brown, C 2000, 'Curriculum for entrepreneurship education: A review', DIGEST, vol. September, pp. 1-8.
Browne, S & Harms, R 2004, Entrepreneurial learning (Not teaching) and informatics (Not computer support: Using appropriate learning styles and tools to support the entrepreneurial community, viewed September 12 2005, http://www.nciia.org/conf_04/proceedings/htmldocs/papers/browne.pdf.
Buang, N A 2002, Asas Keusahawanan, Penerbit Fajar Bakti Sdn. Bhd., Kuala Lumpur. Burns, R B 1997, Introduction to research methods, 3rd ed. edn., Addison Wesley
Longman Australia Pty Ltd, South Melbourne, Australia. Bygrave, W D Z, A. 2004, The portable MBA in entrepreneurship, John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., New Jersey.
181
Byrne, B M 2001, Structural equation modelling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and programming, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, New Jersey.
Callanan, G & Benzing, C 2004, 'Assessing the role of internship in the career-oriented employment of graduating college students', Education + Training, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 82-89.
Caputo, R K & Dolinsky, A 1998, 'Women's choice to pursue self-employment: The role of financial and human capital of household members', Journal of Small Business Management, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 8-17.
Carmines, E G & McIver, J P 1981, 'Analysing models with unobserved variables', in Bohrnstedt, G W and Borgatta, E F (eds), Social measurement: Current issues, SAGE, Beverly Hills.
Carolis, D M D & Saparito, P 2006, 'Social capital, cognition, and entrepreneurial opportunities: A theoretical framework', Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 41-56.
Carsrud, A L, Gaglio, C M & Kernochan, R 1993, 'Demographics in entrepreneurship research: Guidelines for the use of demographic data', in Katz, J A and Brockhaus, R H S (eds), Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence and growth, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
Carswell, P & Rolland, D 2007, 'Religion and entrepreneurship in New Zealand', Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 162-174.
Carton, R B, Hofer, C W & Meeks, M D 1998, The entrepreneur and entrepreneurship: Operational definitions of their role in society, viewed August 30 2006, www.sbaer.uca.edu/research/1998/ICSB/k004.htm.
Cavana, R Y, Delahaye, B L & Sekaran, U 2001, Apply business research: Qualitative and quantitative, John Wiley and Sons Australia, Milton, Queensland.
Chamard, J & Fitzgerald, P 1998, 'Propensity to entrepreneur among Australian high school students', in Research at the Marketing/Entrepreneurship interface, Institute for Entrepreneurial Studies, University of Illinois, Chicago, USA.
Chapman, K 2004, 'Read widely to land job', The Star, April 6. Charney, A H & Libecap, G D 2003, 'The contribution of entrepreneurship education:
An analysis of the Berger programme', International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 385-418.
Cheah, B K 1999, 'Politics: Malaysian political development from colonial rule to Mahathir', in Kaur, A and Metcalfe, I (eds), The shaping of Malaysia, Macmillan Press Ltd., London.
Cheng, M Y & Chan, C 2004, Entrepreneurship education in Malaysia, viewed February 24 2006, www.sbaer.uca.edu/research/icsb/2004/Papers%20pdf/113.pdf.
Chin, C W 2003, Budaya dan keusahawanan Cina di Malaysia, Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor.
Clayton, G 1989, Entrepreneurship education at the postsecondary level, viewed December 3 2005, www.celcee.edu/abstracts/c19981683.html.
Co, M J & Mitchell, B 2006, 'Entrepreneurship education in South Africa: A nationwide survey', Education + Training, vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 348-359.
182
Collins, L, Hannon, P D & Smith, A 2004, 'Enacting entrepreneurial intent: The gaps between student needs and higher education capability', Education + Training, vol. 46, no. 8/9, pp. 454-463.
Cone, J 2006, Teaching entrepreneurship in colleges and universities: How and why a new academic field is being built?, viewed May 4 2006, http://kauffman.org/resources.cfm?itemID=716.
Cooper, S, Bottomley, C & Gordon, J 2004, 'Stepping out of the classroom and up the ladder of learning: An experiential learning approach to entrepreneurship education', Industry & Higher Education, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 11-22.
Coulter, M K 2003, Entrepreneurship in action, 2nd edn., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J.
Cox, M 2006, The Rushmore Global Graduate degree and Professional Education, viewed November 23, 2006, http: www.rushmore.edu
Crant, J M 1996, 'The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions', Journal of Small Business Management, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 42-49.
Cuervo, A 2005, 'Individual and environmental determinants of entrepreneurship', International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal vol. 1, pp. 293-311.
Cunningham, J B & Lischeron, J 1991, 'Defining entrepreneurship', Journal of Small Business Management, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 45-61.
Dana, L P 2001, 'The education and training of entrepreneurs in Asia', Education + Training, vol. 43, no. 8/9, pp. 405-415.
Dane, F C 1990, Research methods, Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, California, USA.
Davidsson, P 2004, Researching entrepreneurship, Springer, Boston. Deakins, D & Freel, M 2003, Entrepreneurship and small firms, 3rd edn, McGraw-Hill
Education, UK. Deakins, D, Glancey, K, Menter, I & Wyper, J 2005, 'Enterprise education: The role of
Head Teachers', International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, vol. 1, pp. 241-263.
Department of Statistics Malaysia, www.statistics.gov.my/english/frameset_keystats, viewed January 18 2007.
Derville, L M T 1982, The use of psychology in teaching, Longman Group Limited, London.
Dillard, J M & Campbell, N J 1981, 'Influences of Puerto Pican, Black and Anglo parents' career behaviour on their adolescent children's career development', The Vocational Guidance Quarterly, vol. 2, pp. 139-149.
Dilts, J C & Fowler, S M 1999, 'Internships: Preparing students for an entrepreneurial career', Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 51-63.
Din, M S 1992, The development of entrepreneurship and enterprise in higher education in Malaysia, PhD thesis, University of Durham.
Djankov, S, Miguel, E, Qian, Y, Roland, G & Zhuravskaya, E 2004, Entrepreneurship: First results from Russia, viewed February 23 2006, www1.worldbank.org/finance/assets/images/EntrepreneurshipRussia.pdf.
Douglas, E J 2006, 'Entrepreneurship and management education: A case for change' 51st International Council for Small Business World Conference, Melbourne, Australia.
Drucker, P F 2004, Innovation and entrepreneurship: Practice and principles, Elsevier, Burlington, MA.
183
Du Toit, A 2000, 'Teaching infopreneurship: Students' perspectives', Aslib Proceedings, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 83-90.
Dunn, C 2004, Background of nascent entrepreneurs, viewed January 23 2006, www.sbaer.uca.edu/research/icsb/2004/Papers%20pdf/010.pdf.
Dyer, W G J 1994, 'Towards a theory of entrepreneurial careers', Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. Winter, pp. 7-21.
Edwards, L J & Muir, E J 2005, 'Promoting entrepreneurship at the University of Glamorgan through formal and informal learning', Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 613-626.
Edwards, L J & Muir, E J 2006a, Sign, sealed and delivered: Developing entrepreneurship teaching strategies, viewed May 5 2006, http://www.ncge.org.uk/communities/files/biblio612.pdf.
Falkang, J & Alberti, F 2000, 'The assessment of entrepreneurship education', Industry & Higher Education, vol. April, pp. 101-108.
Fayolle, A & Degeorge, J M 2006, 'Attitudes, intentions and behaviour: New approaches to evaluating entrepreneurship education', in Fayolle, A K, H. (ed) International Entrepreneurship Education: Issues and newness, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, UK.
Fayolle, A, Gailly, B & Lassas-Clerc, N 2006, 'Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education programmes: A new methodology', Journal of European Industrial Training, vol. 30, no. 9, pp. 701-720.
Fayolle, A G & Gailly, B 2005, Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour to assess entrepreneurship teaching programmes, Centre for Research in Change, Innovation and Strategy, pp. 1-18.
Felder, R M & Spurlin, J 2005, 'Applications, reliability and validity of the index of learning styles', International Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 103-112.
Field, A 2000, Discovering statistics: Using SPSS for Windows, SAGE Publications, London.
Fiet, J O 2000a, 'The theoretical side of teaching entrepreneurship', Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 16, pp. 1-24.
Filion, L J 1997, From entrepreneurship to entreprenology, viewed September 24 2005, www.usasbe.org/knowledge/proceedings/1997/P207Filion.PDF.
Fink, A 1995, The survey handbook, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Finkle, T A & Deeds, D 2001, 'Trends in the market for entrepreneurship faculty, 1989-
1998', Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 16, pp. 613-630. Finkle, T A, Kuratko, D F & Goldsby, M G 2006, 'An examination of entrepreneurship
centres in the United States: A national survey', Journal of Small Business Management, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 184-206.
Fisher, T A & Padmawidjaja, I 1999, 'Parental influences on career development perceived by African American and Mexican American college students', Journal of Multicultural Counselling and Development, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 136-152.
Fitzsimmons, J R & Douglas, E J 2005, 'Entrepreneurial attitudes and entrepreneurial intentions: A cross-cultural study of potential entrepreneurs in India, China, Thailand and Australia' Babson-Kauffman Entrepreneurial Research Conference, Wellesley, MA.
184
Fleming, P 1996, 'Entrepreneurship education in Ireland: A longitudinal study', Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 95-119.
Fleming, P 1999, 'Education for entrepreneurship in the curriculum at university level', Industry & Higher Education, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 405-408.
Fletcher, M 1999, 'Promoting entrepreneurship as a career option - the graduate enterprise programme', Journal of European Industrial Training, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 127-139.
Fong, C O 2005, The official opening Malaysia Career and Training Fair, viewed April 10 2006, www.mohr.gov.my/mygoveg/makluman/spm447.htm.
Formica, P 2002, 'Entrepreneurial universities: The value of education in encouraging entrepreneurship', Industry & Higher Education, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 167-175.
Franke, N & Luthje, C 2004, Entrepreneurship intentions of business students: A benchmarking study, viewed October 23 2003, www2.wu-wien.ac.at/entrep/modules/UpDownload/store_folder/Publikationen/Nikolaus_Franke/entrepreneurialspirit.pdf.
Frazier, B J & Niehm, L S 2006, Predicting the entrepreneurial intentions of non-business majors: A preliminary investigation, viewed January 25 2007, www.sbaer.uca.edu/research/sbi/2006/pdffiles/papers/cases/028.pdf.
Fregetto, E 2006, Do entrepreneurially-inclined students learn more from simulations?, viewed March 3 2007, www.sbaer.uca.edu/research/usasbe/2006/pdffiles/papers/cases/029.pdf.
Galloway, L & Brown, W 2002, 'Entrepreneurship education at university: A driver in the creation of high growth firms?' Education + Training, vol. 44, no. 8/9, pp. 398-405.
Garavan, T N & O'Cinneide, B 1994, 'Entrepreneurship education and training programmes: A review and evaluation - Part 1', Journal of European Industrial Training, vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 3-12.
Gasse, Y 1982, 'Commentary elaboration: Elaborations on the psychology of the entrepreneur', in Kent, C A, Sexton, D L and Vesper, K H (eds), Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA.
Gasse, Y & Tremblay, M 2006, 'Entrepreneurship education among students at a Canadian university: An extensive empirical study of students' entrepreneurial preferences and intentions', in Fayolle, A and Klandt, H (eds), International Entrepreneurship Education, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
Gault, J, Redington, J & Schlager, T 2000, 'Undergraduate business internships and career success: Are they related?' Journal of Marketing Education, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 45-53.
Ghazali, A, Ghosh, B C & Tay, R S T 1995, 'The determinants of self-employment choice among university graduates in Singapore', International Journal of Management, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 26-35.
Gibb, A 2002(a), 'Creating conducive environments for learning and entrepreneurship: Living with, dealing with, creating and enjoying uncertainty and complexity', Industry & Higher Education, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 135-148.
Gibb, A 2002(b), 'In pursuit of a new 'enterprise' and 'entrepreneurship' paradigm for learning: Creative deconstruction, new values, new ways of doing things and new combination of knowledge', International Journal of Management Review, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 213-231.
185
Gibb, A A 1996, 'Entrepreneurship and small business management: Can we afford to neglect them in the twenty-first century business school?' British Journal of Management, vol. 7, pp. 309-321.
Gnyawali, D R & Fogel, D S 1994, 'Environments for entrepreneurship development: Key dimensions and research implications', Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 43-62.
Gomes, A 1999, 'Peoples and cultures', in Kaur, A and Metcalfe, I (eds), The shaping of Malaysia, Macmillan Press Ltd., Hampshire, UK.
Gomez, E T & Jomo, K S 1999, Malaysia's political economy: Politics, patronage and profits, Second edn., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Gorman, G, Hanlon, D & King, W 1997, 'Some research perspectives on entrepreneurship education, enterprise education and education for small business management: A ten-year literature review', International Small Business Journal, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 56-77.
Graafland, J, Mazereeuw, C & Yahia, A 2006, 'Islam and socially responsible business conduct: An empirical study of Dutch entrepreneurs', Business Ethics, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 390-406.
Gravetter, F J & Forzano, L B 2003, Research methods: For the behavioural sciences, Thomson Learning, Belmont, CA, USA.
Gray, C 2003, 'Entrepreneurship, resistance to change and growth in small firms', Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 61-72.
Gray, D A 1987, The entrepreneur's complete self-assessment guide: How to determine your potential for success, Kogan Page, UK.
Gray, K R, Foster, H & Howard, M 2006, 'Motivations of Moroccans to be entrepreneurs', Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 297-318.
Grebel, T 2004, Entrepreneurship: A new perspective, Routledge, New York. Green, R, David, J, Dent, M & Tyshkovsky, A 1996, 'The Russian entrepreneur: A
study of psychological characteristics', International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 49-58.
Gurol, Y & Atsan, N 2006, 'Entrepreneurial characteristics amongst university students: Some insights for entrepreneurship education and training in Turkey', Education + Training, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 25-38.
Guzmán, J & Liñán, F 2005, Perspectives on entrepreneurial education: A US-Europe comparison, viewed December 18 2005, www.nebrija.com/jean_monnet/pdf/guzman-linian.pdf.
Hackney, R, McMaster, T & Harris, A 2003, 'Using cases as a teaching tool in IS education', Journal of Information Systems Education, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 229-234.
Hagan, E R 2004, Entrepreneurship education: A new frontier for American community colleges, viewed June 23 2006, www.celcee/org/ft/hagan_dissertation_final.pdf.
Hagen, E E 1960, 'The entrepreneur as rebel against traditional society', Human Organisation, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 185-187.
Hair, J F J, Anderson, R E, Tatham, R L & Black, W C 1998, Multivariate data analysis, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Hamidah, A 2007, 'English proficiency still low at local varsities', New Straits Times, p. 8.
186
Hannon, P D 2005, The journey from student to entrepreneur: A review of the existing
research into graduate entrepreneurship, National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship, UK, http://ncge.org.uk/downloads/policy/The_Journey_from_Student_to_Entrepreneur.pdf
Hannon, P D 2006, 'Teaching pigeons to dance: sense and meaning in entrepreneurship education', Education + Training, vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 296-308.
Hansemark, O C 1998, 'The effects of an entrepreneurship programme on Need for Achievement and Locus of Control of reinforcement', International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 28-50.
Harfst, K L 2005, 'The evolution and implications of entrepreneurship curriculum at universities', Online Journal for Workforce Education and Development, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 1-18.
Hartshorn, C 2002, 'Understanding notions of enterprise in the higher education sector: Managing different perceptions and realities', Industry & Higher Education, vol. June, pp. 149-158.
Hatten, T & Ruhland, S K 1995, 'Student attitude towards entrepreneurship as affected by participation in an SBI programme', Journal of Education for Business, vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 224-227.
Hee, A T & James, T 1994, 'Career choice of undergraduates and SMEs in Singapore', International Journal of Career Management, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 20-26.
Helmstater, G C 1964, Principles of psychological measurement, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York.
Henderson, R & Robertson, M 1999, 'Who wants to be an entrepreneur? Young attitudes to entrepreneurship as a career', Education + Training, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 236-245.
Henderson, R & Robertson, M 2000, 'Who wants to be an entrepreneur? Young attitudes to entrepreneurship as a career', Education + Training, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 236-245.
Heng, P K 1997, 'The New Economic Policy and the Chinese community in Peninsular Malaysia', The Developing Economies, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 262-292.
Henry, B 2003, 'Entrepreneurship education in Kenya: A reality or plodding on?' The First International Entrepreneurship Conference, 23-24 April Kenya,
Henry, C, Hill, F & Leitch, C 2003, Entrepreneurship education and training, Ashgate Publishing Limited, Hants, UK.
Henry, C, Hill, F & Leitch, C 2005, 'Entrepreneurship education and training: Can entrepreneurship be taught? Part II', Education + Training, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 158-169.
Hiltebeitel, K M, Leauby, B A & Larkin, J M 2000, 'Job satisfaction among entry-level accountants', The CPA Journal, vol. 70, no. 5, pp. 76-78.
Hinton, P R, Brownlow, C, McMurray, I & Cozens, B 2004, SPSS explained, Routledge, East Sussex, UK.
Hisrich, R D, Peters, M P & Shepherd, D A 2005, Entrepreneurship, 6th edn., McGraw-Hill Irwin, NY, USA.
Hoe, C H 2006, 'A Prototype to encourage university graduates to become franchisees', The Second National Conference on Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Penang, Malaysia.
187
Holmgren, C & From, J 2005, 'Taylorism of the mind: Entrepreneurship education from a perspective of educational research', European Educational Research Journal, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 382-390.
Hornsby, J S & Johnson, M 1991, 'Developing internships at a university: An intrapreneurial model', Journal of Education for Business, vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 155-160.
Huitt, W 1999, Success in the information age: A paradigm shift viewed March 2 2006, http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/context/infoage.html.
Hulland, J, Chow, Y H & Lam, S 1996, 'Use of causal models in marketing research: A review', International Journal of Research in Marketing, vol. 13, pp. 181-197.
Hynes, B 1996, 'Entrepreneurship education and training - introducing entrepreneurship into non-business disciplines', Journal of European Industrial Training, vol. 20, no. 8, pp. 10-17.
Hytti, U & O'Gorman, C 2004, 'What is 'enterprise education?' An analysis of the objectives and methods of enterprise education programmes in four European countries', Education + Training, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 11-23.
Ibrahim, A B & Ellis, W H 1993, Entrepreneurship and small business management: Text, readings and cases, Second edn., Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa.
Ibrahim, A B & Soufani, K 2002, 'Entrepreneurship education and training in Canada: A critical assessment', Education + Training, vol. 44, no. 8/9, pp. 421-430.
Jesudason, J V 1990, Ethnicity and the economy: The state, Chinese business and multinationals in Malaysia Oxford University Press Pte Ltd., Oxford, UK.
Johannisson, B 1991, 'University training for entrepreneurship: A Swedish approach', Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 67-82.
Johnson, B R 1990, 'Toward a multidimensional model of entrepreneurship: The case of achievement motivation and the entrepreneur', Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. Spring, pp. 39-54.
Jomo, K S 1991, 'Whither Malaysia's New Economic Policy', Pacific Affairs, vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 469-499.
Jomo, K S 2004, 'The New Economic Policy and interethnic relations in Malaysia' UNRISD Conference, Durban, South Africa, United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.
Kanyi, E 1999, Entrepreneurship development in Kenyan technical education: Exploring the 'state of the art', PhD thesis, Department of Secondary Education, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Kao, W Y 1995, 'Why entrepreneurship could be taught and should be taught including an introduction to a model for entrepreneurship education', Journal of Small Business and Enterpreneurship, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 97-99.
Karanassios, N, Pazarskis, M, Mitsopoulos, K & Christodoulou, P 2006, 'EU strategies to encourage youth entrepreneurship: Evidence from higher education in Greece', Industry & Higher Education, vol. February, pp. 43-50.
Katz, J A 2003, 'The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education', Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 282-300.
188
Kaur, A 1999, 'Economy and Society: The formation of a national economy The shaping of Malaysia', in Kaur, A and Metcalfe, I (eds), The shaping of
Malaysia, Macmillan Press Ltd, London. Kelmar, J H 1996, 'Developing business plans - A key strategic tool for small
businesses', International Conference on Small and Medium Scale Enterprises, Langkawi, Malaysia.
Kendrick, J 1998, On the role of entrepreneurship in society, viewed September 19 2006, www.sbaer.uca.edu/research/1998/ICSB/I002.htm.
Kennedy, J, Drennan, J, Renfrow, P & Watson, B 2003, 'Situational factors and entrepreneurial intentions' 16th Annual Conference of Small Enterprise Association of Australia and New Zealand, University of Ballarat, Melbourne.
Keogh, W G, L. 2004, 'Teaching enterprise in vocational disciplines: Reflecting on positive experience', Management Decision, vol. 42, no. 3/4, pp. 531-541.
Kirkwood, J 2007, 'Igniting the entrepreneurial spirit: Is the role parents play gendered?' International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 39-59.
Klapper, R 2004, 'Government goals and entrepreneurship education - An investigation at a Grande Ecole in France', Education + Training, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 127-137.
Klofsten, M 2000, 'Training entrepreneurship at universities: A Swedish case', Journal of European Industrial Training, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 337-344.
Knemeyer, A M & Murphy, P R 2002, 'Logistics internships: Employer and student perspectives', International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 135-152.
Koh, H C 1995, 'Factors associated with entrepreneurial inclination: An empirical study of business undergraduates in Hong Kong', Journal of Small Business and Enterpreneurship, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 29-41.
Koh, H C 1996, 'Testing hypotheses of entrepreneurial characteristics: A study of Hong Kong MBA students', Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 12-25.
Kolvereid, L 1996, 'Organisational employment versus self-employment: Reasons for career choice intentions', Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 23-31.
Kolvereid, L & Moen, O 1997, 'Entrepreneurship among business graduates: does a major in entrepreneurship make a different?' Journal of European Industrial Training, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 154-160.
Kong, H F 1996, Inclination among secondary school teachers of Kuala Muda Yan, Master's thesis, School of Management, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Sintok, Malaysia.
Kotey, B & Meredith, G G 1997, 'Relationships among owner/manager personal values, business strategies, and enterprise performance', Journal of Small Business Management, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 37-45.
Kourilsky, M L 1995, Entrepreneurship education: Opportunity in search of curriculum, viewed February 22 2005, www.entreworld.org/Bookstore/PDFs/RE-008.pdf.
Kourilsky, M L & Walstad, W B 1998, 'Entrepreneurship and female youth: Knowledge, attitudes, gender differences and educational practices', Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 13, pp. 77-88.
189
Kozan, M K, Oksoy, D & Ozsoy, O 2006, 'Growth plans of small businesses in Turkey: Individual and environmental', Journal of Small Business Management, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 114-130.
Kristiansen, S & Indarti, N 2004, 'Entrepreneurial intention among Indonesian and Norwegian students', Journal of Enterprising Culture, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 55-78.
Krueger, N F, Reilly, M D & Carsrud, A L 2000, 'Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions', Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 15, no. 411-432.
Kruger, M E 2004, Creativity in the entrepreneurship domain, PhD thesis, Department of Business Management, University of Pretoria.
Kuratko, D F 2005, 'The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends, and challenges', Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. September, pp. 577-597.
Kuratko, D F 2006, 'A tribute to 50 years of excellence in entrepreneurship and small business', Journal of Small Business Management, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 483-492.
Kuratko, D F & Hodgetts, R M 2007, Entrepreneurship: Theory, Process and Practice, 7th edn., Thomson Learning, Ohio, US.
Landstrom, H 2005, Pioneers in Entrepreneurship and Small Business Research, Springer Science+Business Media, Inc., New York.
Laukkanen, M 2000, 'Exploring alternative approaches in high-level entrepreneurship education: Creating micro-mechanisms for endogenous regional growth', Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, vol. 12, pp. 25-47.
Le, A T 1999, 'Empirical studies of self-employment', Journal of Economic Surveys, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 381-416.
Le Roux, I 2003, Economic and management science learning area of curriculum 2005 and entrepreneurial orientation, MPhil thesis, Department of Business Management, University of Pretoria, Pretoria.
Lee, K Y 2007, 'Contest for influence in Asia-Pacific,' Forbes Asia, vol. June, p. 12. Lee, S M, Chang, D & Lim, S B 2005, 'Impact of entrepreneurship education: A
comparative study of the U.S. and Korea', International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, vol. 1, pp. 27-43.
Lee, S M, Lim, S, Pathak, R D, Chang, D & Li, W 2006, 'Influences on students attitudes towards entrepreneurship: A multi-country study', The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 351-366.
Leitch, C M & Harrison, R T 1999, 'A process model for entrepreneurship education and development', International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 83-109.
Lena, L & Wong, P K 2003, 'Attitude towards entrepreneurship education and new venture creation', Journal of Enterprising Culture, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 339-357.
Lena, L & Wong, P K 2006, 'Entrepreneurship education - A compendium of related issues', in Parker, S C (ed) The life cycle of entrepreneurial ventures, Springer, USA.
Levie, J 1999a, Entrepreneurship education in higher education in England: A survey, viewed July 7 2005, http://www.entrepreneur.strath.ac.uk/research/surv.pdf.
Levie, J 1999b, Entrepreneurship education in higher education in England: A survey, the Department for Employment and Education, UK.
Lewis, K 1990, 'Data collection and analysis in Malaysia and Sri Lanka', in Vulliamy, G, Lewin, K. & Stephens, D. (ed) Doing educational research in developing countries: Qualitative strategies, The Falmer Press, Bristol, UK.
190
Lewis, K 2005, 'The best of intentions: Future plans of Young Enterprise Scheme participants', Education + Training, vol. 47, no. 7, pp. 470-483.
Li, J & Matlay, H 2005, 'Graduate employment and small businesses in China', Industry & Higher Education, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 45-54.
Li, W 2006, Entrepreneurial intention among international students: Testing a model of entrepreneurial intention, viewed February 8 2006, www.sbaer.uca.edu/research/sbi/2006/pdffiles/papers/cases/056.pdf.
Lin, Z, Picot, G & Compton, J 2000, 'The entry and exit dynamics of self-employment in Canada', Small Business Economics, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 105-117.
Littunen, H 2000, 'Entrepreneurship and the characteristics of the entrepreneurial personality', International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 295-309.
Low, L 2005, 'Entrepreneurship development in Ireland and Singapore', Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 116-138.
Low, M B & MacMillian, I C 1988, 'Entrepreneurship: Past research and future challenges', Journal of Management, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 139-161.
Lumpkin, G T & Dess, G G 1996, 'Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation obstruct and linking it to performance', Academy of Management Review, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 1-37.
Luthje, C & Franke, N 2003, 'The 'making' of an entrepreneur: Testing a model of entrepreneurial intent among engineering students at MIT', R&D Management, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 135-147.
Luthje, C & Prugl, R 2006, 'Preparing business students for co-operation in multi-disciplinary new venture teams: Empirical insights from a business-planning course', Technovation, vol. 26, pp. 211-219.
Mahlberg, T 1996, 'Evaluating secondary school and college level entrepreneurial education - pilot testing questionnaire' The Internationalising Entrepreneurship Education and Training Conference, Arnhem/University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands, June 23-26.
Malaysia 1991, Sixth Malaysia Plan, Percetakan Nasional Berhad, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Malaysia 1992, Dasar-dasar Pembangunan Malaysia, Institut Tadbiran Awam Negara (INTAN), Kuala Lumpur.
Malaysia 1996, Seventh Malaysia Plan, Percetakan Nasional Negara, Kuala Lumpur Malaysia 2001b, Eight Malaysia Plan, Percetakan Nasional Berhad, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia. Malaysia 2001c, The Third Outline Perspective Plan 2001-2010, Percetakan Nasional
Negara, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Malaysia 2004, Malaysia: Facts and Pictures 2004, First edn, Department of
Information Services Malaysia. Malaysia 2006a, Malaysia: Enhancing jobs strategy, viewed January 4 2006,
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/34/7/37865470.pdf. Malaysia 2006b, Ninth Malaysia Plan 2006-2010, The Economic Planning Unit, Prime
Minister's Department, Kuala Lumpur. Maranville, S 1992, 'Entrepreneurship in the business curriculum', Journal of Education
for Business, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 1-8.
191
Martin, E 1997, The effectiveness of different models of work-based university education, The Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Australia, www.dest.gov.au/archive/highered/eippubs/eip9619/appendix/htm
Matlay, H 2005a, 'Researching entrepreneurship and education: Part 1: What is entrepreneurship and does it matter?' Education + Training, vol. 47, no. 8/9, pp. 665-677.
Matlay, H 2005b, 'Entrepreneurship education in UK business schools: conceptual, contextual and policy considerations', Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 627-643.
Matlay, H & Carey, C 2007, 'Entrepreneurship education in the UK: A longitudinal perspective', Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 252-263.
Matlay, H & Westhead, P 2005, 'Virtual teams and the rise of e-entrepreneurship in Europe', International Small Business Journal, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 279-302.
Mazzarol, T, Volery, T, Doss, N & Thein, V 1999, 'Factors influencing small business start-ups: A comparison with previous research', International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 48-61.
McClelland, D C 1961, The achieving society, Princeton: Van Nostrand New Jersey, USA.
McDonald, J & Postle, G 1999, Teaching online: Challenge to a reinterpretation of traditional instructional models, viewed December 11 2005, http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw99/papers/mcdonald/paper.htm.
McHugh, M & O'Gorman, B 2006, in EFMD 36th Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Small Business (EISB) Conference, Southampton Solent University, UK.
McIntyre, R M & Roche, M 1999, University education for entrepreneurs in the United States: A critical and retrospective analysis of trends in the 1990s, viewed January 15 2006, www.ciber.gatech.edu/workingpaper/1999/99_00-21.pdf.
McLarty, R 2005, 'Entrepreneurship among graduates: Towards a measured response ', Journal of Management Development, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 223-238.
Mcmillan, J H & Schumacher, S 2001, Research in education: A conceptual introduction, Fifth edn., Addison Wesley Longman, Inc., New York, USA.
McMullan, W E & Gillin, L M 1998, 'Entrepreneurship education: Developing technological start-up entrepreneurs: A case study of a graduate entrepreneurship programme at Swinburne University', Technovation, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 275-286.
Mentoor, E R & Friedrich, C 2007, 'Is entrepreneurial education at South African universities successful? An empirical example', Industry & Higher Education, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 221-232.
Menzies, T V 2003, '21st century pragmatism: Universities and entrepreneurship education and development' The 48th World Conference of the International Council for Small Business, Advancing Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Belfast, UK., 1-14.
Menzies, T V & Paradi, J C 2003, 'Entrepreneurship education and engineering students: Caree path and business performance', Entrepreneurship and Innovation, vol. May, pp. 121-132.
192
Menzies, T V & Tatroff, H 2006, 'The propensity of male vs. female students to take courses and degree concentrations in entrepreneurship', Journal of Small Business and Enterpreneurship, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 203-218.
Mgaya, K V & Megembe, B 2003, 'Entrepreneurship education in Kenya: A reality or plodding on?' The First International Entrepreneurship Conference, The United States International University, Nairobi, Kenya.
Mihail, D M 2006, 'Internship at Greek universities: An exploratory study', Journal of Workplace Learning, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 28-41.
Ministry of Higher Education, http://www.mohe.gov.my/statistik_v4/stat2.php, viewed April 23 2006.
Mohamad, M 1993, 'Malaysia: The Way Forward', in Ahmad Sarji, A H (ed) Malaysia's Vision 2020: Understanding the concept, implications and challenges, Pelanduk, Petaling Jaya.
Mohd Shariff, A, Abdul Mutalib, M I & Ahmad Fadzil, M H 2000, student industrial internship programme at Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Malaysia, viewed January 23 2006, www.ineer.org/Events/ICEE2000/Proceedings/papers/WC7-4.pdf.
Mok, K H 2005, 'Fostering entrepreneurship: Changing role of government and higher education governance in Hong Kong', Research Policy, vol. 34, pp. 537-554.
Morris, M H, Schindehutte, M & LaForge, R W 2004, 'The emergence of entrepreneurial marketing: Nature and meaning', in Harold, P W (ed) Entrepreneurship: A way ahead, Routledge, New York.
Moser, S 2005, The impact of internships on entrepreneurial aspirations, viewed December 18 2006, www.midwestacademy.org/Proceedings/2005/papers/Moser.doc.
Moy, J W H, Luk, W M & Wright, P C 2003, 'Perceptions of entrepreneurship as a career: Views of young people in Hong Kong', Equal Opportunities International, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 16-40.
Mukhtar, S M, Oakey, R & Kippling, M 1999, 'Utilisation of science and technology graduates by the small and medium-sized enterprise sector', International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 126-143.
Muszafarshah, M M & Woon, M V 2004, From academic knowledge to holistic wisdom: Four transformations for institutional reform in higher education, viewed August 20 2005, http://herdsa2004.curtin.edu.my/Contributions/NRPapers/A066-jt.pdf.
Nabi, G R 2003, 'Graduate employment and underemployment: Opportunity for skill use and career experiences amongst recent graduates', Education + Training, vol. 45, no. 7, pp. 371-382.
Naffziger, D W, Hornsby, J S & Kuratko, D F 1994, 'A proposed research model of entrepreneurial motivation', Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 29-42.
Nanda, R & Sorensen, J B 2006, Peer effects and entrepreneurship, viewed May 31 2005, www.doku.iab.de/veranstaltungen/2006/CAFE_2006_A3_Soerensen.pdf.
Neill, N T & Mulholland, G E 2003, 'Student placement - structure, skills and e-support', Education + Training, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 89-99.
Neol, T W 2001, Effects on entrepreneurial education on intent to open a business, viewed May 5 2005, www.babson.edu/entrep/fer.
193
Niyonkuru, R 2005, Entrepreneurship education at tertiary institutions in Rwanda: A situation analysis, Mater's thesis, Department of Management, Faculty of Economics and Management Sciences, University of Western Cape, South Africa.
Nunnally, J C & Bernstein, I H 1994, Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, USA.
Nurmi, P & Paasio, K 2007, 'Entrepreneurship in Finnish universities', Education + Training, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 56-65.
O'Neill, R C 1995, Entrepreneurship as a subject at university: The South African experience, viewed April, 3 2005, www.sbaer.uca.edu/research/icsb/1995/pdf/15.pdf.
OECD 2001, The new economy: Beyond the hype, Paris, France. Viewed OECD 2005, OECD SME and entrepreneurship outlook, OECD Publishing, Paris,
France. Omar, H 1996, Community perceptions on tourism impacts: A case of university
students in Malaysia, Master's thesis, University of Strathclyde, Galsgow, UK. Onstenk, J 2003, 'Entrepreneurship and vocational education', European Educational
Research Journal, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 74-89. Ooi, Y K & Ali, H 2005, 'How inclined are lecturers to teach entrepreneurship at
university?' International Journal of Management and Entrepreneurship, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 41-48.
Oppenheim, A N 2000a, Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement, Continuum, New York, USA.
Oppenheim, A N 2000b, Questionnaure design, interviewing and attitude measurement, Continuum, New York, USA.
Othman, M N, Ghazali, E & Cheng, O C 2005, 'Demographics and personal characteristics of urban Malaysian entrepreneurs: An ethnic comparison', International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, vol. 5, no. 5/6, pp. 421-440.
Othman, M N, Ghazali, E & Sung, Y S 2006, 'Graduate versus non-graduate entrepreneurs in urban Malaysia: Some insights into entrepreneurial personality, company and family background differences', Journal of International Business and Entrepreneurship Development, vol. 3, no. 1/2, pp. 57-75.
Outcalt, C 2000, 'The notion of entrepreneurship: Historical and emerging issues', DIGEST, vol. September 004.
Pallant, J 2007, SPSS survival manual, 3rd edn., Allen & Unwin, New South Wales, Australia.
Pearce, S C 2005, Vol. 4 (ed Centre, I P) The American Immigration Law Foundation, pp. 1-17.
Peterman, N E & Kennedy, J 2003, 'Enterprise education: influencing students'perceptions of entrepreneurship', Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 129-144.
Phan, P H, Wong, P K & Wang, C K 2002, 'Antecedents to entrepreneurship among university students in Singapore: Beliefs, attitudes and background', Journal of Enterprising Culture, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 151-174.
Pianko, D 1996, 'Power internships', Management Review, vol. 85, no. 12, pp. 31-33.
194
Plaschka, G R & Welsch, H P 1990, 'Emerging structures in entrepreneurship education: Curricular designs and strategies', Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 55-71.
Posner, G J 1995, Analysing the curriculum, McGraw-Hill, New York. Postigo, S, Iacobucci, D & Tamborini, F 2006, 'Undergraduates students as a source of
potential entrepreneurs: A comparative study between Italy and Argentina', in Fayolle, A and Klandt, H (eds), International entrepreneurship education: Issues and newness, Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc., Cheltenham, UK.
Postigo, S & Tamborini, F 2002, 'Entrepreneurship education in Argentina: The case of San Andres University' International Entrepreneurship Education and Training Conference, IntEnt02, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Rae, D M 1997, 'Teaching entrepreneurship in Asia: Impact of a pedagogical innovation', Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Change, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 193-227.
Ragayah, M Z & Smith, W 2005, 'Malaysia: Unemployment in the midst of full employment', in Benson, J and Zhu, Y (eds), Unemployment in Asia Routledge, New York.
Rahim, A 1996, 'Stress, strain, and their moderators: An empirical comparision of entrepreneurs and managers', Journal of Small Business Management, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 46-58.
Raichaudhuri, A 2005, 'Issues in entrepreneurship education', Decision, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 73-84.
Raijman, R 2001, 'Determinants of entrepreneurial intentions: Mexican immogrants in Chicago', Journal of Socio-Economics, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 393-411.
Rajkonwar, A B 2006, 'Need for entrepreneurship education in changing scenario,' Science Tech Entrepreneur, vol. April, pp. 1-8.
Ramayah, T & Harun, Z 2005, 'Entrepreneurial intention among Universiti Sains Malaysia students', International Journal of Management and Entrepreneurship, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 8-20.
Ramlee, M & Abu, A 2004, 'Malaysia transitions toward a knowledge-based economy', The Journal of Technolgy Studies, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 51-61.
Raykov, T & Marcoulides, G A 2000, A first course in structure equation modelling, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Raymond, M A & McNabb, D E 1993, 'Preparing graduates for the workforce: The role of business education', Journal of Education for Business, vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 202-206.
Reitan, B 1997, Where do we learn that entrepreneurship is feasible, desirable and/or profitable? - A look at the process leading to entrepreneurial potential, viewed May 30 2006, www.usasbe.org/knowledge/proceedings/1997/P009Reitan.PDF.
Reynolds, P D, Hay, M & Camp, S M 1999, Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, Babson College, Kauffman Centre for Entrepreneurial Leadership & LBS, USA.
Robinson, P & Haynes, M 1991, 'Entrepreneurship education in America's major universities', Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. Spring, pp. 41-52.
Robinson, P, Stimpson, D V, Huefner, J C & Hunt, H K 1991, 'An attitude approach to the prediction of entrepreneurship', Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 15, pp. 13-31.
Robinson, P B & Hunt, H K 1992, 'Entrepreneurship and birth order: Fact or folklore', Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 287-298.
195
Roscoe, J T 1975, Fundamental research statistics for the behavioural sciences, 2nd ed, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, NY.
Rosli, M & Idris, M A M 2003, in The First International Entrepreneurship Conference, Nairobi, Kenya.
Saboe, L R, Kantor, J & Walsh, J 2002, 'Cultivating entrepreneurship', Educational Leadership, vol. 59, no. 7, pp. 1-4.
Salkind, N J 2006, Exploring Research, 6th ed edn., Pearson Education Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Sanders, J M & Nee, V 1996, 'Immigrant self-employment: The family as social capital and the value of human capital', American Sociological Review, vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 231-249.
Saunders, M, Lewis, P & Thornhill, A 2007, Research methods for business students, 4th edn., Prentice Hall, Essex, England.
Scarborough, N M & Zimmerer, T W 2003, Effective small business management: An entrepreneurial approach, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Schaper, M & Volery, T 2004, Entrepreneurship and small business: A Pacific Rim perspective, John Wiley and Sons Australia Ltd, Milton, Queensland.
Schieb-Bienfait, N 2004, 'A real world prject driven approach, a pilot experience in a graduate enterprise programme: Ten years on', International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, vol. 1, no. 1/2, pp. 176-191.
Schindehutte, M, Morris, M & Brennan, C 2003, 'Entrepreneurs and motherhood: Impacts on their children in South Africa and the United States', Journal of Small Business Management, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 94-107.
Schumacker, R E & Lomax, R G 1996, A beginner's guide to structural equation modelling, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, New Jersey.
Scott, R H & Fisher, D L 2001, 'The impact of teachers' interpersonal behaviour on examination results' The Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Perth, Australia.
Seet, P S & Seet, L C 2006, 'Making Singapore university graduates more entrepreneurial: Has entrepreneurship education helped?' 51st ICSB World Conference Melbourne, Australia.
Sekaran, U 2003, Research methods for business: A skill building approach, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, USA.
Selvarajah, C 2006, 'Cross-cultural study of Asian and European student perception: The need to understand the changing educational environment in New Zealand', Cross Cultural Management Journal, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 142-155.
Sergeant, J & Crawford, J 2001, National Youth Entrepreneurship Attitude Survey, Department of Industry, Science and Resources Emerging Industries Section, Canberra.
Sethi, J 2006, Entrepreneur and entrepreneurship, viewed July 8 2006, www.du.ac.in/coursematerial/ba/esb/Lesson_1.pdf.
Sexton, D L & Bowers-Brown, T 1988, 'Validation of an innovative teaching approach for entrepreneurship courses', American Journal of Small Business, vol. Winter, pp. 11-21.
Shane, S, Locke, E A & Collins, C J 2003, 'Entrepreneurial motivation', Human Resource Management Review, vol. 13, pp. 257-279.
Shaver, K G S, L.R. 1991, 'Person, process, choice: The psychology of new venture creation', Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 23-45.
196
Shepherd, D A & Douglas, E 1997, Is management education developing or killing the entrepreneurial spirit?, viewed December 3 2005, www.usasbe.org/knowledge/proceedings/1997/p164Shepherd.pdf.
Shukor, O 2003, The Malay lost world: With emphasis on entrepreneurship, Anzagain Sdn. Bhd., Shah Alam, Malaysia.
Smith, D T 2005, 'Developing self-employment among African Americans: The impact of household social resources on African American entrepreneurship', Economic Development Quarterly, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 346-355.
Solomon, G 2007, 'An examination of entrepreneurship education in the United States', Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 168-182.
Solomon, G T, Weaver, K M & Fernald, L W 2005, 'Pedagogical methods of teaching entrepreneurship: An historical perspective', in Horst, R V D, King-Kauanui, S. & Duffy, S. (ed) Keystones of entrepreneurship knowledge, Blackwell Publishing Inc., Malden, MA.
Souitaris, V, Zerbinati, S & Al-Laham, A 2007, 'Doe entrepreneurship programmes raise entrepreneurial intention of science and engineering students? The effect of learning, inspiration and resources', Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 22, pp. 566-591.
Super, D E, 1990, 'A life-span, life space approach to career development', in Brown, D (eds), Career choice and development, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, USA.
Staff 2005b, '60,000 Malaysian graduates unemployed', New Straits Times, November 10.
Staff 2005c, Malaysia SME Bank to start operation, viewed March 3 2006, http://englsih.sina.com/business/1/2005/0914/45961.html.
Staff 2006a, 'Keusahawanan jadi kurikulum sekolah, IPT', Berita Harian, January 5. Staff 2006b, '1.1 million new jobs', The Star, March 31. Staff 2006c, 'KUTPM didik jadi usahawan ', Berita Harian, April 7. Staff 2007a, 'Kemahiran usahawan jadi subjek wajib IPTA', Berita Harian, June 9. Staff 2007b, 'Modul keusahawanan wajib di semua universiti', Utusan Malaysia, March
27. Sujata, V P 2006, 'Hire the grads, PSD told', The Star, July 12. Tervo, H & Niittykangus, H 1994, 'The impact of unemployment on new firm formation
in Finland', International Small Business Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 38-53. Tesfom, G 2006, 'The role of social networks on the entrepreneurial drive of first
generation East African origin entrepreneurs in the Seattle area', Journal of Asia Entrepreneurship and Sustainability, vol. 2, no. 4.
Thandi, H & Sharma, R 2004, 'MBA students' prepareness for entrepreneurial efforts', Tertiary Education and Management, vol. 10, pp. 209-226.
Thomas, A S & Muller, S L, 1998, "Are entrepreneurs the same across culture?", viewed December 11 2006,
www.usasbe.org/knowledge/proceedings/1998/22-Thomas.PDF Thompson, J L 1999, 'The world of the entrepreneur: A new perspective', Journal of
Workplace Learning, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 209-222. Tkachev, A & Kolvereid, L 1999, 'Self-employment intentions among Russian
students', Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, vol. 11, pp. 269-280. Toffler, A 1974, www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/alvin_toffler.html, viewed
July 8, 2007.
197
Toncar, M F & Cudmore, B V 2000, 'The overseas internship experience', Journal of Marketing Education, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 54-63.
UNDP 2005, Malaysia achieving the millennium development goals: Success and challenges, Kuala Lumpur.
Van Auken, H, Stephens, P, Fry, F & Silva, J 2006, 'Role model influences on entrepreneurial intentions: A comparison between USA and Mexico', The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 325-336.
van Praag, C M 1999, 'Some classic views on entrepreneurship', De Economist, vol. 147, no. 3, 20/3/06, pp. 311-325.
Veal, A J 2005, Business research methods: A managerial approach, Pearson Education Australia Pty Ltd, New South Wales, Australia.
Veciana, J M, Aponte, M & Urbano, D 2005, 'University students' attitudes towards entrepreneurship: A Two countries comparison', International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, vol. 1, pp. 165-182.
Venkatachalam, V B & Waqif, A A 2005, 'Outlook on integrating entrepreneurship in management education in India', Decision, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 57-71.
Venkataraman, S 2004, 'Regional transformation through technological entrepreneurship', Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 19, pp. 153-167.
Verheul, I, Wennekers, S., Audretsch, D. & Thurik, R. 2001, An eclectic theory of entrepreneurship, viewed February 2 2006, www.tinbergen.nl/discussionpapers/01030.pdf.
Vesper, K H 1980, New venture strategies, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Vesper, K H 1994, 'Unfinished Business (Entrepreneurship) of the 20th century'
USASBE, San Diego, California, USA. Vesper, K H 2004, 'Unfinished Business (Entrepreneurship) of the twentieth century', in
Welsch, H P (ed) Entrepreneurship: The way ahead, Routledge, New York. Vesper, K H & Gartner, W B 1997, 'Measuring progress in entrepreneurship education',
Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 12, pp. 403-421. Volery, T 2004, 'Entrepreneurship and enterprise education in Europe: What must be
learnt and what can be taught?' EntreNews, pp. 1-4. Volery, T & Mueller, S 2006, 'A conceptual framework for testing the effectiveness of
entrepreneurship education programmes towards entrepreneurial intention' 51st ICSB World Conference Melbourne, Australia.
Volkmann, C 2004, 'Entrepreneurial studies in higher education', Higher Education in Europe, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 177-185.
Wan Jamaliah, W J & Yaacob, A 2004, 'Determinants of entrepreneurial intention among Universiti Tenaga Nasional students' International Business Management Conference, Selangor, Malaysia.
Wang, C K & Wong, P K 2004, 'Entrepreneurial interest of university students in Singapore', Technovation, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 163-172.
Watson, C H 2001, 'Small business versus entrepreneurship revisited', in Brockhaus, R H, Hills, G.E., Klandt, H. & Welsch, H.P. (ed) Entrepreneurship education: A global view, Ashgate Publishing Limited, UK.
Watson, K, Hogarth-Scott, S & Wilson, N 1998, 'Small business starts-up: Success factors and support implications', International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, vol. 4, no. 217-238.
198
Weaver, K M, Turner, R A J, McKaskill, T & Solomon, G 2002, 'Benchmarking entrepreneurship education programmes' 47th World Conference International Council for Small Business San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Welsch, H P & Maltarich, M A 2004, 'Emerging patterns of entrepreneurship: Distinguishing attributes of an evolving disciplines', in Harold, P W (ed) Entrepreneurship: A way ahead, Routledge, New York.
Wennekers, S & Thurik, R 1999, 'Linking entrepreneurship and economic growth', Small Business Economics, vol. 13, pp. 27-55.
Wickham, P A 2004, Strategic entrepreneurship, 2nd edn., Pearson Education Limited, Essex, England.
Wilson, K M, Llewellyn, D J & Robertson, M R 2003, 'Embedding entrepreneurial studies across the HE curriculum: Embracing independent learning, employability and transferable skills', 8th European Learning Styles Information Network Annual Conference.
Wiseman, D C 1999, Research strategies for education, Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, CA.
Wong, P K & Lena, L 2005, Antecedents for entrepreneurial propensity in Singapore, viewed April 5 2006, http://unpanl.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN023984.pdf.
Wouter, D 2004, Entrepreneurial intentions among FDEWB students, Master's thesis, University of Maastricht, Maastricht, pp. 76.
Young, J E 1997, 'Entrepreneurship education and learning for university students and practising entrepreneurs', in Sexton, D L S, R.W. (ed) Entrepreneurship 2000, Upstart Publishing Company, Chicago, Il.
Zainal, A, Grigga, F T & Planisek, S L 1995, 'Who are the next entrepreneurs?' Malaysian Management Journal, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 31-40.
Zikmund, W G 2003, Business research methods, Thomson Learning, Ohio, USA.
199
APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNAIRE (ENGLISH)
200
APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNAIRE (MALAY)
APPENDIXB
LETTER OF APPROVAL FROM THE ECONOMIC .PLANNING UNIT, MALAYSIA
, )
APPENDIXC·
RESEARCH PASS
