A Causal Model of the Entrepreneurial Intentions of College Students

1. A Causal Model of the Entrepreneurial Intentions of College Students Robert J. Trebar Lake Erie College

2. Introduction • The growth of entrepreneurship is essential to the health of the US economy … small companies have generated 70% of net new jobs over the past decade • Discovering the factors that influence an individual’s choice to pursue entrepreneurship might positively influence economic growth and societal well-being • Colleges and universities have increasingly embraced the fostering of entrepreneurship among their students as part of their mission (Green, 2009) • The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between the college environment and the development of students’ “entrepreneurial intentions”

3. Statement of the Problem • The strongest predictor of entrepreneurial behavior is “entrepreneurial intentions” --- a construct studied empirically (but without a consistent measure) since the 1990s (Chen, Greene, & Crick, 1998; Erikson, 1999; Krueger et al., 2000) • Previous studies have examined the relationship between person-specific and environmental factors and entrepreneurial intentions (Lent et al., 2000; Luthje & Franke, 2003) • Previous studies have also examined the relationship between student-specific characteristics and college environmental factors (including involvement) and relevant outcomes such as career choice and work values (Astin, 1993; Kuh et al., 1991; Pace, 1979; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005; Tinto, 1993; Weidman, 1989) • However, no studies to date have examined the relationship between the college environment and students’ entrepreneurial intentions directly (previous studies have been limited to the impact of entrepreneurship-specific courses)

4. Significance of the Problem • There is a gap in both the “college impact” and “entrepreneurial intentions” literature – no studies have examined the relationship between the college environment and students’ entrepreneurial intentions • College students are generally pre-occupied with career choices – an opportune time for the development of entrepreneurial intentions (Shapero & Sokol, 1982) • Colleges seek to develop entrepreneurs, but struggle to identify appropriate, evidence-based interventions (Green, 2009) • This study can assist institutions to focus resources and attention on those elements of the college environment that actually encourage students to develop entrepreneurial intentions

5. Conceptual (Data Analysis) Framework Conceptual Framework: Astin’s (1991) Input-Environment-Outcome Model of Student Change • Inputs = Students’ pre-college experiences and characteristics • Environment = Institutional characteristics + students’ various college experiences • Outcomes = Dependent variables examined for student changes during the college years

6. Conceptual (Data Analysis) Framework Conceptual Framework: Astin’s (1991) I-E-O Model Rationale: • Entrepreneurial intentions (O) are influenced by environmental factors (E) (Gartner, 1988; Kolvereid, 1996; Krueger et al., 2000) • The college environment (E) has an influence on students’ career choices and work values (~O) (Astin 1993, Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005) • Differences among students upon their entry to college (I) influence student outcomes (O) (Feldman & Newcomb, 1994)

7. Theoretical Frameworks Theoretical Frameworks: … grounding the research questions and selection of independent variables 1) Holland’s (1997) Person-Environment Theory of Vocational and Educational Behavior 2) Astin’s (1984) Theory of Student Involvement

8. Theoretical Frameworks 1) Holland’s (1997) Person-Environment Theory of Vocational and Educational Behavior • Individuals and Environments can be classified using one or more of six basic types (Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional) • Majors can be grouped by Holland types, characterizing six different academic sub-environments that have been found to: • attract different types of faculty and peer groups, • reinforce different values and attitudes, • employ different instructional methods, and • emphasize different student outcomes (Pike et al., 2012; Smart et al., 2000)

9. Theoretical Framework – Holland’s Hexagon

10. Theoretical Framework Holland’s (1973, 1985) Six Model Environments Therealistic (R) environment is characterized by technical competencies and achievement . It encourages people to emphasize mechanical ability and to downplay ability in human relations. Being persistent, frank, masculine, stable, and practical are stressed in this environment. It rewards valuing money, power, and possessions . Theinvestigative (I) environment encourages mathematical and scientific competencies and achievements. It encourages people to see themselves as scholarly, analytical and rational, to become authorities in their subjects, to be recognized among peers, rather than to be seen as executives. It promotes viewing the world in complex, abstract, independent, and original ways. It rewards displays of scientific values. Theartistic (A) environment fosters artistic competencies and achievement. It encourages people to see themselves as expressive, introspective, original, unconventional, and idealistic and to be recognized as such by peers. It rewards displays of esthetic values. Thesocial (S) environment stimulates people to engage in social activities. It encourages people to see themselves as liking to help and understand others and as being cooperative, flexible, and sociable. It rewards displays of social values. Theenterprising (E) environment is characterized by enterprising competencies and achievements such as selling or leading others. It encourages people to see themselves as aggressive, popular, self-confident and as possessing leadership and speaking ability. lt encourages viewing the world in terms of power, money, status, and responsibility. The conventional (C) environment fosters conventional competencies, such as recording and organizing data or records. It encourages people to see themselves as conforming, orderly, non-artistic, and as having clerical competencies. It rewards valuing money, dependability, and conformity.

11. Theoretical Framework Classification of Major Fields by Holland-type (Holland, 1966; Smart, 1975, 1982) • Realistic: civil engineering, mechanical engineering, other engineering, agriculture, forestry • Investigative: biological science (biology, biochemistry, botany, marine science, microbiology, zoology, others), engineering (aeronautical, chemical, electrical, industrial), physical sciences (astronomy. atmospheric science, chemistry. earth science. marine science, math, physics. statistics), health technology, pharmacy, premed, anthropology, geography, computer science • Artistic: fine arts, English, journalism, language or literature, music, philosophy, speech, theater, other arts and humanities, architecture, library science, communication • Social: history, theology, education (elementary, physical, secondary, special, others), home economics, nursing, therapy, ethnic studies, political science, psychology, social work, sociology, women 's studies • Enterprising: business (business administration, marketing, management), law, economics • Conventional: accounting, finance, secretarial studies, business education

12. Theoretical Frameworks 2) Astin’s (1984) Theory of Student Engagement • Students’ active involvement in academic and other activities is related to student development and has an influence on a number of student outcomes. • The amount of time and physical and psychological energy that students invest influences outcomes (Astin, 1996) … the types and intensity of involvement matter

13. Theoretical Frameworks The two complementary theoretical frameworks facilitate the examination of: • The influence of specific academic environments on the outcome variable (Holland’s Theory) • The influence of specific types and degrees of involvement in those environments on the same outcome variable (Astin’s Theory)

14. Research Questions What factors, if any, influence college students entrepreneurial intentions? • What influence, if any, do characteristics of incoming college students (input variables) have on students’ entrepreneurial intentions? • What influence, if any, do institutional characteristics (between-college variables) have on students’ entrepreneurial intentions? • What influence, if any, do academic sub-environments (major fields of study grouped by Holland-type) have on students’ entrepreneurial intentions?

15. Research Questions 4. What influence, if any, do academic involvement variables have on students’ entrepreneurial intentions? 5. What influence, if any, do student-faculty involvement variables have on students’ entrepreneurial intentions? 6. What influence, if any, do student-student involvement variables have on students’ entrepreneurial intentions? 7. What influence, if any, do non-academic involvement variables have on students’ entrepreneurial intentions?

16. Methodological Approach Methodological Framework: • Causal-analytic methodology based on Astin’s (1991) I-E-O data analysis framework using stepwise, blocked multiple regression analysis • Secondary analysis of a major existing national data set (the results of College Institutional Research Program surveys administered by HERI at UCLA) • Longitudinal study with a pretest – posttest design • Dependent variable – Students’ entrepreneurial intentions as measured in senior year of college (the posttest) Operationalized as self-rating of the importance of the goal, “becoming successful in a business of my own” (responses on a four-point scale: 1=not important, 2=somewhat important, 3=very important, or 4=essential)

17. Methodological Approach Methodological Framework: Independent variables will be organized into eight blocks: Block 1- the pretest of entrepreneurial intentions Block 2- student input variables (gender, age, ethnicity, SES, parental entrepreneurship, drive to achieve, risk-taking) Block 3- institutional characteristics (size, type, control, selectivity) Block 4- academic subenvironment (one of six, based on Holland-type of major field)

18. Methodological Approach Block 5-measures of academic involvement (e.g., hours spent studying, enrollment in honors courses, undergraduate rserach, internships, etc.) Block 6- measures of student-faculty involvement (e.g., hours spent with faculty outside of class, guest in professor’s home, worked on professor’s research project, etc.) Block 7- measures of student-student involvement (e.g., hours spent socializing with friends, fraternity or sorority, student gov’t, intercollegiate athletics, etc.) Block 8 – measures of non-academic involvement (e.g., paid work on-campus, paid work off-campus, career planning activities, drinking, etc.)

19. Methodological Approach Data Collection & Analysis Procedures: • Data source – Subset of CIRP Senior Survey (31,000 students at 140 colleges) and the Freshman Survey (400,000) students at 600 colleges) • 40-item instrument shown to be reliable and valid (Pryor & Hurtado, 2012) • Measure of dependent variable (entrepreneurial intentions) is consistent with that used in prior studies (Krueger et al., 2000; Kolvereid & Isaksen, 2006; Peterman & Kennedy, 2003; Veciana, Aponte, & Urbano, 2005). • Data was analyzed using Hierarchical Stepwise Multiple Regression

20. Results Predictors of Students’ Entrepreneurial Intentions Inputs Pretest as freshmen +++ Male gender ++ Race (White) -- Parental entrepreneurship (father) ++ SES + Drive to achieve + Race (Black) + Parental entrepreneurship (mother) -

21. Results Predictors of Students’ Entrepreneurial Intentions Institutional Characteristics Institutional selectivity - Academic sub-environments Enterprising ++ Social -- Investigative -- Conventional +

22. Results Predictors of Students’ Entrepreneurial Intentions Academic Involvement Missed class due to employment ++ Participated in undergraduate research -- Participated in internship program + Participated in study-abroad program - Enrolled in honors or advanced courses - Participated in an academic support program + Performed community service as part of a class +

23. Results Predictors of Students’ Entrepreneurial Intentions Student-Faculty Interaction Talking with faculty outside of class/office hours ++ Talking with faculty during office hours + Communicating regularly with professors - Challenged a professor’s ideas in class + Was a guest in a professor’s home -

24. Results Predictors of Students’ Entrepreneurial Intentions Student-Student Interaction Partying ++ Joined a fraternity or sorority ++ Studied with other students + Non-Academic Involvement Working (for pay) on campus -- Working FT while attending school ++ Career planning activities +

25. Implications • Entrepreneurial Intentions gender gap – new approaches needed • Positive effects on Entrepreneurial Intentions of: • Service Learning • Collaborative Learning • Paid Work • Awareness of negative influence on Entrepreneurial Intentions of : • Investigative and Social academic sub-environments (majors) • “Professorial role models” • Traditional paths to academic success