student entrepreneurship research

Advertisement

The psychological well-being of student entrepreneurs: a social identity perspective

• Published: 13 December 2019
• Volume 16 , pages 467–499, ( 2020 )

Cite this article

• Davide Hahn   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1688-9230 1  

2063 Accesses

14 Citations

Explore all metrics

Within the vibrant and growing research stream focused on university-based entrepreneurship, the literature has investigated how university encourages students to undertake entrepreneurial activities, but less is known about the influence of university on students’ career outcomes once they stepped into entrepreneurship. To address this gap, we focus on student entrepreneurs’ psychological well-being (PWB), a central career outcome for the individual entrepreneur. We build on social identity theory to hypothesize that three different dimensions of venture’s value creation – for oneself, for customers, for society – contribute to student entrepreneurs’ PWB, but that the extent of such contribution depends on university involvement into academic entrepreneurship, a visible component of its organizational culture. Our analysis on a sample of 138 student entrepreneurs shows that university’s involvement into academic entrepreneurship diminishes the negative downsides of poor value creation for oneself and for customers on PWB. Conversely, it leads to larger benefits of the value created by the firm for society on PWB.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Analyzing university students’ entrepreneurial intentions under the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic

An Investigation of Students’ Social Entrepreneurial Intentions in Syria: An Empirical Test

Entrepreneurship: An Auspicious Context for Examining Its Connection to Wellbeing

In a post-hoc analysis, instead of a measure of academic entrepreneurship, we also use a composite indicator of the university third mission that captures university performances in terms of intellectual propriety management, start-up activities, and third-party activities. We express our gratitude to an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.

https://www.spinoffitalia.it/

This possibility is typically tested by examining the significance of the increase in the R-squared, computing the F-statistics as

where \( {R}_2^2 \) and \( {R}_1^2 \) are the R-squared of the unrestricted and restricted models respectively; k 2 and k 1 are the number of explanatory variables in the unrestricted and restricted models respectively; N is the sample size. The F-statistics exhibits an F-distribution with ( k 2  −  k 1 ;  N  −  k 2  − 1) degrees of freedom. The area under the probability density on the right of the observed value of F represent the significance, or p value, of the increase of the R-squared.

Since international students tend to be more prone towards entrepreneurship (Minola et al. 2016 ) and attending a foreign university constitutes a considerable investment (Sieger and Minola 2017 ), we suggest that foreign students moving to Italy will look for universities more actively engaged into entrepreneurship. As in Hahn et al. ( 2019 ), we also considered variables at the local level, which might affect the attractiveness of universities supporting entrepreneurship by influencing the opportunity costs for undertaking innovative projects as self-employed. Concerning the instrument relevance, instruments and our potential endogenous variable are significantly correlated. In contrast, for all these four instruments, we believe there are no clear and convincing arguments why they should directly affect the dependent variable PWB. Moreover, they are not significantly correlated with PWB. The information about international student status was retrieved from the GUESSS survey, while local data were obtained from ISTAT (i.e., the Italian National Institute of Statistics). Calculations are available upon request from the authors.

To make this calculation, we used the ivregress 2sls command in Stata 13. We also used the command estat firststage to check the validity of our instruments in the first stage (F = 30.84; p  < 0.001). To compute the Durbin-Wu-Hausman chi-square test and Wu-Hausman F-test we used the estat endogenous command. Calculations are available upon request from the authors.

According to a Ministerial Decree (D.M. 458/2015), the evaluation of the research quality of Italian universities needs to take into account activities related to the third mission, which are assessed by a commission of experts through a peer review process. More information is available at https://www.anvur.it/attivita/vqr/vqr-2011-2014/ .

Even though the report refers to the 4-years period occurred 2 years before the survey, we take it as proxy for the university strategy at the time of the survey, since that transition towards the third mission is known to be a slow process (Ambos et al. 2008 ).

More information about the indicators are available in the following report: ANVUR (2017), Valutazione della Qualità della Ricerca 2011–2014 (VQR 2011–2014) Rapporto finale ANVUR Parte Seconda: Statistiche e risultati di compendio - Terza Missione 21 Febbraio 2017, Roma ( http://www.anvur.it/rapporto-2016/static/VQR2011-2014_TerzaMissione.pdf ). The indicators are comprised between 0 and 1 and have been normalized taking into account the size of the university. The composite indicator for intellectual propriety considers inventive capability, capability in managing intellectual propriety, and commercial exploitation of intellectual propriety. The composite indicator for spin-offs considers job creation, economic impact, exit, demographics, growth, and collaboration with university infrastructures. The composite indicator for third-party activities considers research, service and teaching intensity for third parties, institutional relations, and funding from the private sector.

Akerlof, G. A., & Kranton, R. E. (2000). Economics and identity. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115 (3), 715–753.

Google Scholar  

Ambos, T. C., Mäkelä, K., Birkinshaw, J., & d'Este, P. (2008). When does university research get commercialized? Creating ambidexterity in research institutions. Journal of Management Studies, 45 (8), 1424–1447.

Amit, R., MacCrimmon, K. R., Zietsma, C., & Oesch, J. M. (2001). Does money matter?: Wealth attainment as the motive for initiating growth-oriented technology ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 16 (2), 119–143.

Anderson, N., & Hughes, K. D. (2010). The business of caring: Women's self-employment and the marketization of care. Gender, Work and Organization, 17 (4), 381–405.

Andersson, P. (2008). Happiness and health: Well-being among the self-employed. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 37 (1), 213–236.

Åstebro, T., Bazzazian, N., & Braguinsky, S. (2012). Startups by recent university graduates and their faculty: Implications for university entrepreneurship policy. Research Policy, 41 (4), 663–677.

Audretsch, D. B. (2014). From the entrepreneurial university to the university for the entrepreneurial society. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39 (3), 313–321.

Audretsch, D. B., & Belitski, M. (2013). The missing pillar: The creativity theory of knowledge spillover entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 41 (4), 819–836.

Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30 (1), 1–22.

Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50 (3), 329–366.

Bascle, G. (2008). Controlling for endogeneity with instrumental variables in strategic management research. Strategic Organization, 6 (3), 285–327.

Bergmann, H., Hundt, C., & Sternberg, R. (2016). What makes student entrepreneurs? On the relevance (and irrelevance) of the university and the regional context for student start-ups. Small Business Economics, 47 (1), 53–76.

Bergmann, H., Geissler, M., Hundt, C., & Grave, B. (2018). The climate for entrepreneurship at higher education institutions. Research Policy, 47 (4), 700–716.

Binder, M., & Coad, A. (2013). Life satisfaction and self-employment: A matching approach. Small Business Economics, 40 (4), 1009–1033.

Bird, M., & Wennberg, K. (2014). Regional influences on the prevalence of family versus non-family start-ups. Journal of Business Venturing, 29 (3), 421–436.

Bizumic, B., Reynolds, K. J., Turner, J. C., Bromhead, D., & Subasic, E. (2009). The role of the group in individual functioning: School identification and the psychological well-being of staff and students. Applied Psychology, 58 (1), 171–192.

Block, J. H., Hoogerheide, L., & Thurik, R. (2013). Education and entrepreneurial choice: An instrumental variables analysis. International Small Business Journal, 31 (1), 23–33.

Brändle, L., Berger, E. S., Golla, S., & Kuckertz, A. (2018). I am what I am-how nascent entrepreneurs’ social identity affects their entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 9 , 17–23.

Brenkert, G. G. (2009). Innovation, rule breaking and the ethics of entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 24 (5), 448–464.

Cameron, J. E. (1999). Social identity and the pursuit of possible selves: Implications for the psychological well-being of university students. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3 (3), 179.

Carree, M. A., & Verheul, I. (2012). What makes entrepreneurs happy? Determinants of satisfaction among founders. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13 (2), 371–387.

Cavallo, A., Ghezzi, A., Balocco, R. (2019) Entrepreneurial ecosystem research: present debates and future directions. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 15 ( 4):1291-1321

Chlosta, S., Patzelt, H., Klein, S. B., & Dormann, C. (2012). Parental role models and the decision to become self-employed: The moderating effect of personality. Small Business Economics, 38 (1), 121–138.

Civera, A., Donina, D., Meoli, M., & Vismara, S. (2019). Fostering the creation of academic spinoffs: Does the international mobility of the academic leader matter? International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal , 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-019-00559-8 .

Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., Van de Velde, E., & Vohora, A. (2005). Spinning out new ventures: A typology of incubation strategies from European research institutions. Journal of Business Venturing, 20 (2), 183–216.

Clarysse, B., Tartari, V., & Salter, A. (2011). The impact of entrepreneurial capacity, experience and organizational support on academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40 (8), 1084–1093.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multivariate regression/correlation analysis for behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawerence Erlbaun Associates.

Cooper, A. C., & Artz, K. W. (1995). Determinants of satisfaction for entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 10 (6), 439–457.

Cortina, J. M. (1993). Interaction, nonlinearity, and multicollinearity: Implications for multiple regression. Journal of Management, 19 (4), 915–922.

Criaco, G., Sieger, P., Wennberg, K., Chirico, F., & Minola, T. (2017). Parents’ performance in entrepreneurship as a “double-edged sword” for the intergenerational transmission of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 49 (4), 841–864.

Dahl, M. S., & Sorenson, O. (2009). The embedded entrepreneur. European Management Review, 6 (3), 172–181.

Falck, O., Heblich, S., & Luedemann, E. (2012). Identity and entrepreneurship: Do school peers shape entrepreneurial intentions? Small Business Economics, 39 (1), 39–59.

Fauchart, E., & Gruber, M. (2011). Darwinians, communitarians, and missionaries: The role of founder identity in entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Journal, 54 (5), 935–957.

Fini, R., Meoli, A., Sobrero, M., Ghiselli, S., & Ferrante, F. (2016). Student entrepreneurship: Demographics, competences and obstacles . Bologna: Consorzio Interuniversitario AlmaLaurea.

Fiore, E., Sansone, G., Paolucci, E. (2019) Entrepreneurship Education in a Multidisciplinary Environment: Evidence from an Entrepreneurship Programme Held in Turin. Administrative Sciences 9 ( 1):28

Frederiks, A. J., Englis, B. G., Ehrenhard, M. L., & Groen, A. J. (2019). Entrepreneurial cognition and the quality of new venture ideas: An experimental approach to comparing future-oriented cognitive processes. Journal of Business Venturing, 34 (2), 327–347.

Gimeno, J., Folta, T. B., Cooper, A. C., & Woo, C. Y. (1997). Survival of the fittest? Entrepreneurial human capital and the persistence of underperforming firms. Administrative Science Quarterly , 750–783.

Golberg, D. (1978). Manual of the general health questionnaire . Windsor: NFER-Nelson.

Grant, A. (2016). ORIGINALS: How non-conformists move the world . New York: Viking.

Grilo, I., & Irigoyen, J. M. (2006). Entrepreneurship in the EU: To wish and not to be. Small Business Economics, 26 (4), 305–318.

Hahn, D., Minola, T., Van Gils, A., & Huybrechts, J. (2017). Entrepreneurial education and learning at universities: Exploring multilevel contingencies. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 29 (9–10), 945–974.

Hahn, D., Minola, T., Bosio, G., & Cassia, L. (2019). The impact of entrepreneurship education on university students’ entrepreneurial skills: A family embeddedness perspective. Small Business Economics , 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00143-y .

Hayter, C. S. (2011). In search of the profit-maximizing actor: Motivations and definitions of success from nascent academic entrepreneurs. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36 (3), 340–352.

Hayter, C. S., Lubynsky, R., & Maroulis, S. (2017). Who is the academic entrepreneur? The role of graduate students in the development of university spinoffs. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42 (6), 1237–1254.

Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., Sirmon, D. G., & Trahms, C. A. (2011). Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating value for individuals, organizations, and society. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 25 (2), 57–75.

Huyghe, A., & Knockaert, M. (2015). The influence of organizational culture and climate on entrepreneurial intentions among research scientists. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40 (1), 138–160.

Jain, S., George, G., & Maltarich, M. (2009). Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity. Research Policy, 38 (6), 922–935.

Kacperczyk, A. J. (2013). Social influence and entrepreneurship: The effect of university peers on entrepreneurial entry. Organization Science, 24 (3), 664–683.

Kallioniemi, M. K., Simola, A., Kaseva, J., & Kymäläinen, H. R. (2016). Stress and burnout among Finnish dairy farmers. Journal of Agromedicine, 21 (3), 259–268.

Kammerlander, N., Burger, D., Fust, A., & Fueglistaller, U. (2015). Exploration and exploitation in established small and medium-sized enterprises: The effect of CEOs' regulatory focus. Journal of Business Venturing, 30 (4), 582–602.

Kautonen, T., & Palmroos, J. (2010). The impact of a necessity-based start-up on subsequent entrepreneurial satisfaction. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 6 (3), 285–300.

Kennedy, P. (2008). A guide to econometrics . Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

Khelil, N. (2016). The many faces of entrepreneurial failure: Insights from an empirical taxonomy. Journal of Business Venturing, 31 (1), 72–94.

Knockaert, M., Ucbasaran, D., Wright, M., & Clarysse, B. (2011). The relationship between knowledge transfer, top management team composition, and performance: The case of science-based entrepreneurial firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35 (4), 777–803.

Kwon, I., & Sohn, K. (2017). Job dissatisfaction of the self-employed in Indonesia. Small Business Economics, 49 (1), 233–249.

Lam, A. (2011). What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization:‘Gold’,‘ribbon’or ‘puzzle’? Research Policy, 40 (10), 1354–1368.

Lange, T. (2012). Job satisfaction and self-employment: Autonomy or personality? Small Business Economics, 38 (2), 165–177.

Lechat, T., & Torrès, O. (2017). Stressors and satisfactors in entrepreneurial activity: An event-based, mixed methods study predicting small business owners’ health. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 32 (4), 537–569.

Leonardelli, G. J., & Brewer, M. B. (2001). Minority and majority discrimination: When and why. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37 (6), 468–485.

Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., & Bozeman, B. (2007). An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16 (4), 641–655.

Meoli, M., & Vismara, S. (2016). University support and the creation of technology and non-technology academic spin-offs. Small Business Economics, 47 (2), 345–362.

Minniti, M., & Nardone, C. (2007). Being in someone else’s shoes: The role of gender in nascent entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 28 (2–3), 223–238.

Minola, T., Donina, D., & Meoli, M. (2016). Students climbing the entrepreneurial ladder: Does university internationalization pay off? Small Business Economics, 47 (3), 565–587.

Minola, T., Hahn, D., & Cassia, L. (2019). The relationship between origin and performance of innovative start-ups: the role of technological knowledge at founding. Small Business Economics , 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00189-y

Musick, M. A., & Wilson, J. (2003). Volunteering and depression: The role of psychological and social resources in different age groups. Social Science & Medicine, 56 (2), 259–269.

Nabi, G., Liñán, F., Fayolle, A., Krueger, N., & Walmsley, A. (2017). The impact of entrepreneurship education in higher education: A systematic review and research agenda. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16 (2), 277–299.

Nielsen, S. L., & Gartner, W. B. (2017). Am I a student and/or entrepreneur? Multiple identities in student entrepreneurship. Education and Training, 59 (2), 135–154.

Oppenheim, A. N. (1966). Questionnaire Design and Attitude Measurement . New York: Free Press.

Pache, A. C., & Chowdhury, I. (2012). Social entrepreneurs as institutionally embedded entrepreneurs: Toward a new model of social entrepreneurship education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11 (3), 494–510.

Paleari, S., Donina, D., & Meoli, M. (2015). The role of the university in twenty-first century European society. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40 (3), 369–379.

Powell, E. E., & Baker, T. (2014). It's what you make of it: Founder identity and enacting strategic responses to adversity. Academy of Management Journal, 57 (5), 1406–1433.

Powers, J. B., & McDougall, P. P. (2005). University start-up formation and technology licensing with firms that go public: A resource-based view of academic entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 20 (3), 291–311.

Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Skrondal, A. (2008). Generalized linear mixed-effects models. In G. Fitzmaurice, M. Davidian, G. Verbeke, & G. Molenberghs (Eds.), Longitudinal data analysis (pp. 93–120). Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall/CRC.

Rindova, V., Barry, D., & Ketchen, D. J. (2009). Entrepreneuring as emancipation. Academy of Management Review, 34 (3), 477–491.

Roach, M., & Sauermann, H. (2010). A taste for science? PhD scientists’ academic orientation and self-selection into research careers in industry. Research Policy, 39 (3), 422–434.

Sansone, G., Battaglia, D., Landoni, P., & Paolucci, E. (2019). Academic spinoffs: the role of entrepreneurship education. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal , 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-019-00601-9

Schilling, M. A. (2018). Quirky: The remarkable story of the traits, foibles, and genius of breakthrough innovators who changed the world . New York: PublicAffairs.

Schneider, B., González-Romá, V., Ostroff, C., & West, M. A. (2017). Organizational climate and culture: Reflections on the history of the constructs in the journal of applied psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102 (3), 468.

Schonfeld, I. S., & Mazzola, J. J. (2015). A qualitative study of stress in individuals self-employed in solo businesses. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20 (4), 501–513.

Shah, S. K., & Pahnke, E. C. (2014). Parting the ivory curtain: Understanding how universities support a diverse set of startups. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39 (5), 780–792.

Shepherd, D., & Haynie, J. M. (2009). Birds of a feather don't always flock together: Identity management in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 24 (4), 316–337.

Sieger, P., & Minola, T. (2017). The family's financial support as a “poisoned gift”: A family embeddedness perspective on entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Small Business Management, 55 , 179–204.

Sieger, P., Gruber, M., Fauchart, E., & Zellweger, T. (2016). Measuring the social identity of entrepreneurs: Scale development and international validation. Journal of Business Venturing, 31 (5), 542–572.

Souitaris, V., Zerbinati, S., & Al-Laham, A. (2007). Do entrepreneurship programmes raise entrepreneurial intention of science and engineering students? The effect of learning, inspiration and resources. Journal of Business Venturing, 22 (4), 566–591.

Stephan, U. (2018). Entrepreneurs’ mental health and well-being: A review and research agenda. Academy of Management Perspectives, 32 (3), 290–322.

Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2000). Identity theory and social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly , 224–237.

Uy, M. A., Foo, M. D., & Song, Z. (2013). Joint effects of prior start-up experience and coping strategies on entrepreneurs’ psychological well-being. Journal of Business Venturing, 28 (5), 583–597.

Uy, M. A., Sun, S., & Foo, M. D. (2017). Affect spin, entrepreneurs' well-being, and venture goal progress: The moderating role of goal orientation. Journal of Business Venturing, 32 (4), 443–460.

Vedula, S., & Kim, P. H. (2018). Marching to the beat of the drum: The impact of the pace of life in US cities on entrepreneurial work effort. Small Business Economics, 50 (3), 569–590.

Venkataraman, S. (1997). The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research. Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, 3 (1), 119–138.

Visintin, F., & Pittino, D. (2014). Founding team composition and early performance of university—Based spin-off companies. Technovation, 34 (1), 31–43.

Walter, S. G., & Dohse, D. (2012). Why mode and regional context matter for entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 24 (9–10), 807–835.

Walter, S. G., Parboteeah, K. P., & Walter, A. (2013). University departments and self–employment intentions of business students: A cross–level analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37 (2), 175–200.

Wennberg, K., Wiklund, J., & Wright, M. (2011). The effectiveness of university knowledge spillovers: Performance differences between university spinoffs and corporate spinoffs. Research Policy, 40 (8), 1128–1143.

Wiklund, J., Nikolaev, B., Shir, N., Foo, M., Bradley, S. (2019) Entrepreneurship and well-being: Past, present, and future. Journal of Business Venturing 34 ( 4):579-588

Wright, M., Siegel, D. S., & Mustar, P. (2017). An emerging ecosystem for student start-ups. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42 (4), 909–922.

Yitshaki, R., & Kropp, F. (2016). Entrepreneurial passions and identities in different contexts: A comparison between high-tech and social entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 28 (3–4), 206–233.

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the organizers and participants of the Workshop “Cognitive Perspective in Entrepreneurship Research: Past, Present, and Future” (Paris, September 2018) where we received insightful comments that helped us to refine this paper. I am also grateful also for the suggestions offered at the 29th Riunione Scientifica Annuale Associazione italiana di Ingegneria Gestionale (Castellanza, October 2018), the Technology Transfer Society Annual Conference (Washington, November 2017), and at the Interdisciplinary European Conference on Entrepreneurship Research (Siegen, September 2017), where earlier versions of the manuscript have been presented. Thanks also to Karl Wennberg, Giuseppe Criaco, Martin Obschonka, Nicola Breugst and Tommaso Minola for their friendly reviews of earlier versions of the manuscript. Finally, I want to mention the TUM Entrepreneurship Research Center, where I spent my visiting to work on the generation of this research project.

Support for this research was provided by the “Campus Entrepreneurship” project, financed by the University of Bergamo through the “Excellence Initiative” funding scheme, and by the Italian Ministry of Education and Research through the “Contamination Lab” funding scheme.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Management, Information and Production Engineering (DIGIP) and Center for Young and Family Enterprise (CYFE), University of Bergamo , viale Pasubio 7b, 24044, Bergamo, Italy

Davide Hahn

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Davide Hahn .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Hahn, D. The psychological well-being of student entrepreneurs: a social identity perspective. Int Entrep Manag J 16 , 467–499 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-019-00607-3

Download citation

Published : 13 December 2019

Issue Date : June 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-019-00607-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Psychological well-being
• Student entrepreneurship
• Academic entrepreneurship
• Social identity
• Global University entrepreneurial Spirit students’ survey (GUESSS)
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

HYPOTHESIS AND THEORY article

How does the entrepreneurship education influence the students’ innovation testing on the multiple mediation model.

• 1 School of Business Administration, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China
• 2 Youth Development Research Center, Guangxi University, Nanning, China
• 3 College of Animal Science and Technology, Guangxi University, Nanning, China

This study aims to explore the multiple mediating effects of political skills and entrepreneurial opportunity recognition between perceived entrepreneurship education and innovation. Structural equation is used to analyze data collected from 269 Chinese student entrepreneurs. Results showed that (1) there is a positive relationship between perceptions of entrepreneurship education and perceptions of innovation, (2) political skills and entrepreneurial opportunity recognition individually play a mediating role between perceived entrepreneurship education and innovation, and (3) political skills and entrepreneurial opportunity recognition play a chain mediating effect between perceived entrepreneurship education and innovation.

Introduction

Entrepreneurship education cultivates innovative talents, which are an important driving force for future development. At present, innovation-driven development strategies place new demands on entrepreneurship education. However, most of the current research and discussion in this field focuses on the construction of teaching staff in the entrepreneurial education ecosystem ( Ruskovaara and Pihkala, 2015 ), curriculum development ( Falck et al., 2016 ), and whether entrepreneurship education can influence the Intention of entrepreneurship ( Martin et al., 2013 ; Pittaway and Cope, 2016 ). Based on the theory of social cognitive, the individual traits and environmental of learners greatly influence the realization of entrepreneurship education. In-depth study of the mechanism of entrepreneurship education, which drives innovation and development, can further improve the research on entrepreneurship education ( Baum et al., 2001 ; Morris et al., 2013 ).

Innovation is seen as an internal driver; innovation relates to an entrepreneurial mindset; thus, development of new products or entrance to new markets is the result of entrepreneurship ( Miller, 1983 ; Covin and Slevin, 1989 ). Entrepreneurship education is an important way for entrepreneurs to acquire resources, enhance innovative ability and innovative personality, and build multi-level learning channels for entrepreneurs by integrating various knowledge and value systems. From knowledge learning to skills improvement, entrepreneurship education includes general ability development and improvement of professional ability. Entrepreneurial competence, which is important for success, mainly refers to the ability to identify opportunities and develop the necessary resources and capital ( Arthurs and Busenitz, 2006 ; Kettunen et al., 2013 ), in addition to technical, financial, and legal knowledge ( Kuratko, 2005 ). Considering that entrepreneurship ability is diversified, Bacigalupo et al. (2016) build an entrepreneurial competency framework that includes opportunity identification, entrepreneurial skills that represent “resources,” action areas, and 15 competency lists. Gianesini et al. (2018) compared models and classifications of entrepreneurial abilities, arguing that entrepreneurial abilities consist of personality traits, entrepreneurial knowledge, and skills. The research on entrepreneurial ability is increasingly concerned with relevant knowledge and experience to improve skills and develop potential resources to enhance the innovation.

Entrepreneurship education is concerned with fostering creative skills that can be applied in practices, education, and environments supporting innovation ( Binks et al., 2006 ; Gundry et al., 2014 ). Student entrepreneurs use multi-party interaction to achieve knowledge iteration in the learning network; the innovation process is the result of interactions among the environment, organization, and entrepreneurs ( Anderson et al., 2014 ). Entrepreneurial ability involves adaptive behaviors and strategies to influence others’ actions in relational contexts ( Ferris et al., 2005 ; Tocher et al., 2012 ), thereby driving innovation and bringing high returns. The entrepreneurship framework by Bacigalupo et al. (2016) considers opportunity identification, entrepreneurial skills, and action as three key areas of entrepreneurial competence. Studies have shown that political skills can help entrepreneurs feel a sense of confidence and control over their work environment. They are likely to be engaged confidently in the dynamics of the environment, and effectively alter attitudes and behaviors to adapt to uncertain conditions ( Ferris et al., 2005 ), with political skills said to explain how individuals recognize opportunities ( McAllister et al., 2016 ). Student entrepreneurs with highly developed political skills can effectively integrate existing resources, accurately identify and interpret social cues from the environment, and gradually become a major force in technology and product innovation. This study selects political skills and entrepreneurial opportunities as mediators to explore how perceived entrepreneurial education influences innovation.

Theoretical Basis and Hypothesis

Social cognitive theory conceives individuals as agents and active contributors to the development of the circumstances that surround their lives ( Bandura, 2018 ). Individuals are tended to pursue their goals if they consider their own abilities and actions are capable of achieving the desired results ( Bandura et al., 2003 ). Entrepreneurship education helps improve their cognition, constantly adjust their thoughts and actions, and make their entrepreneurship more directional, coherent and meaningful. This study employs the theory of social cognition to examine how learners in entrepreneurship education can enhance their ability to identify opportunities through political skills, which in turn affects entrepreneurs’ innovative awareness, innovative ability, and innovative personality. Learning from observation ( Bandura, 1978 ) to participation ( Sims and Sinclair, 2008 ; Tavella and Franco, 2015 ), in a network ( Berkes, 2009 ; Chen and Chang, 2014 ), learning is no longer a single behavior but is implemented in a complex system of relationships. Individuals can transcend immediate circumstances, through self-guidance, shape the present toward the realization of outcomes and goals ( Bandura, 2018 ). General education focuses on the overall development of students, and the entrepreneurial curriculum system lays the foundation for the overall improvement of students’ entrepreneurial ability. From observation to participation, the social learning network provides multi-level learning channels for student entrepreneurs to continuously improve their skills in learning and practice. Therefore, entrepreneurship education might enhance the confidence of the students that he will be able to solve new and unexpected problems.

Skills are described as the ability to apply knowledge in practice, a special ability that drives innovation and development. In entrepreneurship, highly developed political skills can help student entrepreneurs accurately identify and acquire effective resources in a dynamic and complex social environment, as well as create a new combination of technology and knowledge with the support of organizations. Entrepreneur must possess the savviness to effectively understand others in the workplace and adjust their behaviors accordingly. The actual process of opportunity recognition is an interaction between individuals and their environments. Komarkova et al. (2015) argue that skills and opportunities can be used to examine entrepreneurial innovation capabilities. The prior experience and skills of entrepreneurs affect the opportunity recognition process ( Dencker et al., 2009 ; Odia and Odia, 2013 ). Highly developed political skills transform the resources and experience acquired by entrepreneurship education into the ability to identify and create new products or services; motivate the entrepreneurs to learn together; and enhance innovative awareness, innovative ability, and innovative personality. To deepen the reforms in entrepreneurship education, we have to fully consider the needs and characteristics of student entrepreneurs. Paying attention to the cultivation of students’ entrepreneurial skills is conducive to the realization of the goals of entrepreneurial education organizations, and the overall development needs of entrepreneurial activities.

The Influence of Perceived Entrepreneurship Education on Innovation

Students’ views on their entrepreneurship education are related to their perception of innovation; fostering innovation through entrepreneurship education is the primary task of universities. Innovative awareness and innovative ability are the core process of students’ innovation activities, which are also influenced by innovation personality. The educational system of universities has to provide an academic environment that may serve as a catalyst for high-technology start-ups ( Franke and Lüthje, 2004 ). If learners are constantly challenged to expand their content knowledge they will be motivated to broaden their cognitive levels ( Bandura, 1999 ), form a defense mechanism to eliminate the negative impact caused by perceived pressure ( Granieri et al., 2017 ). Entrepreneurs are made, not born, by imparting the knowledge and skills needed for a new business venture. The process of shaping the ability of student entrepreneurs is a social interaction process in which information resources are acquired and transformed in the form of observation or direct participation in entrepreneurship education. This process also involves creating new knowledge through transforming experience and putting knowledge into practice. Entrepreneurship education may change a student’s attitudes toward entrepreneurship ( Galloway and Brown 2002 ). Students’ perception and attitudes toward entrepreneurship education can determine whether students’ creativity will be expressed and constitutes a self-judgment of one’s perceived competence in generating novel ideas ( Brown and Ulijn, 2004 ; Beghetto and Kaufman, 2010 ), forming an internal, lasting, and stable innovative personality. At the same time, entrepreneurship education provides student entrepreneurs with the information, knowledge, and other resources they need, thereby forming a strong atmosphere of innovation and entrepreneurship, reducing environmental uncertainty, and creating a good environment for innovation and development. Entrepreneurship education provides a comprehensive learning management for student entrepreneurs, helping them to establish correct values and cognitive systems, enhance their perceptions of innovation and continuously integrate, and accumulate new knowledge to shape their innovative ability and personality.

Hypothesis 1 : There will be a positive relationship between perceptions of entrepreneurship education and perceptions of innovation.

Mediating Role of Political Skills

The primary objective of entrepreneurship education is to develop all essential entrepreneurial skills to meet entrepreneurial success ( Lazear, 2004 ; Audretsch et al., 2016 ). Traditional entrepreneurial knowledge learning can no longer meet the dynamic environment’s demand for entrepreneurial ability. Entrepreneurship education builds a multi-level social network and comprehensive learning management for the professional ability of entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship education develops students’ entrepreneurial skills, enabling them to cope with environmental uncertainties and new challenges ( Brian and Norma, 2010 ; Seikkula-Leino, 2011 ; Premand et al., 2016 ). Ferris et al. (2000) interpret political skills from four dimensions, namely, networking ability, interpersonal influence, social astuteness, and apparent sincerity. Political skill refers to “ the ability to effectively understand others at work and to use such knowledge to influence others to act in ways that enhance one’s personal and/or organizational objectives ” ( Ferris et al., 2005 ). Politically skilled individuals have superior social astuteness, can help people better understand, and influence others in complex environments, thereby achieving personal and organizational goals ( Ferris et al., 2005 ; Munyon et al., 2015 ). Political skill helps span boundaries and make up for the shortcomings of social networks on college campuses and facilitate a successful development and usage of network ties ( Wei et al., 2012 ; Fang et al., 2015 ). Politically skilled individuals are adept at forging relationships with others who have valuable resources and locate themselves in advantageous positions within their social network ( Fang et al., 2015 ). Through social networks, individuals gain access to inaformation, role models, and mentors, establish connections and achieve the esteem and support of peers. The ability of the entrepreneur to gain the trust of others is absolutely essential ( Tocher et al., 2015 ). Since individuals are more willing to openly share knowledge and ideas with those whom they trust ( McEvily et al., 2003 ). Student entrepreneurs with political skills demonstrate problem-solving skills through specific behaviors in relational contexts ( Perrewé et al., 2005 ; Treadway et al., 2013 ). Highly politically motivated student entrepreneurs can effectively control dynamic and ambiguous environments and make them predictable ( Kacmar et al., 2013 ), and can positively influence innovation by enhancing the personal charm of entrepreneurs ( Baron and Tang, 2009 ). Entrepreneurship education provides multiple channels for student entrepreneurs to obtain resources. The human capital social network built by highly skilled student entrepreneurs enhances the ability of entrepreneurial teams to acquire resources, reduces the cost of resource acquisition, and promotes the willingness of entrepreneurs to share knowledge. With reciprocity, combining access to resources and existing resources, integration generates new knowledge and contributes positively to innovation ( Tolstoy, 2009 ). Therefore, we assumed that political skills would play a mediating role in the associations between perceived entrepreneurship education and innovation.

Hypothesis 2 : Political skills play a mediating role in the associations between perceived entrepreneurship education and innovation.

Mediating Role of Entrepreneurial Opportunity Recognition

Entrepreneurs will have to engage in three important tasks, which mainly are opportunity recognition and exploitation, risk taking, and innovating ( Chandler and Hanks, 1994 ). Opportunity recognition is defined as the process of recognizing new and potentially successful ideas ( Shane and Eckhardt, 2003 ), which are influenced by individual characteristics and contextual factors. Entrepreneurship opportunity recognition is the core activity in the early stage of student entrepreneurship; it is the process of correctly understanding and judging market demand, and continuously processing related resources acquired in entrepreneurship learning to shape their innovative ability and personality. Entrepreneurial selecting promises business opportunities, devising, and executing strategies for leveraging them ( Chandler and Hanks, 1994 ). Such competence is often developed experientially through learning by doing ( Mitchelmore and Rowley, 2010 ). Social learning itself is an iterative process of learning, action, reflection, and continuous cooperation. The iterative learning process is considered to be a key component of adapting to environmental changes. In an uncertain entrepreneurial environment, opportunity recognition is becoming a major driver of entrepreneurial behavior ( Wang et al., 2013 ). Student entrepreneurs acquire resources through entrepreneurial education, identify effective knowledge from a large amount of information, integrate processing into new products or services, form new opportunities, improve opportunities for success, and contribute to team creation. We assumed that entrepreneurial opportunity recognition would play a mediating role in the associations between perceived entrepreneurship education and innovation.

Hypothesis 3 : Entrepreneurial opportunity recognition has a mediating role in the associations between perceived entrepreneurship education and innovation.

Multiple Mediating Role of Political Skills and Entrepreneurial Opportunity Recognition

Entrepreneurial opportunity recognition, skills, and behaviors together constitute entrepreneurial abilities. Enhancing skills allows entrepreneurs to discover and exploit opportunities that enable they to be more innovative ( Fillis and Rentschler, 2010 ). Political skill is instrumental in gaining access to the information, influence, and referrals necessary for success ( Fang et al., 2015 ). Politically motivated people know what they need to do to succeed, and can make the right actions at the right time to achieve their goals ( Blickle et al., 2010 ). Similarly, we contend that political skill can be used to explain how entrepreneur recognize social influence opportunities ( McAllister et al., 2016 ). High levels of political skill enable entrepreneurs to demonstrate a keen sense of society ( Brouer et al., 2011 ); the social astuteness is conducive to accurately obtaining the key resources needed for entrepreneurship in a dynamic and complex environment. The astute agility of entrepreneurs is a necessary condition for the success of opportunity recognition ( Ardichvili et al., 2003 ). The social network and interpersonal relationships help student entrepreneurs expand the scope of resource acquisition and improve the ability of resource integration. Interpersonal relationships help participants to understand and implement innovative decisions, and improve the efficiency of resource development and product innovation. The apparent sincerity helps entrepreneurs achieve knowledge sharing, and provide a basis for product or service innovation. We assumed that political skills and entrepreneurial opportunity recognition would play a continuous intermediary role in the associations between perceived entrepreneurship education and innovation.

Hypothesis 4 : Political skills and entrepreneurial opportunity recognition play a continuous intermediary role in the associations between perceived entrepreneurship education and innovation.

Hypothesized model are shown in Figure 1 . Through sharing and cooperation, entrepreneurship education is brought into social learning network from a single level, and completes the acquisition of new knowledge and skills with continuous iterations, enhancing the ability of student entrepreneurs to adapt to changes in the entrepreneurial environment. The entrepreneurial ability of entrepreneurs is considered as a resource in stimulating creativity and the ability to identify opportunities ( Kor et al., 2007 ). Political skill facilitates individuals’ accurate assessment of their work environment and the intentions of others. Driven by innovation, entrepreneurship education constantly improves the path of learning management, and is committed to the improvement of entrepreneurial skills of student entrepreneurs.

Figure 1 . Hypothesized model.

Materials and Methods

Participants.

The participants were recruited from a University located in Nanning, Guangxi Province, China. Questionnaires were distributed to 300 Chinese student entrepreneurs, and 269 valid questionnaires were collected, giving a response rate of 89.67%. Among the respondents, males accounted for 49.17% and females accounted for 50.83%, which shows a relatively balanced gender proportion. Samples from large and medium-sized cities, county-level cities, townships, and rural areas were 30.1, 24.2, 12.3, and 33.5%, respectively. The respondents were all types of students; undergraduate and lower levels accounted for 72.5%, master’s and doctoral students accounted for 27.5%, science and engineering students accounted for 56.9%, followed by economic management accounting for 18.2% and agronomy 11.2%. Among the subjects, 91.1% have been student cadres, and have social networks and interpersonal relationships.

This study selected Chinese student entrepreneurs as the survey object. The participants are involved in entrepreneurial activities such as courses, training programs, and competitions in varying degrees. The participants receive support from teachers and the school with regard to funds, use of venues, and other needs. The survey participants were able to understand the issues involved in this study, thereby meeting the requirements of empirical analysis. In March 2018, we contacted the teachers responsible for entrepreneurship in colleges and universities, to email the participation invitation of this study to their student entrepreneurs. The student entrepreneurs were informed that the data will be used only for research purposes and we will keep their personal information confidential, that participation was voluntary and that they could either refuse to participate in or withdraw from the study at any time. We ask student entrepreneurs to return a form only if they want to participate in the research. The study protocol was approved by the ethics committee of South China University of Technology.

To ensure the accuracy of empirical research, this study references important literature published locally and abroad, and selects maturity scales with high reliability and validity. Through in-depth interviews with entrepreneurial team members, this study combines specific scenarios of entrepreneurial education in colleges and universities, and modifies the scales of entrepreneurship education and political skills to make the measurement suitable for student entrepreneurs, finally forming the research scale. This study uses a five-point Likert scale where “1” means “completely inconsistent” and “5” means “very consistent.” The entrepreneurial team members evaluate the corresponding items based on their own real situation.

Entrepreneurship Education

The entrepreneurship education measured in this study focuses on the perspective of social cognitive from the aspects of environment, organization, and individual learning and behavior. Through interviews with responsible teachers, we can understand the main concerns related to entrepreneurship education in colleges and universities. We start from three aspects: entrepreneurial atmosphere, entrepreneurship curriculum, and entrepreneurial activities. Our main references are Franke and Lüthje (2004) and Qi (2017) . To measure the participation of individual entrepreneurs in entrepreneurship education, the education scale has a total of six items such as “A creative university campus atmosphere has inspired your entrepreneurial dream,” “Startup course learning provides the knowledge you need to start a business,” and “The university provides funding for your business, office space, and entrepreneurial tutors”. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of this scale was 0.848, indicating that the scale has good reliability.

Political Skills

The political skills measured in this study are mainly based on the individual level of student entrepreneurs. Based on the work of Ferris et al. (2000) , 18 items including networking ability, interpersonal influence, social astuteness, and apparent sincerity were retained for measurement. The results show that the overall Cronbach’s α coefficient of the political skill scale is 0.955, and the scale has good reliability.

Entrepreneurial Opportunity Recognition

The study draws on Chandler and Hanks (1994) for the measurement of entrepreneurial opportunity recognition and Cai et al. (2014) for the recognition of entrepreneurial opportunities, and measures the ability of student entrepreneurs to identify new opportunities, with four items such as “products and services that can effectively identify customers’ needs”. The results show that the overall Cronbach’s α coefficient of the entrepreneurial opportunity recognition scale is 0.877, indicating that the scale has good reliability.

Miller (1983) was the first to come up with “proactive” innovations and believes innovativeness is one of the important dimensions of entrepreneurial firm. Covin and Slevin (1989) developed a scale to measure the dimensions of innovativeness; the measures involved a mix of traits and attitude. This study agrees with the idea of Naldi et al. (2007) that innovation has a positive relationship with initiative, improved the scale of Covin and Slevin (1989) . The higher the subjective initiative of student entrepreneurs, the more obvious is the innovation. The final innovative scale adopts the following items: “I have strong curiosity,” “I like to think and solve problems from multiple angles,” “I always have many new methods and new ideas,” and “I can absorb and apply new ideas faster.” Four items, such as that regarding the “new method,” measure the innovation awareness, innovation ability, and innovation personality of student entrepreneurs. The results show that the Cronbach’s α coefficient of the scale is 0.904, and the scale has good reliability.

Control Variables

The study controls demographic variables, such as gender and education level of student entrepreneurs, and excludes the possible effects of perceived entrepreneurial education and innovative relationships.

This study uses SPSS 22.0, AMOS 22.0, and other data analysis instruments. The analysis is divided into three steps: (1) test measurement model including model fit, reliability, and validity test; (2) descriptive statistics on each variable; and (3) we performed multi-mediation tests using the regression bootstrapping method in the PROCESS module (Model 6) developed by Hayes (2013) .

Common Method Deviation Test

This paper uses Harman’s single factor analysis to evaluate the common source variance. Exploratory factor analysis was performed without rotation. The results showed that the variance of the first factor interpretation was 21.694%, and the cumulative interpretation total variance was 50.928%. The first factor explained the variance that was less than half of the cumulative total variance. Therefore, no common method bias effect was observed between the measured variables.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

To test the discriminant validity of each variable in this study, a confirmatory factor analysis was performed on each variable using AMOS 22.0 software. The results of Table 1 showed that compared with the single-, two-, and three-factor models, the four-factor model used in this study was the most suitable. The combined effect was ideal, the fitting indexes of the four-factor model were up to standard, and the model fitting degree was good.

Table 1 . Confirmatory factor analysis results of variable discriminant validity.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

The mean, standard deviation, and correlation coefficient of latent variables were statistically analyzed using SPSS 22.0. As shown in Table 2 , the mean and standard deviation of each variable were within the acceptable range. According to the correlation coefficient between variables, a significant correlation exists between entrepreneurship education, political skills, entrepreneurial opportunity recognition, and innovation. A significant correlation also exists between gender and entrepreneurship education, and between gender and innovation. The results of descriptive statistics and related analysis preliminarily illustrate the relationship between variables, providing a basis for further data analysis.

Table 2 . Means, standard deviations, and correlations for variables ( N = 269).

Structural Equation Model Analyses

First, the main effect was tested, with entrepreneurship education as the independent variable and innovation as the dependent variable to construct the structural equation model 1. The fitting index of model 1 meets the requirements ( χ 2 /df = 2.753, CFI = 0.959, GFI = 0.938, TLI = 0.945, IFI = 0. 959, NFI = 0.937, and RMSEA = 0.081); thus, the model fit is good. The main effect test results show that entrepreneurship education positively affects innovation ( β = 0.608, p < 0.001), and H1 is supported.

Second, models 2 and 3 were established with political skills and entrepreneurial opportunity recognition as single mediators. The results show that the model fits well (Model 2: χ 2 /df = 1.002, CFI = 1.000, GFI = 0.905, TLI = 0.998, IFI = 0. 999, NFI = 0.957, and RMSEA = 0.003; Model 3: χ 2 /df = 1.490, CFI = 0.989, GFI = 0.958, TLI = 0.982, IFI = 0. 989, NFI = 0.966, and RMSEA = 0.043). Through process V3.1, the bootstrap method was used to repeat the sampling 5,000 times to test the mediating effect. The results are shown in Figure 2 . The mediating effect of political skills was 0.374, with 95% confidence interval [0.2983, 0.4534], excluding 0, based on the assumption that H2 was verified. The mediating effect of entrepreneurial opportunity recognition is 0.371, with 95% confidence interval [0.3021, 0.4454], excluding 0, based on the assumption H3 is verified.

Figure 2 . The unstandardized path coefficients in model testing.

Finally, the chain multiple mediation effect was tested. A correlation was observed between the two mediator variables in the political skills and entrepreneurial opportunity recognition. The study assumes that the two variables play a mediating role in the impact of perceived entrepreneurship education on innovation. Therefore, Hayes’ multiple mediation method was used to test the mediating effect. According to process V3.1, the 95% confidence interval of the mediating effect was estimated by extracting 5,000 bootstrap samples, and the chain multi-mediation effect of political skills and entrepreneurial opportunity recognition was tested significantly. The results are shown in Table 3 . Entrepreneurship education → political skills → innovative mediating effect is 0.240, 95% confidence interval is [0.1650, 0.3203], excluding 0, and mediating effect is significant. Entrepreneurship education → environmental opportunity recognition → innovation, the mediating effect is 0.082, the 95% confidence interval is [0.0430, 0.1314], excluding 0, and the mediating effect is significant. Entrepreneurship education → political skills → entrepreneurial opportunity recognition → innovative chain multi-mediating effect is 0.131, 95% confidence interval [0.0830, 0.1851], excluding 0, indicating that political skills and entrepreneurial opportunity recognition are between entrepreneurial education and innovation, and H4 is verified.

Table 3 . Results of the multiple mediation model.

Research Conclusions

The study explored the impact mechanism of the influence of perceived entrepreneurship education on innovation based on social cognitive theory. The structural equation model was used to simultaneously test the individual and continuous mediation roles of political skills and entrepreneurial opportunity recognition, and verify the political skills and entrepreneurial opportunity recognition ability of student entrepreneurs. The chain-based multi-mediating role in innovative relationships provides a new path toward considering the impact of perceived entrepreneurial education on the innovation of intermediary mechanisms. The empirical research shows the following results: (1) main effect test. The results show that there will be a positive relationship between perceptions of entrepreneurship education and perceptions of innovation. (2) Intermediary effect test. The test results show that political skills and entrepreneurial opportunity recognition play an intermediary role in perceived entrepreneurship education and innovation, respectively. Political skills enhance the ability to identify entrepreneurial opportunities and play a continuous intermediary role in the impact of perceived entrepreneurship education on innovation.

Theoretical Implications

The findings inform our understanding of how skills acquired in the entrepreneurship education are associated with innovative awareness, innovative ability, innovative personality, and answer the question of whether entrepreneurship and innovation is perceptible. Entrepreneurship education not only provides human capital such as knowledge and skills but may also transform the attitudes and behaviors of students. For the most part, entrepreneurship education as environmental influences on changing attitudes has been overlooked ( Baron, 2006 ; Medvedeva, 2011 ). From the social cognitive theory, the research postulates that human behavior is determined by the environmental influences, and description between having capabilities and believing in those capabilities. Individuals are tended to pursue their goals if they consider their own abilities and actions are capable of achieving the desired results. Social cognitive theory conceives individuals as agents and active contributors to the development of the circumstances that surround their lives, through cognitive and motivational, humans can create visualized futures.

We adopt a unique approach in understanding how skills taught within an entrepreneurship education can influence innovation. Base on the social cognitive theory, individuals not only learn skills but also immerse themselves in the entrepreneurial community through entrepreneurship education, which is improving their ability to recognition entrepreneurial opportunities and capture real entrepreneurial opportunities through the community. Entrepreneurial ability is multidimensional and dynamic in nature ( Zahra et al., 2006 ). Skills and entrepreneurial opportunity recognition are the main components of entrepreneurial ability. Explicit political skills based on persuasion, infection, and appeal are the general abilities of entrepreneurs, while entrepreneurial opportunity recognition is the professional skill that entrepreneurs need. Structural equation modeling is used to verify political skills and entrepreneurship opportunity recognition play the multiple mediating role of the relationship between perceived entrepreneurship education and innovation, and clarifies the specific path and internal mechanism of entrepreneurial competence in the impact of perceived entrepreneurship education on innovation. The research results verify that the perceived entrepreneurial education, in the process of shaping the entrepreneurial ability from general to professional, reveals the main factors driving the development of innovation.

Managerial Implications

As the main body of learning in entrepreneurship education, students should consider their obvious campus characteristics. In student entrepreneurship, many entrepreneurial projects are based on innovative technology transformation and creativity. Innovation is the driving force for the development of entrepreneurial projects. The focus of entrepreneurship education is not on the transfer of theoretical knowledge in the classroom but on the basis of action to improve entrepreneurial professional skills ( Kassean et al., 2015 ). Through participation in learning, student entrepreneurs form a learning network in a good entrepreneurial education environment, use their influence to continuously acquire and exchange valuable resources through persuasion and collaboration, build a shared social resource network, and enhance professional skills. The effectiveness and conversion rate of innovative knowledge strengthens the impact of perceived entrepreneurship education on innovation.

The skills of entrepreneurs can be shaped ( Volery et al., 2015 ) and entrepreneurship education serves as a new incubator of innovative talents, focusing on the improvement of entrepreneurial professional ability. Social cognitive theory can be used to understand the influence of environmental factors on individual innovation awareness, innovative ability and innovative personality. Universities organize and carry out various forms of teaching practice activities; entrepreneurship education enhances the professional competence of students through social learning networks. Student entrepreneurs are regarded as executives with learning and entrepreneurial practices, their high political skills such as good interpersonal relationships, and large social networks can enhance the ability of identify opportunities. Thus, these student entrepreneurs are more likely to become core talents of entrepreneurial teams, playing a role in the impact of perceived entrepreneurship education on innovation.

Limitations and Future Study Directions

In terms of research samples, owing to the limitations of the research objects, this study only judges the evaluation of entrepreneurship education from the unilateral aspect of the student entrepreneurs and fails to collect the relevant data on the entrepreneurial education managers. Second, considering perception at different times has different influences on human behavior and choice, future studies might consider dynamic tracking from the perspective of organizational managers; research techniques are also biased toward static analysis and are characterized by lack of dynamic tracking. Furthermore, the impact of perceived entrepreneurship education on innovation is multifaceted and multidimensional. In the future, studies can increase the dimensions of research variables in entrepreneurship education and further enrich and develop the research models and conclusions. The present study only considers the mediating factors between entrepreneurial education and innovation. Thus, future research should consider incorporating intermediaries and regulatory factors into the research framework.

Ethics Statement

This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of ethics committee of South China University of Technology with written informed consent from all subjects in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The protocol was approved by the ethics committee of South China University of Technology.

Author Contributions

XW led the research design, data analysis, and drafted this paper. XL guided the research design and revised the manuscript substantially. JS made contributions in data analysis and paper revision. All authors approved the final version.

This study was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (71832003), National Social Science Fund of China (18BJL082), China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2018M640786), the Ministry of Education Humanities and Social Sciences Youth Project (19YJC630106), Guangxi Higher Education Reform Project (2017JGB118), and Guangxi University Students Ideological and Political Education Theory and Practice Research project (2018LSZ038).

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., and Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: a state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. J. Manag. 40, 1297–1333. doi: 10.1177/0149206314527128

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., and Ray, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development. J. Bus. Ventur. 18, 105–123. doi: 10.1016/S0883-9026(01)00068-4

Arthurs, J. D., and Busenitz, L. W. (2006). Dynamic capabilities and venture performance: the effects of venture capitalists. J. Bus. Ventur. 21, 195–215. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.04.004

Audretsch, D. B., Kuratko, D. F., and Link, A. N. (2016). Dynamic entrepreneurship and technology-based innovation. J. Evol. Econ. 26, 603–620. doi: 10.1007/s00191-016-0458-4

Bacigalupo, M., Kampylis, P., Punie, Y., and Van den Brande, G. (2016). EntreComp: the entrepreneurship competence framework. (Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union). doi: 10.2791/593884

Bandura, A. (1978). Social learning theory of aggression. J. Commun. 28, 12–29. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1978.tb01621.x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bandura, A. (1999). “Social cognitive theory of personality” in Handbook of personality. 2nd Edn . eds. L. A. Pervin and O. P. John (New York: Guilford Press), 154–196.

Google Scholar

Bandura, A. (2018). Toward a psychology of human agency: pathways and reflections. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 13, 130–136. doi: 10.1177/1745691617699280

Bandura, A., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Gerbino, M., and Pastorelli, C. (2003). Role of affective self-regulatory efficacy in diverse spheres of psychosocial functioning. Child Dev. 74, 769–782. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00567

Baron, R. (2006). Opportunity recognition as pattern recognition: how entrepreneurs “connect the dots” to identify new business opportunities. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 20, 104–119. doi: 10.5465/amp.2006.19873412

Baron, R. A., and Tang, J. (2009). Entrepreneurs social skills and new venture performance: mediating mechanisms and cultural generality. J. Manag. 35, 282–306. doi: 10.1177/0149206307312513

Baum, J. R., Locke, E. A., and Smith, K. G. (2001). A multidimensional model of venture growth. Acad. Manag. J. 44, 292–303. doi: 10.5465/3069456

Beghetto, R. A., and Kaufman, J. C. (2010). Nurturing creativity in the classroom: How to discourage creative thinking in the classroom . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Berkes, F. (2009). Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. J. Environ. Manag. 90, 1692–1702. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.12.001

Binks, M., Starkey, K., and Mahon, C. L. (2006). Entrepreneurship education and the business school. Tech. Anal. Strat. Manag. 18, 1–18. doi: 10.1080/09537320500520411

Blickle, G., Wendel, S., and Ferris, G. R. (2010). Political skill as moderator of personality-job performance relationships in socioanalytic theory: test of the getting ahead motive in automobile sales. J. Vocat. Behav. 76, 326–335. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2009.10.005

Brian, J., and Norma, I. (2010). Enterprise education as pedagogy. Educ. Train. 52, 7–19. doi: 10.1108/00400911011017654

Brouer, R. L., Harris, K. J., and Kacmar, K. M. (2011). The moderating effects of political skill on the perceived politics-outcome relationships. J. Organ. Behav. 32, 869–885. doi: 10.1002/job.718

Brown, T. E., and Ulijn, J. (2004). “Innovation, entrepreneurship and culture: the interaction between technology” in Progress and economic growth . London: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Cai, L., Tang, S.-Q., Ma, Y.-L., and Gao, X. (2014). 创业学习、创业能力与新企业绩效的关系研究 [The effect of entrepreneurial learning and entrepreneurial capability on new venture performance]. Stud. Sci. Sci. 32, 1189–1197. doi: 10.16192/j.cnki.1003-2053.2014.08.029

Chandler, G. N., and Hanks, S. H. (1994). Founder competence, the environment and venture performance. Entrep. Theory Pract. 18, 77–89. doi: 10.1177/104225879401800306

Chen, C.-M., and Chang, C.-C. (2014). Mining learning social networks for cooperative learning with appropriate learning partners in a problem-based learning environment. Interact. Learn. Environ. 22, 97–124. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2011.641677

Covin, J. G., and Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strateg. Manag. J. 10, 75–87. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250100107

Dencker, J., Gruber, M., and Shah, S. (2009). Individual and opportunity factors influencing job creation in new firms. Acad. Manag. J. 52, 1125–1147. doi: 10.5465/amj.2009.47084648

Falck, O., Gold, R., and Heblich, S. (2016). Lifting the iron curtain: school-age education and entrepreneurial intentions. J. Econ. Geogr. 17, 1111–1148. doi: 10.1093/jeg/lbw026

Fang, R., Chi, L., and Chen, M. (2015). Bringing political skill into social networks: findings from a field study of entrepreneurs. J. Manag. Stud. 52, 175–212. doi: 10.1111/joms.12107

Ferris, G. R., Perrewé, P. L., Anthony, W. P., and Gilmore, D. C. (2000). Political skill at work. Organ. Dyn. 28, 25–37. doi: 10.1016/S0090-2616(00)00007-3

Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Kolodinsky, R., and Hochwarter, W. A. (2005). Development and validation of the political skill inventory. J. Manag. 31, 126–152. doi: 10.1177/0149206304271386

Fillis, D., and Rentschler, R. (2010). The role of creativity in entrepreneurship. J. Enterprising Cult. 18, 49–81. doi: 10.1142/S0218495810000501

Franke, N., and Lüthje, C. (2004). Entrepreneurial intentions of business students: a benchmarking study. Int. J. Innov. Technol. Manag. 01, 269–288. doi: 10.1142/S0219877004000209

Galloway, L., and Brown, W. (2002). Entrepreneurship education at university: a driver in the creation of high growth firms? Educ. Train. 44, 398–405. doi: 10.1108/00400910210449231

Gianesini, G., Cubico, S., Favretto, G., and Leitão, G. C. C. (2018). “Entrepreneurial competences: comparing and contrasting models and taxonomies” in Entrepreneurship and the industry life cycle . Vol. 6, eds. S. Cubico, G. Favretto, J. Leitão, and U. Cantner (Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing), 13–32. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-89336-5_2

Granieri, A., La Marca, L., Mannino, G., Giunta, S., Guglielmucci, F., and Schimmenti, A. (2017). The relationship between defense patterns and DSM-5 maladaptive personality domains. Front. Psychol. 8, 1–12. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01926

Gundry, L. K., Ofstein, L. F., and Kickul, J. R. (2014). Seeing around corners: how creativity skills in entrepreneurship education influence innovation in business. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 12, 529–538. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2014.03.002

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach . New York: Guilford Press.

Kacmar, K. M., Andrews, M. C., and Harris, K. J. (2013). Ethical leadership and subordinate outcomes: the mediating role of organizational politics and the moderating role of political skill. J. Bus. Ethics 115, 33–44. doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1373-8

Kassean, H., Vanevenhoven, J., Liguori, E., and Winkel, D. (2015). Entrepreneurship education: a need for reflection, real-world experience and action. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 21, 690–708. doi: 10.1108/IJEBR-07-2014-0123

Kettunen, J., Kairisto-Mertanen, L., and Penttilä, T. (2013). Innovation pedagogy and desired learning outcomes in higher education. On the Horiz. 21, 333–342. doi: 10.1108/OTH-08-2011-0024

Komarkova, I., Gagliardi, D., Conrads, J., and Collado, A. (2015). Entrepreneurship competence: an overview of existing concepts, policies and initiatives. Jrc Work. Papers 11, 1–158. doi: 10.2791/067979

Kor, Y. Y., Mahoney, J. T., and Michael, S. C. (2007). Resources, capabilities and entrepreneurial perceptions. J. Manag. Stud. 44, 1187–1212. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00727.x

Kuratko, D. F. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education: development, trends, and challenges. Entrep. Theory Pract. 29, 577–598. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00099.x

Lazear, E. P. (2004). Balanced skills and entrepreneurship. Am. Econ. Rev. 94, 208–211. doi: 10.1257/0002828041301425

Martin, B. C., McNally, J. J., and Kay, M. J. (2013). Examining the formation of human capital in entrepreneurship: a meta-analysis of entrepreneurship education outcomes. J. Bus. Ventur. 28, 211–224. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2012.03.002

McAllister, C. P., Parker Ellen, B. III, Perrewé, P. L., and Ferris, G. R. (2016). Checkmate: using political skill to recognize and capitalize on opportunities in the ‘game’ of organizational life. Bus. Horiz. 58, 25–34. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2014.09.008

McEvily, B., Perrone, V., and Zaheer, A. (2003). Introduction to the special issue on Trust in an Organizational Context. Organ. Sci. 14, 1–4. doi: 10.1287/orsc.14.1.1.12812

Medvedeva, T. A. (2011). Developing an innovative style of thinking and innovative behavior. Syst. Pract. Action Res. 25, 261–272. doi: 10.1007/s11213-011-9221-9

Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Manag. Sci. 29, 770–791. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.29.7.770

Mitchelmore, S., and Rowley, J. (2010). Entrepreneurial competencies: a literature review and development agenda. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 16, 92–111. doi: 10.1108/13552551011026995

Morris, N. M., Kuratko, D. F., and Pryor, C. G. (2013). Building blocks for the development of university-wide entrepreneurship. Entrep. Res. J. 4, 45–68. doi: 10.1515/erj-2013-0047

Munyon, T. P., Summers, J. K., Thompson, T. W., and Ferris, G. R. (2015). Political skill and work outcomes: a theoretical extension, meta-analytic investigation, and agenda for the future. Pers. Psychol. 68, 143–184. doi: 10.1111/peps.12066

Naldi, L., Nordqvist, M., Hellerstedt, K., and Wiklund, J. (2007). Entrepreneurial orientation, risk taking, and performance in family firms. Fam. Bus. Rev. 20, 33–47. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-6248.2007.00082.x

Odia, J., and Odia, A. A. (2013). Developing entrepreneurial skills and transforming challenges into opportunities in Nigeria. J. Educ. Soc. Res. 3, 289–298. doi: 10.5901/jesr.2013.v4n3p289

Perrewé, P. L., Zellars, K. L., Rossi, A. M., Ferris, G. R., Kacmar, C. J., Liu, Y., et al. (2005). Political skill: an antidote in the role overload-strain relationship. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 10, 239–250. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.10.3.239

Pittaway, L., and Cope, J. (2016). Entrepreneurship education: a systematic review of the evidence. Soc. Sci. Electron. Publish. 25, 479–510. doi: 10.1177/0266242607080656

Premand, P., Brodmann, S., Almeida, R., Grun, R., and Barouni, M. (2016). Entrepreneurship education and entry into self-employment among university graduates. World Dev. 77, 311–327. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.08.028

Qi, W. H. (2017). 创业学习对创业意向的作用机制研究 [Research on the mechanism of entrepreneurial learning effect on entrepreneurial intention] . Jilin: Jilin University.

Ruskovaara, E., and Pihkala, T. (2015). Entrepreneurship education in schools: empirical evidence on the Teacher’s role. J. Educ. Res. 108, 236–249. doi: 10.1080/00220671.2013.878301

Seikkula-Leino, J. (2011). The implementation of entrepreneurship education through curriculum reform in Finnish comprehensive schools. J. Curric. Stud. 43, 69–85. doi: 10.1080/00220270903544685

Shane, S., and Eckhardt, J. T. (2003). “The individual-opportunity nexus” in Handbook of entrepreneurship research . ed. Z. Acs (Great Britain, England: Kluwer Academic Publishers), 161–191. doi: 10.1007/0-387-24519-7_8

Sims, L., and Sinclair, A. J. (2008). Learning through participatory resource management programs: case studies from Costa Rica. Adult Educ. Q. 58, 151–168. doi: 10.1177/0741713607309802

Tavella, E., and Franco, L. A. (2015). Dynamics of group knowledge production in facilitated modelling workshops: an exploratory study. Group Decis. Negot. 24, 451–475. doi: 10.1007/s10726-014-9398-2

Tocher, N., Oswald, S. L., and Hall, D. J. (2015). Proposing social resources as the fundamental catalyst toward opportunity creation. Strateg. Entrep. J. 9, 119–135. doi: 10.1002/sej.1195

Tocher, N., Oswald, S. L., and Shook, C. L. (2012). Entrepreneur political skill and new venture performance: extending the social competence perspective. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 24, 283–305. doi: 10.1080/08985626.2010.535856

Tolstoy, D. (2009). Knowledge combination and knowledge creation in a foreign-market network. J. Small Bus. Manag. 47, 202–220. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-627X.2009.00268.x

Treadway, D. C., Breland, J. W., and Williams, L. M. (2013). Social influence and interpersonal power in organizations roles of performance and political skill in two studies. J. Manag. 39, 1529–1553. doi: 10.1177/0149206311410887

Volery, T., Mueller, S., and von Siemens, B. (2015). Entrepreneur ambidexterity: a study of entrepreneur behaviours and competencies in growth-oriented small and medium-sized enterprises. Int. Small Bus. J. 33, 111–112. doi: 10.1177/0266242613484777

Wang, Y.-L., Ellinger, A. D., and Wu, Y.-C. J. (2013). Entrepreneurial opportunity recognition: an empirical study of R&D personnel. Manag. Decis. 51, 248–266. doi: 10.1108/00251741311301803

Wei, L. Q., Chiang, F. T., and Wu, L. Z. (2012). Developing and utilizing network resources: roles of political skill. J. Manag. Stud. 49, 381–402. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00987.x

Zahra, S. A., Sapienza, H. J., and Davidsson, P. (2006). Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: a review, model and research agenda. J. Manag. Stud. 43, 917–955. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00616.x

Keywords: entrepreneurship education, innovation, political skills, entrepreneurial opportunity recognition, multiple mediating effect

Citation: Wei X, Liu X and Sha J (2019) How Does the Entrepreneurship Education Influence the Students’ Innovation? Testing on the Multiple Mediation Model. Front. Psychol . 10:1557. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01557

Received: 14 January 2019; Accepted: 19 June 2019; Published: 10 July 2019.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2019 Wei, Liu and Sha. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Xiaolang Liu, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Accessibility Options:
• Skip to Content
• Skip to Search
• Skip to footer
• Office of Disability Services
• Request Assistance
• 305-284-2374
• High Contrast
• School of Architecture
• College of Arts and Sciences
• Miami Herbert Business School
• School of Communication
• School of Education and Human Development
• College of Engineering
• School of Law
• Rosenstiel School of Marine, Atmospheric, and Earth Science
• Miller School of Medicine
• Frost School of Music
• School of Nursing and Health Studies
• The Graduate School
• Division of Continuing and International Education
• People Search
• Class Search
• IT Help and Support
• Privacy Statement
• Student Life

University of Miami

• Division of University Communications
• Office of Media Relations
• Miller School of Medicine Communications
• Hurricane Sports
• UM Media Experts
• Emergency Preparedness

Explore Topics

• Latest Headlines
• Arts and Humanities
• People and Community
• All Topics A to Z

Related Links

• Subscribe to Daily Newsletter
• Special Reports
• Social Networks
• Publications
• For the Media
• Find University Experts
• News and Info
• People and Culture
• Benefits and Discounts
• More Life@TheU Topics
• About Life@the U
• Connect and Share
• Contact Life@theU
• Faculty and Staff Events
• Student Events
• TheU Creates (Arts and Culture Events)
• Undergraduate Students: Important Dates and Deadlines
• Submit an Event
• Miami Magazine
• Faculty Affairs
• Student Affairs
• More News Sites

Elevating future generations of student entrepreneurs

By Pamela Edward [email protected] 02-06-2024

The University of Miami has long empowered aspiring engineers, architects, and entrepreneurs from all disciplines to develop design ideas as part of their coursework and capstone projects. 

The next step—the ability to launch student-created concepts in the marketplace—has received a significant boost with a $5 million pledge from University alumnus Angel Alvarez, founder and chairman of ABB OPTICAL, and his family to establish the University Student Startup Accelerator or USTAAR. 

The USTAAR program is open to any student or student team from any area of the University and will nurture and support their new ideas from inception to implementation. 

Motivated by their own experiences as successful entrepreneurs, Alvarez and his brother, Victor, seek to galvanize student entrepreneurs—helping them turn their daydreams into real-life ventures. “Our vision is to be a catalyst that allows students to see how they can change the world,” explained Angel Alvarez. 

The gift to create USTAAR is part of the University’s Ever Brighter: The Campaign for Our Next Century. The most ambitious in the institution’s history, the $2.5 billion campaign is set to conclude in 2025, when the University will celebrate its centennial. 

A portion of the Alvarez family’s gift will provide seed funding to 20 student-led teams each year for the duration of the commitment. These grants, awarded through a competitive process, will enable the teams to advance their ideas from concept to prototype, minimum viable product (MVP), and feasibility testing. 

From there, an annual “Shark Tank”-style pitch competition will yield five finalists to receive further funding to move their MVPs into products, build their intellectual property, refine their business plans, and receive guidance on preparing presentations to investors. The goal is for these five teams to progress to startups and reach the market within three years of initiation. 

The pitch competition is the centerpiece of a wide-ranging set of USTAAR initiatives to fuel student innovation and entrepreneurship across the University. A startup studio housed in the College of Engineering will provide paid full-time summer employment to students creating products for local industries. A robust set of related activities and resources, including scholarships for underrepresented minority student entrepreneurs and high-impact, cross-disciplinary training programs focusing on various aspects of entrepreneurship, such as prototyping and intellectual property, will further strengthen the foundation at the University for the next century of student entrepreneurs and startup creation. 

Suhrud Rajguru is the director of USTAAR and one of its most passionate champions. 

As a professor of biomedical engineering and otolaryngology, Rajguru has overseen dozens of senior design projects in the College of Engineering. As assistant vice provost for research workforce development, he is part of a team that matches researchers and scholars with funding, collaborators, and the tools necessary for success. And as a successful entrepreneur, he knows from first-hand experience how vital early mentoring and financial support are. 

“Any startup company knows that the first investment is the most critical to get you off the ground,” Rajguru said. “The majority of startups fail because they don’t know where to get that. We didn’t have any program to support students at the level of $20,000 to $100,000” before the Alvarez family stepped up, along with an earlier donor, scientist, and entrepreneur Jonathan Rothberg, who established the Miami Engineering Rothberg Catalyzer Award .

In the College of Engineering, Rajguru has already worked with student teams whose design concepts show commercial promise. His most recent cohort of senior design projects yielded some remarkable ideas, including from two teams that received Rothberg Catalyzer Awards. 

Timothy Arcari, a graduate student in the joint B.S./M.S. program in biomedical engineering (BME), and Joseph Cherubin, a senior BME major, created HemoFix, an automated tourniquet that anyone can use in an emergency. 

Traditional manual tourniquets require significant strength to work correctly and have a high failure rate. Surgical tourniquets are expensive and immobile. Arcari and Cherubin’s portable smart tourniquet employs compressed air cartridges so that anyone, regardless of age or fitness, can stanch bleeding in an emergency. They got the idea from Miller School students who identified the problem, and their goal is straightforward: to save as many lives as possible. 

Arcari and Cherubin wholeheartedly credit the support of Rajguru and other faculty, mentoring teams, and donors at the U that enabled them to improve and test their prototype, refine their business model, enter competitions such as eMerge Americas, and move their concept toward marketability. “We are tremendously grateful for all the resources UM has provided us, and we can’t wait to see how far we can take this valuable product in years to come,” Arcari said.

Another student team, Joy Jackson, Kailyn Nuñez, and Erin Ravindran, all 2023 BME graduates, created the PrepAir Patch, a noninvasive, minimalistic way to detect the respiratory rate of premature infants in a neonatal intensive care unit. “As student entrepreneurs, having the guidance of professors and faculty is an incredible asset,” Ravindran said. “This support grants us the flexibility to think beyond monetary limits. The senior design classes and expo have served as an invaluable experience in learning, start to end, what it means to be innovators.” 

USTAAR will broaden these opportunities to reach all corners of the University, where students apply their learning and creativity to devise marketable products that can make a difference beyond campus.

“The program will provide fundamental training, mentorship, and financial support for idea development and commercialization, with a goal to creating ’Canes-led startups that bring products to the market,” Rajguru said. “The program is open to all students and trainees at the University. The goal is for these student-led startups to enhance socioeconomic development in South Florida and beyond.” 

Working together to oversee this multidisciplinary student startup accelerator are the Office of the Vice Provost for Research and Scholarship and the College of Engineering with expertise from the Office of Technology Transfer, U Innovation, and other strategic areas of the University.  

"Imagine a future where our students' brilliant ideas not only spark innovation but also translate into real-world solutions, improving lives and industries,” said Guillermo “Willy” Prado, interim executive vice president for academic affairs and provost. “This gift fuels that vision by bridging the gap between academic research and commercialization. Thanks to our donors' generosity, we're empowering students to become the next generation of inventors and entrepreneurs, their boundless creativity guided by expert mentorship."

Rajguru enthusiastically agreed. “At the University of Miami, we have amazing students who are very talented and who come up with brilliant ideas. This gift will be completely transformative and make the University a destination for these student entrepreneurs, while creating a major impact and societal benefit in South Florida and beyond.” 

The USTAAR 2024 Seed Funding application is open to all current University of Miami students until March 1, 2024. Additional information and the application form are available here.

• Coral Gables , FL 33124
• 305-284-2211 305-284-2211
• UM News and Events
• Alumni & Friends
• University Hotline

Tools and Resources

• Academic Calendar
• Parking & Transportation
• social-facebook
• social-twitter
• social-youtube
• social-instagram

Copyright: 2024 University of Miami. All Rights Reserved. Emergency Information Privacy Statement & Legal Notices Title IX & Gender Equity Website Feedback

Individuals with disabilities who experience any technology-based barriers accessing the University’s websites or services can visit the Office of Workplace Equity and Inclusion .

Meet the 2024 Everyday Entrepreneurs Teams

by Richie Vera February 6th 2024 Share

Witness the debut of the first Everyday Entrepreneur competition! See the innovative and entrepreneurial spirit of these student trailblazers as our first-ever finalists. They take center stage to showcase their brilliant projects live on March 29th!

Grainstorm:

Meet Victoria Amiel, a MBA student pursuing a business administration degree. Victoria has a strong passion for food and innovation, her product idea “Grainstorm '' is a unique more savory oatmeal, for people looking for a quick and nutritious meal, and specifically those who would prefer a savory over sweet breakfast.

FulaniTimes:

Meet Saleh Abdoulaye and Idrissa Abdoulaye, two brothers making waves with their innovative business ventures. Their latest project “FulaniTimes”, a digital platform aimed at reducing printing's environmental impact and opening up job opportunities for all. Their platform offers easy-to-access templates and introduces a print-on-demand model, revolutionizing how we print while promoting sustainability and inclusivity.

Safer Cleaners for BIPOC Communities: 

Angel Contreras Cruz, a Ph.D. candidate in engineering technology management. Angel created the idea of a non-profit organization that provides education and samples of safer cleaners to cleaning companies and the general public that attend workshops in the Portland Metro Area. He hopes to bridge the environmental justice gap that BIPOC communities face to access safer cleaning products.

Wellness Business Consultancy:

Kari Doherty is an MBA student at Portland State with a passion for Yoga. Kari's being a former Yoga gym owner for over 7 years has allowed her to see the struggles of running a wellness business. Her idea is to make the wellness industry a lot easier by allowing talented professionals to focus on their craft and her business focus on our business management side. 

International Student Community Agency:

Meet Ashraf Mandour, a PSU international student who is pursuing a Masters degree in computer science. Ashraf created the idea of an International Student community agency, his goal is to allow international students to have more sense of community when arriving at college. He hopes to create a website where international students can find resources and connect with fellow peers going through a similar situation.

Inclusive Public Health Agency: 

Meet Daisy Sanchez, a senior at PSU pursuing her undergrad in public health  and the founder of Inclusive Public Health Marketing Agency. Her goal is to solve the problem of inequality in health opportunities and outcomes within the United States by creating a public health marketing business that collaborates with organizations and businesses committed to health by providing them digital marketing, social media management, content creation, branding, market research, and advertising services. 

We're excited to be kicking off of the first-ever Everyday Entrepreneur competition! Over the next thrilling 10 weeks, participating teams will immerse themselves in design thinking, business modeling, and market research, all leading up to their pitch to judges. Join us for the live finals, as your fellow Portland State students commence their entrepreneurial journey, taking center stage on March 29th at the PSU NASCC building starting at 3pm. 

Everyday Entrepreneurs is a national program supported by NACCE, to uplift student entrepreneurs and provide them access and funding. To learn more about NACCE and Everyday Entrepreneurs visit: https://www.nacce.com/eevf  

Related Links:

• RSVP for the event!
• science and technology

Celebrate Student Innovation and Entrepreneurship at PLASMA Demo Day

• by Aurora Bi
• April 25, 2024

On May 2, 2024, in California Hall, ten teams of undergraduate student entrepreneurs will pitch their companies to industry experts at Demo Day. The annual event is the culminating experience of PLASMA , a 12-week early-stage cohort accelerator program organized by the Student Startup Center at the University of California, Davis.

"At the Student Startup Center, we're all about helping student founders solve some of the biggest problems on the planet," shared Aaron Anderson , director of the Student Startup Center. "For twelve weeks, we throw everything we've got at these teams to help them refine their businesses, and in the end, it's remarkable what they've built. Demo Day is the culmination of all of that work."

This year's PLASMA teams are working on a wide range of innovative solutions, including AI-powered essay grading tools, revolutionizing the recruitment industry and more. Meet the 2024 teams:

ColentAl aims to revolutionize the recruitment industry with new collaborative technologies gathering real data to back resumes coupled with deep web search.

CounselHero

For school counselors and students who seek a more personalized and efficient approach to academic and career planning, CounselHero is an innovative digital counseling platform. Unlike traditional counseling methods or basic ed-tech tools, CounselHero leverages AI-driven insights and interactive tools to provide tailored guidance, empowering students with clear, data-informed decisions for their future.

For healthcare institutions that need a discrete, wearable device to prescribe to epileptics to prevent injuries from seizures, EpiSense is an EEG headband, unlike indirect competitors who cannot predict seizures.  

For candy consumers who are looking for a healthy, low-calorie, and all-natural alternative, Fit Candy is a candy product made from upcycled watermelon rinds which is unlike its competitors because it is not only a low-calorie and healthy candy alternative, it is also made with real fruit and all-natural ingredients while also aiding in reducing food waste by making use of an upcycled food with tremendous nutritional potential.

The Make Box provides creative, hands-on DIY robotics kits with online educational programs for middle school students and parents interested in innovative STEM education. Unlike traditional STEM curriculums and one-time-use projects, The Make Box develops fun, multipurpose kits paired with strong mentorship from high school & college instructors to help foster lifelong passions in STEM.

For artificial nail users who experience damage from the harsh chemicals and processes of a manicure, SeaNails is an all-natural, biodegradable, waste-based extension nail manicure that is nourishing to the nail bed by way of our collagen-based nail glue while its biodegradability allows for use as an organic fertilizer, unlike traditional nail manicures (acrylic, dip powder, etc.) that are plastic-based, destroying both your nail bed and the environment.

For pool owners who need a chemical maintenance and safety solution, Splash is a smart pool product that measures pool chemicals via a sensor box and monitors the pool for accidental falls via a smart camera. Splash offers ease of mind by 24/7 chemical and video monitoring unlike pool services and other monitoring devices that are expensive and unreliable.  

Square Solutions

For research labs and hospitals that develop and administer cell therapies, Square Solutions is a portable cell incubator that bridges the gap between research and clinical environments unlike the current transportation method, which is proven to reduce cell therapy efficacy. 

For educators and schools who struggle with the time-consuming task of grading essays and providing personalized feedback, Tallyrus is an AI-powered essay grading tool that offers rapid, detailed, and tailored feedback on student writing, unlike Turnitin or Canvas where teachers must grade every essay manually.

For music-loving people who want to make an authentic connection, Wavelength is a dating app that uses musical compatibility to match users with others in their area, unlike Tinder, Bumble or Hinge, which promote easy but ultimately shallow connections with others through generic, quantity-based schematics.  

Register to attend PLASMA Demo Day

Primary Category

Texas Tech Now

Highlighting the impact of texas tech’s innovation hub at research park.

April 23, 2024

The Hub plays a significant role in entrepreneur Abigail Rosilier’s company.

On the corner of Fourth Street and Texas Tech Parkway is a 44,000-square-foot pillar of light for West Texas entrepreneurs. Texas Tech University 's Innovation Hub at Research Park signifies that the future is more attainable today than ever before. 

The Hub has 15 entrepreneurial programs to assist startups, including seed funding. These are tools that aid new entrepreneurs of the Hub to outline progress and obtain their goals. 

In 2023, the Innovation Hub startup companies raised $8 million in capital investments and were awarded 68 new trademarks, patents, and/or copyrights. The Hub has 60 industry mentors supporting startups with over 7,000 volunteer mentor hours logged last year.

“We're all about economic development -- we want students at Texas Tech to learn here, grow their company here and stay in West Texas,” said Taysha Williams managing director at the Innovation Hub. 

The Hub has multiple startup initiatives such as its Texas Tech Accelerator Program that supports entrepreneurs launching innovative startups. This is a year-long program that includes $25,000 in funding, mentors, monthly business bootcamps and additional resources. The Hub is a space for collaboration and ideation, providing entrepreneurial minds with all the resources and connections needed to be successful.

The Accelerator program is on its seventh cohort of entrepreneurs, comprising eight startups. One of those is abbyrose , a phone case company started by current Jerry S. Rawls College of Business student Abigail Rosilier. She is set to graduate in May with a bachelor's in business management and several years of business experience.  

Being a college student is difficult enough, but Rosilier has managed to juggle school and a successful business throughout her college career. 

“I struggle with that. I would love to feel like I have it all down, but I don't,” Rosilier said humbly. “It's definitely hard, but I find the more I have on my plate the more scheduled I become. Some advice I would give is make your schedule and hold yourself accountable. You'll find a groove.”

Rosilier always has had an entrepreneurial spirit. She had a few stints with small businesses, beginning in the fifth grade, that she'd start and end often within a few months. 

Rosilier began abbyrose as a 16-year-old in her parents' garage during her junior year of high school. She transitioned to homeschooling due to the demanding training schedule of competing in acrobatic gymnastics. She credits acro with shaping her into the person she is today, beginning the sport at age 5. Turns out acro gymnastics also helped with abbyrose because of the connections it afforded her.

“I had so many connections and friends from different states because I was constantly competing,” Rosilier said. “That was a lot of help when I first started abbyrose because I started selling to people in Maryland and California. It was good to have a ton of friends in different states.”

Rosilier explained she had a phone case business in years prior to starting abbyrose, but like before, ended it within a few months. 

“Theres no ‘aha moment' that was like, let me do cases. It'll do so well,” said Rosilier. “It was kind of just like, I have the stuff. I haven't done a business in a while and I'm homeschooled now for my sport, so might as well try it again.”

When she tried again, she was met with a resounding response as abbyrose has amassed nearly 500 thousand followers and over 15 million likes across social media platforms. Rosilier runs the company with the help of her three siblings and her mother. 

The family-owned and operated business continues to flourish with the support of The Hub. 

“I started with their iLaunch Competition, their version of ‘Shark Tank,' and then the Texas Tech Accelerator, and then I got an office,” said Rosilier. “It all just kind of fell into place – opened so many doors that you didn't even know could be opened.

“We got into the TTU Accelerator Program a year ago. I've never had mentors before; they helped us focus on the important things. We were trying to launch five products at once, and they were like, ‘You need to scale.'” 

Taking one glance at Rosilier's office space at the Hub, her room or even her company's logo you may notice a common theme: pink, and lots of it. Her favorite color covers her well-organized office floor to wall. The office is filled with equipment she uses to promote her products on social media like ring lights, phone stands and bins filled with phone cases. 

“I'm there every day,” said Rosilier. “It's such a good environment there, you'll want to go and stay because there's such good energy. The Hub has so many opportunities constantly. They've helped literally in every way possible.” 

If you have a business idea or would like to explore entrepreneurship, visit the Innovation Hub's website, innovationhub.ttu.edu to learn more about its programs.

You may also like

A funny thing happened on the way to a career, first-gen alumna finds success through texas tech’s waco site, generous donation founds texas tech’s first veterans legal clinic.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Factors affecting students’ entrepreneurial intentions: a systematic review (2005–2022) for future directions in theory and practice

Greeni maheshwari.

1 Economics and Finance Department, RMIT University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Khanh Linh Kha

Anantha raj a. arokiasamy.

2 School of Economics and Management, Xiamen University, Sepang, Selangor Malaysia

Associated Data

Data sharing is not applicable as no datasets are generated in this current study. All the articles used for the analysis are already provided in the article (in Table ​ Table2 2 and Appendix table).

Entrepreneurship has been viewed as a critical contributor and an economic engine in a country for creating new jobs and it is crucial for graduates to alter their mindset to become self-employed. Thus, it is necessary to synthesize the factors that impact the entrepreneurial intentions (EI) of students at tertiary level. The aim of this research is twofold; first to identify the factors which have been most studied in the literature and second, to determine which factors are less explored to measure the EI of students. This research adopts the systematic review approach to identify various studies conducted between 2005 to June 2022. The paper further adopted citation analysis and identified the 36 most impactful studies in this area of research. Next, the thematic analysis was conducted and seven main themes (factors) (cognitive, personality, environmental, social, educational, contextual and demographic) of EI determinants were identified. The analysis of the papers clearly demonstrated that the TPB model and cognitive factors dominate this area of research. Furthermore, over half of the studies are conducted in Asia, hence it is important to explore other regions such as Africa, America and Europe and other comparative studies between various regions. The study offers avenues for future research and practical implications of the study for the practitioners.

Introduction

Entrepreneurship has been viewed as a critical contributor and an economic engine of every country as it helps in creating new jobs, and increases innovation and competitiveness in the labor market (Barba-Sánchez et al. 2022 ). Entrepreneurship activities have been given importance in many Western countries and are also gaining more attention in developing countries. Many studies have identified entrepreneurial intention (EI) as one of the most significant predictors of entrepreneurial activities and behaviors (Krueger et al. 2000 ; Autio et al. 2001 ; Arasti et al. 2012 ). Hence, the focus of various contemporary research has shifted from entrepreneurship to EI (Yu et al. 2021 ). Indeed, the number of studies using EI as a research framework has increased since the early 90s, confirming the importance of EI aspect in several settings (Liñán and Fayolle 2015 ). In addition, it is crucial for graduates to eventually alter their mindset from searching for jobs to creating jobs as a country’s government will not be able to ensure sufficient job provision for all tertiary-level graduates in the future (Reuel Johnmark et al. 2016 ). University students should shift their focus towards entrepreneurial revolution (Nuan and Xin 2012 ; Jiang and Sun 2015 ). Considering this, it is important to understand the factors that affect the EI of students in order to nurture their future entrepreneurialism in their respective countries.

There have been several studies conducted by scholars to examine the factors that impact EI of higher education students. Cognitive and personality factors, such as self-efficacy, individual attitudes, desire for achievement and behavioral control, have significant influence on students’ intentions towards entrepreneurship (Nasip et al. 2017 ; Shah and Soomro 2017 ; Biswas and Verma 2021 ). Social and environmental researchers have identified elements such as prior experience, family background, regional culture and government support as critical factors that affect EI of students (Ahamed and Rokhman 2015 ; Ali et al. 2019 ; Tiwari et al. 2020 ). Another fundamental factor contributing to the formation of students’ EI is entrepreneurial education. Entrepreneurial education in higher education plays an important role in enhancing foundational entrepreneurial knowledge and various cognitive and non-cognitive skills by stimulating students’ entrepreneurial activities (Walter and Block 2016 ; Brüne and Lutz 2020 ). This will further motivate students towards entrepreneurship, help improve entrepreneurship quality, and lead to entrepreneurial success (Galloway and Brown 2002 ). Many entrepreneurship models and theories have been developed to investigate the impact of factors on EI of an individual. Among those proposed models, most of the papers in this research area used theory of planned behaviour (TPB) model (as highlighted by analysis from this review discussed next in the paper) to study the EI of the students. The EI of students is not only affected by factors from TPB model, but there are various other models affecting the EI of students as discussed later in the paper.

Based on the different models developed on entrepreneurship (as discussed further in the paper), there are various factors that affect the entrepreneurial intentions of university students, such as educational factors, contextual factors, environmental factors, psychological factors, and personality factors but little work is done to understand which factors scholars considered the most in measuring the entrepreneurial intentions of the university students. This review of literature is based on the synthesis of papers and will provide an overview of (1) which factors the scholars have paid the most attention to measure EI of the students and (2) what factors are understudied in the literature to determine the factors affecting EI of students.

This study will contribute to the growing body of literature on the factors affecting entrepreneurial intentions of university students by providing theoretical and practical contributions. The study will be particularly beneficial to researchers working in this research area as this paper also provides gaps for future research. The study results would also help educational institutions to support and encourage students towards their entrepreneurial intentions and policy makers who will be able to understand how they can support the development of entrepreneurship activities that in turn, enhance the economic growth of the country.

Despite entrepreneurship being considered a key contributor for sustained growth and development of countries, and EI being regarded as the dominant influence of an individual’s entrepreneurship, the non-quantitative studies pertaining to determine the factors affecting EI have not been paid much attention. There are some scholars who have conducted systematic reviews of study in this area; for example, Pittaway and Cope ( 2007 ) examined the interface between higher education institutions and business sector. The study by Bae et al. ( 2014 ) was regarding a systematic review of literature in order to find the correlation between entrepreneurial education and EI of students. Nabi et al. ( 2017 ) provided a systematic review of literature to study the impact on the EI of students considering entrepreneurial education. Wu and Wu ( 2017 ) systematically reviewed the effect of entrepreneurial education on the EI of students, particularly in the Asia–Pacific region. It is important to synthesize the literature to get the holistic picture and contribute towards this research field (Kuckertz and Block 2021 ). Hence, in this paper, the synthesis of factors that impact the EI of students is carried out and further analyze the extent they have been used by various scholars in this field.

This research adopts the systematic review approach, which is important for synthesizing knowledge to identify numerous studies conducted between 2005 and June 2022. The studies on the EI of students have been receiving a lot of attention since 2016 (as determined by the analysis in this paper) and hence it is clearly visible that this area triggered the researchers’ interest and therefore is important to understand which factors are considered by different scholars to measure the EI of university students in the studies conducted so far. The aim of this research is twofold; first to identify the factors affecting the EI of students which have been studied the most in literature in previous years (from 2005) across the world. Second, to determine which factors are less explored in measuring the entrepreneurial intentions of students and thus can be explored more in future studies. A clearer perspective regarding various factors affecting EI of university students used by various scholars are analyzed in this paper. The findings from this paper can support practitioners to implement policies and take action to promote entrepreneurship in higher education students, as well as provide insights for further research in the future.

Following this brief introduction, the rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section  2 displays the review of literature on the development of various entrepreneurial models, Sect.  3 explains the research methodology, while Sect.  4 provides the results of the review, the next section corresponds to the discussion of the paper and the concluding remarks are provided in the last section of the paper.

Review of development of entrepreneurial models

There are various models developed and used by various scholars to determine the entrepreneurial intentions of an individual.

The entrepreneurial event model (EEM)

The entrepreneurial event model (EEM) proposed by Shapero and Sokol ( 1982 ) is the first model to shed light on entrepreneurial intention theory. According to the model, the three main determinants that affect an individual’s intention in entrepreneurship are perceived desirability, perceived feasibility and propensity to act. The perception of desirability towards entrepreneurship implies the engagingness of entrepreneurial conduct that a person can perceive. Perceived feasibility signifies the extent that an individual believes they can perform entrepreneurial behavior; and propensity to act indicates the possibility to become an entrepreneur. The proposed model also highlights that the “entrepreneurial event” acts as a trigger to determine behavior towards entrepreneurship of an individual, which can help them to make the best decision among a range of choices.

The expectancy theory

Expectancy Theory (known as Theory of Motivation or the Rational Intention Theory) developed by (Vroom ( 1964 ) states that conscious choice of an individual to maximize satisfaction and minimize adversity will lead to a person’s behavior. In the theory, motivation is defined as a result of an expectancy that greater effort will foster greater performance, instrumentality refers to the expectation of an individual to receive a certain outcome when they make the effort, and valence implies the degree to which the person values the outcome. The Expectancy Theory has been used as a framework in many studies to explore people’s motivation for becoming entrepreneurs (Locke and Baum 2007 ). The three variables: expectancy, instrumentality, and valence, were confirmed to increase entrepreneurship motivation, further concluding that apart from ability and aptitude, motivation could enhance the entrepreneurial intentions of an individual (Barba-Sánchez and Atienza-Sahuquillo 2017 , 2018 ).

The theory of planned behavior model (TPB)

The theory of planned behavior (TPB) is advanced from the theory of reasoned action (TRA) by Ajzen and Fishbein ( 1980 ). TRA implies that intentions, which are shaped by personal attitudes and subjective norms, will govern the actions of an individual. Regarding the TPB model by Ajzen ( 1991 ), the behavior of a person is based on voluntary control and specific planning. TPB defines the three antecedents that shape an individual's intention, namely attitudes towards behavior (ATB), social norms (SN), and perceived behavioral control (PBC). ATB implies the positive or negative perceptions of individuals regarding behavior. SN refers to how social pressures can influence the performance of a certain behavior. PBC represents the person’s aspects towards difficulty level of conducting the behavior. Similar to TRA model, TPB also emphasizes that intention is the direct antecedent of behavior, and the greater intention will more likely cause behavior to be performed (Ajzen 1991 ). The study by Barba-Sánchez et al. ( 2022 ), considered TPB components in their study and found that PA and PBC have a direct influence on the EI of students, while SN does not influence the EI of students directly, but mediate the relationship between environmental awareness and PA; Environmental awareness and EI.

The theory of planned behavior entrepreneurial model (TPBEM)

Based on TPB, the theory of planned behavior entrepreneurial model (TPBEM) by Krueger and Carsrud ( 1993 ) explains the three factors that impact individuals’ intentions to start a business: attitude towards venture creation, subjective norms and perceived control for entrepreneurial demeanor.

The entrepreneurial intention model (EIM)

The entrepreneurial intention model (EIM) by Boyd and Vozikis ( 1994 ) is further developed from Bird’s ( 1988 ) original model of entrepreneurial intentionality. According to Bird’s model (1988), a person establishes intentions towards entrepreneurship based on both contextual and personal characteristics. Specifically, the contextual factors include political, social and economic elements that can shape an individual’s rational thinking. While personality, ability and background can affect one’s intuitiveness about starting a business. Based on the original model, EIM of Boyd and Vozikis ( 1994 ) added the self-efficacy factor as an application from social cognitive theory (Bandura 1977a , b , 1986 ) to demonstrate its importance in impacting entrepreneurial intentions and behaviors of individuals as well as being intermediary between one’s thoughts regarding entrepreneurship and intentions towards venture creation.

The social cognitive career theory model (SCCT)

Social learning theory (SLT) was first introduced through the Bobo Doll Experiment in the 1960s by Bandura et al. ( 1961 , 1963 ), indicating that learning can happen by observing, imitating, practicing behaviors and encountering consequences of behaviors in a social context (Bandura 1977a ). The learning procedure is determined by the association between individuals and the degree of elevating emotional and practical expertise, defining self-perception and others’ perceptions (Bandura 1977a ). Bandura ( 1977b ) adopted the concept of self-efficacy to SLT to demonstrate the correlation between perceived self-efficacy and changes in behavior. Self-efficacy refers to a person’s belief in successfully performing a task in a certain situation. The proposed model presents four primary antecedents that develop the personal efficacy expectations, including performance achievements, vicarious experience, social persuasion, and physiological conditions, such as anxiety and arousal.

Social cognitive theory (SCT) is further developed from the SLT of Bandura, strengthening the vital role of cognitive components in the social learning process. The self-efficacy factor from his previous studies is also included in SCT as one of an individual’s behavioral determinants. Moreover, the model presents that human behavior is shaped by the reciprocal causation among environmental, behavioral, and cognitive attributes (Bandura 1986 ).

Lent et al. ( 1994 ) expanded the social cognitive career theory (SCCT) from the original SCT of Bandura, studying the decision-making demeanor that involves career matters. It is denoted by SCCT that career success is affected by cognitive-related elements, which consists of self-efficacy, expectancy of outcomes and intentions; and a career decision-making procedure is regulated by both personal and contextual factors.

Lüthje and Franke model (LFM)

Lüthje and Franke Model (LFM) developed by Lüthje and Franke ( 2003 ) indicates the crucial significance of personality traits in explaining self-employment attitudes and entrepreneurial behaviors besides personal attitudes, social norms, contextual and economic determinants. Specifically, in the study concerning university's influence on the entrepreneurial intentions of students, Lüthje and Franke indicated that the components of personality traits, including risk-taking propensity and internal locus of control, have a significant influence on attitude towards entrepreneurship, hence indirectly impacting the intention to establish a new business. The model also incorporates perceived support and perceived barriers as contextual factors to determine the importance in reinforcing an individual’s intentions towards entrepreneurship (Lüthje and Franke 2003 ). By integrating personal and environmental factors, this model presents an extended approach to investigate the broad range of antecedents that affect entrepreneurial intentions (Nabi et al. 2010 ).

Research methodology

A systematic review has been conducted for this study and the papers which measured the entrepreneurial intentions of the university students published from 2005 until June 2022 were analyzed. A four-step review was adopted for this study (Maheshwari et al. 2021 ). The first step focused on reviewing articles measuring the entrepreneurial intentions (EI) of students (from 2005 to June 2022). During the next step, the data extraction was conducted using various databases such as Scopus, Emerald, Springer, Taylor and Francis, ProQuest and JSTOR as many highly ranked journals of educational studies are indexed in these prominent databases and aligned with publication standards. An additional search was conducted on Google Scholar to include relevant articles. The search began using the key words such as “Entrepreneurial Intention” AND “determinants” OR “factors” AND “university students”, which resulted in 387 results (including articles, books, conference papers) in which 342 articles were in English. The third step focused on extracting the articles of our interest based on the research objective regarding factors influencing EI of students. After reading the abstract of 342 articles, 52 articles did not match our research objective and hence those were discarded leaving us with 290 final articles relevant to this study, most of which were found from the Scopus database (Table ​ (Table1). 1 ). During the last step, the articles were analyzed using the average citations received per year to identify the most influential papers based on the average citation per year of 10 or above. This resulted in 36 papers (Table ​ (Table2) 2 ) and the thematic analysis was conducted to identify the various themes from these papers regarding factors affecting EI of students. The rest of the papers (n = 254) (Table in Appendix) were analyzed further based on the identified themes. The research methodology for this paper is shown in Fig.  1 .

Sources of database for all 290 papers (including influential and non-influential papers)

List of most influential papers (n = 36)

Research Methodology (adapted from Maheshwari et al. ( 2021 ))

Region of research

The first criteria to analyze the paper was based on the region of research and is presented in Fig.  2 . The analysis of the articles showed that most of the studies were conducted in Asia (52%), followed by 19% of studies conducted in Europe/UK region, 12% studies in both America and Africa region and the remaining 6% of the studies were multi-country studies.

Year of research

Next, the articles were analyzed to determine the number of studies conducted in different years. It was found that very few studies had been conducted until 2016 (n = 50). Most of the studies were conducted after 2016 (n = 240). This indicates the growing interest of scholars in this area since 2017 (as in Fig.  3 ).

Year of study

Research methods used in the studies

Out of the 290 studies conducted between 2005 and June 2022, most of the studies (n = 285) used quantitative research methodology as seen in Table ​ Table3 3 and three studies used qualitative methodology. One study used mixed methodology while another study was a synthesis of literature. This clearly indicates that quantitative research methodology dominates this field of research and there is a need to use qualitative or mixed methodology approaches in this research field (Table  3 ).

Citation analysis

The next stage of the analysis included the citation analysis to identify the most influential papers from the total 290 papers identified in the study. The authors analyzed all 290 final articles and calculated the average citations received per year for each paper and identified a total of 36 articles as the most influential paper based on the average citation of 10 or above received per year. These 36 most cited papers were further analyzed to identify the themes based on content similarities regarding the factors affecting the entrepreneurial intentions of university students. After reading 36 papers, the authors identified seven main themes (factors) which affect the EI of the students. The seven themes of this paper were identified based on our holistic understanding of two criteria (1) the core factors (variables) considered in all the influential papers (2) the common core factors used by these influential papers to measure the EI of students. These seven factors are cognitive factors, personality factors, environmental factors, social factors, educational factors, contextual (situational) factors and demographic factors. These factors are classified from the 36 papers identified and Table ​ Table4 4 shows these seven themes (factors).

Themes from influential papers

The Education and Training Journal has published the highest number of papers (five) identified in this study, followed by four published in International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, three in International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, two each respectively in Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business and the Studies in Higher Education. There was one article each in the rest of the journals. There are 15 studies from Asia, 10 studies conducted in Europe, six were a collaboration between multiple countries, four in America and one from Africa. 19 out of 36 studies have used the TPB model whereas seven studies have combined the TPB model with other models (as per Table ​ Table2 2 ).

Themes (categories) identification from influential papers

The 36 most cited papers were further analyzed to identify the themes used in these papers following Fitz-Koch et al. ( 2018 ) research and it was found that most of these studies revolved around seven categories (themes). The summary of the factors under each category (theme) are summarized in Table ​ Table4. 4 . These seven identified categories (themes) used in various influential papers are discussed next in detail.

Cognitive factors

Tpb factors.

The effect of TPB antecedents—attitudes, social norms and perceived behavioral control—on entrepreneurial intentions is discussed in many studies, including Solesvik ( 2013 ), Zhang et al. ( 2015 ), Iglesias-Sánchez et al. ( 2016 ), Karimi et al. ( 2017 ), Mirjana et al. ( 2018 ), Al-Jubari et al. ( 2019 ). In research by Wu and Wu ( 2008 ), personal attitude is the critical influence of entrepreneurial intentions, regardless of the educational backgrounds of students. The three antecedents were proven to have a direct and significant impact on entrepreneurial intentions in the study of Solesvik ( 2013 ) and Utami ( 2017 ). Furthermore, perceived entrepreneurial motivation, which was enhanced among students who joined an enterprise education program, stimulated entrepreneurial intentions through the mediating effect of the three TPB factors (Solesvik, 2013 ).

Zhang et al. ( 2015 ) proved that social norms and perceived behavior control relate significantly to entrepreneurial intentions of students, and controlled behavior generates greater impact on the intentions than social norms do. However, no relationship is found between attitudes and the desire to start a business, considering the lack of experience towards entrepreneurship among undergraduate students. In the research of Iglesias-Sánchez et al. ( 2016 ), PA and PBC have a significant impact on students’ intentions to start ventures, while SN is not a determining component but only demonstrates a decision-making role. In line with other studies, Karimi et al. ( 2017 ) confirmed the significant impact of TPB antecedents on Iranian students’ EI. Among the three predictors, PBC shows the strongest relationship with intentions to start a business while SN demonstrates the weakest. Maresch et al. ( 2016 ) highlighted a negative relationship between subjective norms and entrepreneurial intentions for science and engineering students. By applying TPB to investigate entrepreneurial intentions of students between developing and developed countries, Iakovleva et al. ( 2011 ) showed stronger entrepreneurial intentions with higher attitudes, SN and PBC in developing countries. The result of the study indicated that SN significantly impacted entrepreneurial intentions of students, which is different from some past papers that found no significance in the relationship between SN and intentions towards entrepreneurship (Chen et al. 1998 ; Wu and Wu 2008 ).

Other factors

The study of Zhang et al. ( 2014 ) identified that entrepreneurial intentions are significantly influenced by perceived desirability, but not by perceived feasibility. This is explainable by negative environmental elements of perceived behavioral control, uncertain locus of control and environmental controls due to lack of prior experiences. Solesvik et al. ( 2014 ) stated that in a transitional economy context, students that have perceived desirability and perceived feasibility have greater entrepreneurial intentions. Moreover, the study found that students who take initiative have greater intentions to start a business, while students with low capability beliefs yield lower entrepreneurial intentions. The research of Mirjana et al. ( 2018 ) also highlighted the crucial relationship between innovative cognitive style and students’ intentions to become entrepreneurs. However, innovative cognitive style inconsiderably influences entrepreneurial intentions when the factor is considered as a solely explanatory component.

Personality factors

According to Zhao et al. ( 2005 ), people having higher risk propensity will be more confident confronting risky situations and viewing uncertain circumstances as less risky than other individuals. Considering that, they might feel less anxious to take on entrepreneurial occupation, fulfill the position and complete the tasks more comfortably, thus having higher entrepreneurial self-efficacy. This impact is also justified by the findings of the study, stating that self-efficacy plays a mediating role in the relationship between risk propensity and intentions towards entrepreneurship of students.

Many studies found that self-efficacy and intentions towards entrepreneurship of students have a positively significant relationship, such as Guzmán-Alfonso and Guzmán-Cuevas ( 2012 ), Sesen ( 2013 ), Utami ( 2017 ), Zhang and Cain ( 2017 ). The research of Gurel et al. ( 2010 ) indicates that innovativeness and risk-taking propensity play a significant role as a predictor for entrepreneurial intentions of tourism students in the UK and Turkey, while tolerance of ambiguity and locus of control do not relate to the intentions towards entrepreneurship. Additionally, education does not demonstrate the moderating impact in the relationship between those entrepreneurial traits and intentions of tourism students. On the other hand, locus of control shows significant influence on entrepreneurial intentions in the study of Sesen ( 2013 ). The study also indicates that personality factors are more significant towards the entrepreneurial intentions of students than environmental predictors such as access to capital and social networks.

Zhang et al. ( 2015 ) also stated that short-term risk-taking preference and factors of psychological well-being positively influence the intentions towards entrepreneurship of an individual with the existence of TPB antecedents, namely personal attitudes, social norms and perceived behavioral control. The study of Zhang and Cain ( 2017 ) pointed out that there is an absence of a direct effect of risk aversion on intentions to start a business in dental school students. Risk aversion only diminishes entrepreneurial intentions indirectly via antecedents of TPB. The impact stated that risk aversion might not be a fixed dispositional factor, but an adjustable trait that can be altered over time. The study of Mustafa et al. ( 2016 ) found that entrepreneurial intentions are positively impacted by a proactive personality and the perceived university support of Malaysian students. Among the two drivers, proactive personalities have a stronger influence on intentions towards self-employment than from the perceived concept of student development support from students. Karimi et al. ( 2017 ) stated that personality factors, including the need for achievement, risk taking and locus of control, indirectly affect the intentions towards entrepreneurship of Iranian students through the entrepreneurial attitudes and PBC.

In the paper of Al-Jubari et al. ( 2019 ), intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, which are generated from psychological needs of autonomy, relatedness and competence, are indicated to have a positive indirect effect on entrepreneurial intentions in Malaysian students via the three components of TPB. More importantly, the motivation types play important roles in the entrepreneurial process, in which each kind yields different impacts. Entrepreneurs with intrinsic motivations will demonstrate more effective performances, more persistence and greater autonomy, leading to dynamic entrepreneurs. Meanwhile, individuals with extrinsic motivations will be less persistent when confronting challenges, more likely to discontinue nascent behaviors, and concentrate on external achievements. In addition, the need for satisfaction and the need for frustration are also proven to be negatively correlated.

Environmental factors

In the study, Pruett et al. ( 2009 ) indicated that the participants’ country and cultures, exposure to acquaintance entrepreneurs in family, family support, and the strength of beliefs towards motives for entrepreneurship positively impact entrepreneurial intentions. However, the significance of those variables is smaller than the effect of entrepreneurial disposition, implying that factors related to personal characteristics are more influential on the intentions towards self-employment. In addition, entrepreneurial intentions are negatively affected by social barriers, which involve operating risks, or lack of knowledge and capital. But the impact is also relatively small as compared to the disposition factor.

According to Turker and Selcuk ( 2009 ), structural support shows significant impact on entrepreneurial intentions, stating that a greater comprehensive support from all social sectors is required to stimulate entrepreneurship in young people. In addition, the effect of self-confidence as a moderating component is more considerable in the connection between structural support and entrepreneurial intentions. However, the study demonstrates that perceived relational support, such as monetary and sentimental assistance from family and friends, does not influence the intention to establish a business for students. Access capital is proven to have a negative and significant correlation to entrepreneurial intentions of students in the study of Sesen ( 2013 ).

Social factors

Prior entrepreneurial experience, which provides students a role model and enactive proficiency from empirical exposure, is proven to be strongly mediated by self-efficacy, thus further affecting entrepreneurial intentions (Zhao et al. 2005 ). However, prior entrepreneurial exposure shows a notable negative impact on intentions towards entrepreneurship in the research of Zhang et al. ( 2014 ). The reason for this unexpected result is that the participants in the study mostly underwent negative entrepreneurial experiences, thus raising the fears and insecurities towards self-employment. The proposed model of Kuckertz and Wagner ( 2010 ) indicated the orientation of an individuals' sustainability is meaningful in the relationship with their entrepreneurial intentions. Nevertheless, while significant potential is found among students for entrepreneurship opportunities with sustainable orientation, it declines as business experience is achieved.

Gurel et al. ( 2010 ) included social factors into the research model to explain the effect on entrepreneurial intentions of tourism students. Among those elements, students with entrepreneurial families tend to have higher intentions towards entrepreneurship. Conversely, cultural factors are considered when there is concern in the probability of self-employment, instead of entrepreneurial intention. The findings of Hockerts ( 2017 ) showed that prior experience with social organizations can increase social entrepreneurial intentions of an individual. The relationship is mediated by factors including empathy, self-efficacy, moral obligation, and perceived social support. The self-efficacy variable holds the greatest effect. Furthermore, the study provided compelling evidence that the number of social entrepreneurship electives by students is predicted by entrepreneurial intentions.

Educational factors

The perceptions of formal learning from students does not directly influence entrepreneurial intentions but demonstrates a strong indirect impact on the decision of an individual to start a business via a mediating factor—self-efficacy. Supporting the idea that students’ intentions towards entrepreneurial venture creation can be shaped by formal academic courses. The study of Zhao et al. ( 2005 ) suggests educational institutions integrate distinct types of learning ways to improve entrepreneurial self-efficacy in students. Entrepreneurial intentions of students are proven to be impacted at educational level through personal attitude effects and academic majors through both attitudes and the PBC of individuals. However, no relationship is found between academic accomplishment and PBC; and entrepreneurship education curriculums have little to no impact on the entrepreneurial desires of students (Wu and Wu 2008 ). One highly influential paper by Walter and Block ( 2016 ) identified the effects of entrepreneurship education is higher on the EI of students in entrepreneurship-hostile institutional environments than in entrepreneurship-friendly institutional environments. Although the paper was highly cited, we could not include it in this list because it was based on macrolevel educational factors, whereas this study is based on microlevel educational factors.

The result from the study of Turker and Selcuk ( 2009 ) indicates that educational support significantly impacts the entrepreneurial intentions of students in Turkey. As specified by the paper, an educational institution delivering sufficient knowledge and motivation towards entrepreneurship to students will enhance the likelihood of young people being involved in venture creation, thus suggesting universities to develop educational policies and structures to effectively inspire entrepreneurs. Nevertheless, self-confidence, which is a moderator in the model, was proven to not strengthen the relationship between educational support and intentions towards entrepreneurship. Moreover, according to the article, the educational factor has greater beta co-efficiency than structural support factor, the former variable is a more influential predictor to entrepreneurial intentions than the latter. This can be explained that students might perceive educational support as an immediate factor, thus having more awareness towards this support (Turker and Selcuk 2009 ).

According to the study of Arranz et al. ( 2017 ), although curricular and extracurricular activities have a positive impact on attitudes towards entrepreneurship, they might reduce capacity and intention to engage in the start-up activities of students. Moreover, the research demonstrates different influences of curricular activities on the entrepreneurial competences of students in two institutions, suggesting the development in educational methodology and strategies to enhance their competences. There are a substantial number of studies indicating the positive connection between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intention of students (Hattab 2014 ; Zhang et al. 2014 ; Maresch et al. 2016 ; Nowiński et al. 2019 ). Research from Zhang et al. ( 2014 ) shows a direct relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions. Also, gender, study majors and university types have considerable positive interactive impacts on the correlation between entrepreneurship education and intentions to run a business in the context of Chinese university students. The findings of Hattab ( 2014 ) and Maresch et al. ( 2016 ) are also in line regarding the positive impact of entrepreneurship education towards entrepreneurial intentions of students. It is noteworthy that students in business majors may benefit more from entrepreneurship education than those in science and engineering programs. In the study of Hattab ( 2014 ), education is indicated to positively influence perceived desirability towards entrepreneurship of students, while the effect is less significant on perceived feasibility and inconsiderable on students’ self-efficacy. The positive significant relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions, mediated by self-efficacy, is also confirmed in the study of Nowiński et al. ( 2019 ). Among Visegrad countries, the correlation is considerable only in Poland where entrepreneurship education is introduced in high school. Another important finding is that despite lower levels of self-efficacy and intentions towards entrepreneurship in female students, they may benefit more from entrepreneurship education than males do. However, some studies found no relationship between university environment and entrepreneurial intentions of students, including the work of Sesen ( 2013 ), Chen et al. ( 2015 ).

According to Chen et al. ( 2015 ), entrepreneurship courses increase learning efficacy and satisfaction of technical undergraduate students, but do not enhance the intentions of students to start a business. The study implies that entrepreneurship courses provided by universities would help students to recognize that entrepreneurial occupations might not be suitable for them and rather to implement what they learned to future jobs rather than pursue entrepreneurship. Solesvik et al. ( 2014 ) proved that although the relationship between students joining in entrepreneurship-specific education and high intensity of entrepreneurial intentions is positive, the interactions of entrepreneurship-specific education with perceived desirability, perceived feasibility, and perceived cultural elements are not related to greater entrepreneurial intentions.

Contextual (situational) factors

According to Guzmán-Alfonso and Guzmán-Cuevas ( 2012 ) perceived social value and entrepreneurial intentions have a significantly negative relationship for people aged 18–64 in Latin America, which is not in line with Ajzen's model. The study of Karimi et al. ( 2017 ) indicated that perceived contextual support and barriers have an indirect impact on entrepreneurial intentions of students via PBC; and perceived barriers are also found to have a direct, negative association with the intentions towards start-up. The entrepreneurial intentions were found to be positively related to perception of motives such as creativity and desire for independence while perceptions of barriers were negatively impacting the entrepreneurial intentions of the students as mentioned by Pruett et al. ( 2009 ) in their study.

Demographic factors

Gender differences.

Gender was proven to have a direct relationship with entrepreneurial intentions in the study of Zhao et al. ( 2005 ), in which females show lower intentions to start a business than males. However, the research indicates that there is no difference between the two genders regarding entrepreneurial self-efficacy, suggesting that the connection between sexuality and entrepreneurial intentions is shaped by theoretical mechanisms such as perceived social supports and barriers, and outcome expectations, rather than self-efficacy. Empirical results from Zhang et al. ( 2014 ) state that women and people from universities and backgrounds, other than technology, have lower entrepreneurial intentions than men and people from technological ones, suggesting eliminating the traditional entrepreneurial stereotypes among females and increase the need for additional women role models. Furthermore, the research of Maes et al. ( 2014 ) investigated the differences between females and males in the elements that predict entrepreneurial intentions of graduate students in Belgium. Females tend to be driven to self-employment by the motivation of getting organized and in consideration of their own personal abilities, while males will base their entrepreneurial intentions on financial restraints and creativity while perceiving entrepreneurship as a means of getting ahead. In addition, females prefer to comply with normative role models than males; however, the gender impact on entrepreneurial intentions is not mediated by social norms.

Nationality differences

The study of Giacomin et al. ( 2011 ) determined the national differences in entrepreneurial intentions, motivations, and perceived barriers towards venture creation dispositions of students in American, Asian, and European countries. Specifically, the strongest entrepreneurial intentions are found in Spanish students, while interests towards public administration occupations are identified in Chinese students. Furthermore, despite similarly perceived motivations and barriers to self-employment, students in those countries show different sensitivity levels and significant extents to each motivator and barrier, which can be explained by the socio-economic factors of each nation.

Regarding students in Beira Interior region (Portugal) and Extremadura region (Spain), there is evidence that some differences exist in perceived desirability, perceived feasibility, and entrepreneurial intentions among the countries according to the study of Díaz-Casero et al. ( 2012 ). University students in the two nations have positive perceptions towards the desirability of entrepreneurship. Concerning perceived feasibility, Spanish students found it easier to start a business in the present than in the past, while this was not true for Portuguese students. Moreover, students in the Extremadura region have higher intentions to start a business than those in the Beira Interior region; nevertheless, the seriousness of entrepreneurial intentions is higher in Portuguese students compared to individuals in Spain. Additionally, the influences of gender and entrepreneurial family members on the perceptions of students in the two countries are also investigated, in which sexuality impacts the perceived intentions of students. Yet no influence is found between gender, family backgrounds and perceived feasibility in both groups.

Further analysis of themes from influential papers

To visually present the themes clearly, the mind map has been used (as in Fig.  4 ) to summarize as what factors are most commonly considered in these 36 most influential papers and the analysis suggests that cognitive factors are most commonly used (three studies used them as only factors affecting entrepreneurial intentions) or cognitive factors used with personality factors (in three studies) or cognitive factors with educational factors (used in five studies) or cognitive factors used with environmental factors, demographic factors and contextual factors respectively in one, one and two studies. This shows that most of the papers (15 out of 36) have used cognitive factors as only factors or combined with other factors affecting EI of students. Personality factors, environmental factors or social factors are never considered alone in these most cited papers but used in combination with other factors and that too are not very widely used. Other factors, such as social factors, educational factors, contextual factors, and environmental factors, are rarely used as single factors to measure the EI of students.

Mind map showing most common factors in (n = 36) most influential papers. Note : Mind map reading; for example: EI affected by cognitive factors (3 studies) (on left of EI box); EI affected by cognitive factors and personality factors (3 studies) (on left of EI box); EI affected by cognitive, personality and environmental factors (1 study) (on left of EI box); EI affected by cognitive factors, environmental factors, demographic factors (1 study) (on left of EI box); EI affected by only education factors and contextual factors (1 study) (on right of EI box); EI affected by personality factors and educational factor (1 study) (on right of EI box)

Based on these identified seven-factors themes, the rest of the 254 papers were also grouped in similar way as seen in Fig.  5 . This analysis also indicates that the cognitive factors are used as a single factor in 61 studies, followed by a combination of cognitive and personality factors by 20 studies, cognitive and educational factors by 22 studies, cognitive and contextual factors by 11 studies and cognitive factors with social, environmental, demographic factors considered by respectively seven, three and two studies. Overall, 161 studies used cognitive factors (single or in combination with other six factors), followed by 43 studies which used personality factors alone or in combination with the rest of the five factors. The pattern found in the rest of the papers are like the ones used by most cited papers except that in these papers, the personality factors are explored in more detail.

Mind map showing most common factors in n = 254 papers (non-influential papers)

Conceptual model

Based on the synthesis of literature, we propose the integrated conceptual model of the variables that affects the entrepreneurial intentions of the students according to the extensive coding of 290 papers. The first important finding is that the independent variables used to measure the entrepreneurial intentions of university students are captured in the literature at seven levels: cognitive factors, personality factors, environmental factors, social factors, educational factors, contextual factors and demographic factors. Most of the papers have used cognitive factors (TPB model, EEM, EIM) as an independent variable and TPB components are used as mediators/moderators to measure the EI of students.

The second important finding that the model depicts is that there are a wide range of mediators and moderators used to measure the EI of students. The mediators and moderators are also measured at the same seven levels as mentioned for independent variables. In total, 130 studies used mediators and 61 scholars used moderators in their study. Most of the studies have used TPB components as mediator, while moderators used are mostly related to demographic factors, contextual factors, and personality factors.

Other than TPB factors, examples of mediators used as cognitive factors from entrepreneurial event model are perceived desirability, perceived feasibility, and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Other mediators used are risk propensity, need for achievement, and locus of control which are derived from Bandura’s social cognitive theory and are related to personality factors. The next level of mediators used are at a social level such as the family influence, social exposure, country culture, and prior experience. The next majorly used mediators are related to situational factors as shown in conceptual model, followed by educational factors, and demographic factors. Only 21% of scholars in their studies have used moderators. The moderators also consist of seven identified factors (see Fig.  6 ). Some of the scholars have also used control variables in their study which are mostly demographic variables such as gender, university type, university locality, nationality, major, age, work experience, and exposure to entrepreneurial activities, family income, marital status, and entrepreneurial family background.

Conceptual model (Factors influencing EI)

Entrepreneurship studies have arisen rapidly since the published works of Shapero 40 years ago (Shapero and Sokol 1982 ; Shapero 1984 ), many research papers have focused on EI, which is considered to have the greatest influence on entrepreneurship activities. This paper systematically analyzed various publications regarding the EI of students during the period 2005 till June 2022 and discusses the most and common studied factors in past research and how future studies can further explore this research area.

The paper adopted citation analysis, which is a prominent method, that recognizes the 36 most impactful studies in this research area over the period considered in this study. From the analysis, seven main themes (categories) of EI determinants were identified and implemented further in the paper’s analysis framework to analyze the rest of the articles (n = 254) used in this study. The analysis on several factors from 254 studies is briefly included in this review paper and indicated similar results as found in most influential papers, which suggests that the cognitive factor is most used factor in many papers which influences the EI of students.

Theoretical implications and suggestions on future research

From a theoretical perspective, the literature review aims to identify the factors most studied by past scholars that have an impact on the EI of university students. The study contributes to the educational entrepreneurship research literature, which will help higher educational institutions to understand which significant factors stimulate students’ intentions to start a business. The analysis of the paper clearly demonstrated that TPB model and cognitive factors dominate this area of research, and most studies are found to be conducted in Asian countries. Hence, based on the analysis of papers, this study discusses further steps for entrepreneurship research to better understand EI of university students and offers the following suggestions as below and as summarized in the conceptual model for future research (Fig.  6 ).

It is clear that to improve the understanding of factors affecting entrepreneurial intentions, future research should consider moving from cognitive factors using the TPB model. It is important to access the role of social factors including the family background and culture, contextual (situational) factors as to what forces an individual to become an entrepreneur, and this may shed further light on the EI of students. These combined factors will help in bringing out a holistic overview of factors affecting students EI. Cognitive factors have been extensively used in literature and there is a need to identify other important factors which affect the EI of students. Next, the culture of the country can have a great influence on the intentions of the students which has been less explored in the studies and hence conducting research considering the socio-cultural factors in different countries might help in providing multi-faceted views in terms of entrepreneurial intentions. It can also be of interest for the scholars to further explore the demographic factors as very few studies have considered them to determine the EI of students. The outbreak of COVID-19 has affected entrepreneurship (Yu et al. 2021 ), and hence future research may consider the impact of the pandemic, such as online education, macroeconomic factors, etc., on EI of university students.

In the digital transformation economy, technological entrepreneurship started to grab the attention of many countries, especially developing countries (Nathani and Dwivedi 2019 ). The perception towards technology growth can influence students’ intentions to start new ventures. Future research can study the technological entrepreneurship by investigating how combined factors such as environmental factors (e.g., access to technology), contextual factors (e.g., perception of recent economy/market, perception of government support, opportunities), and social factors (e.g., prior experiences, role models) affect the EI of university students, from which many implications can be undertaken to benefit the young people’s entrepreneurial activities. Most of the studies provided comparisons on EI considering different nationalities or genders. Furthermore, to enhance understanding in the EI research area, comparison can be provided considering other demographic factors, for instance, online versus physical educational environment, individuals with disabilities versus the ones without disabilities. Most of the studies have focused on theory of the planned behaviour model and hence it might be important in the future to combine different EI models to explore and broaden the scope of literature which will further add value and contribute to the already existing literature.

More than half of the studies are conducted in Asia and hence it is important to explore other less explored regions such as Africa, America, and Europe to determine if there are any differences in factors affecting the EI of students in these developed and developing regions. As identified by the review, the entire literature in this field is dominated by quantitative studies and hence to provide more robust results, mixed studies using quantitative and qualitative should be conducted in the future. Future research may benefit from EI determinants in the context of higher education to conduct studies on different developmental phases, such as primary and secondary school. In the study of Brüne and Lutz ( 2020 ), entrepreneurship education had greater positive influence on the self-efficacy and entrepreneurial desirability of younger students than older ones. Scholars can examine the effect of early exposure to entrepreneurship on the development of factors that will further impact EI of students. The research of Barth and Muehlfeld ( 2021 ) found that the interventions in early entrepreneurship enhanced the entrepreneurial self-efficacy of university students.

Practical implications

There are some critical implications based on the analysis from this paper for various stakeholders. The systematic review can be useful for the scholars who aim to conduct research in EI of students in the future and this review will inspire and motivate the scholars to determine the novel research framework based on the insights provided from this systematic review which can help the community in general. Policy practitioners can implement relevant policies and provide appropriate support to enhance the EI of individuals and to provide an environment to build an entrepreneurship culture in their country. Educational institutions and teachers can find ways to inspire the entrepreneurial intentions in the students by enhancing course curriculums, developing applicable skills and knowledge, encouraging ideas, and boosting self-confidence in students and helping them to develop overall. Entrepreneurial intentions are often used as a proxy for behavior, but entrepreneurial intentions rarely convert into entrepreneurial action, particularly among students who have limited experience of entrepreneurship and lack experience of work altogether. Therefore, focusing on entrepreneurial intentions only, or using intentions as a proxy for action, represents a severe limitation to entrepreneurial action and future studies should focus on measuring the entrepreneurial actions with entrepreneurial intentions.

This paper has conducted the systematic review on more than 15 years of EI research studied in worldwide university students to provide an understanding of the most common factors that affect students’ intentions to become entrepreneurs used in the literature and suggest novel lines of research in the future. Various papers published between 2005 and June 2022 measuring the EI of the students were analyzed and the findings clearly suggest that there is an increasing trend of these studies from 2017 onwards. Most of the research focused on Asia with more than half of the studies conducted in this region. The results highlighted that the most scholars used TPB model to measure EI of students, and the factors used by most papers are related to cognitive factors. It is believed that using a range of factors can provide a better understanding to measure the EI of students. Hence, future research can be extended in various areas as identified by the gaps provided in the discussion section above. Based on the above findings, it is clear that cognitive factors should not only be accounted for to understand the intentions of students and more studies should focus on other factors which are equally important in their influence on the EI of the students.

Like every other study, this review also has some limitations that can be addressed in future research. First, although the authors tried their best to include the studies between 2005 and June 2022, some studies might have been overlooked due to the variety of databases available. Next, the comparative review between different regions might have helped to understand the region-specific factors affecting the EI of students which was not explored in this study. Next, specific review can be conducted in Africa to better understand the EI of students as there are fewer studies currently in this region and such review can motivate the scholars to explore this region further. Finally, the comparative review between Asia and Africa might provide valuable insight on the factors affecting the EI of students, as both the regions mostly consist of developing countries.

List of n = 254 papers (non-influential papers)

Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions. No funds, grants, or other support was received.

Data availability

Declarations.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Abdullahi MS, Khalid N, Ahmed U, et al. Effect of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intention among university students. J Tech Educ Train. 2021 doi: 10.30880/jtet.2021.13.03.005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Adeyonu AG, Balogun OL, Obaniyi KS (2019) Factors influencing entrepreneurial intentions of undergraduate agricultural students in Nigeria|Nijerya’da ziraat fakültesi öğrencilerinin girişimciliklerini etkileyen faktörler. Yuz Yil Univ J Agric Sci. 10.29133/yyutbd.623910
• Aggarwal V. A conceptual study on factors of entrepreneurial potentiality and their impact on entrepreneurial intention with the moderating role of entrepreneurship education. Prabandhan Indian J Manag. 2019 doi: 10.17010/pijom/2019/vl2i6/144932. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Agu AG, Kalu OO, Esi-Ubani CO, Agu PC. Drivers of sustainable entrepreneurial intentions among university students: an integrated model from a developing world context. Int J Sustain High Educ. 2021 doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-07-2020-0277. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ahamed F, Rokhman W (2015) The role of social and psychological factors on entrepreneurial intention among islamic college students in Indonesia. Entrep Bus Econ Rev 29–41. 10.15678/EBER.2015.030103
• Ahmed T, Klobas JE, Ramayah T. Personality traits, demographic factors and entrepreneurial intentions: improved understanding from a moderated mediation study. Entrep Res J. 2021 doi: 10.1515/erj-2017-0062. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991; 50 :179–211. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. Hoboken: Prentice-Hall; 1980. [ Google Scholar ]
• Akadiri S, Bekun FV, Rasul O, Victor Bekun F. The impact of self-efficacy on international student entrepreneur intention. Int Rev Manag Mark. 2017; 7 (1):169–174. [ Google Scholar ]
• Akhtar S, Albarrak MS, Ahmad A, et al. Drivers of student entrepreneurial intention and the moderating role of entrepreneurship education: evidence from an Indian university. Discrete Dyn Nat Soc. 2022 doi: 10.1155/2022/6767580. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Akhter A, Hossain MU, Al Asheq A. Influential factors of social entrepreneurial intention in Bangladesh. J Asian Financ Econ Bus. 2020 doi: 10.13106/JAFEB.2020.VOL7.NO8.645. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Al Bakri A, Mehrez A (2017) Factors influencing entrepreneurial intentions among arab students. Int J Entrep 21(3). http://hdl.handle.net/10576/15723
• Ali MSY, Abou EAEE. Determinants of entrepreneurial intention among Sudanese university students. Manag Sci Lett. 2020 doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2020.4.023. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ali YM, Negasi RD. The differential impact of the experiential-entrepreneurial learning method on the entrepreneurial intentions of higher education students. Int J Learn Teach Educ Res. 2021 doi: 10.26803/IJLTER.20.9.14. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ali J, Zakaria N, Jaganathan M, et al. Determinants of entrepreneurial intention: empirical insights from Malaysian undergraduate business students. Int J Econ Res. 2017; 14 (19):159–169. doi: 10.1080/10168737.2017.1314533. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ali I, Ali M, Badghish S. Symmetric and asymmetric modeling of entrepreneurial ecosystem in developing entrepreneurial intentions among female university students in Saudi Arabia. Int J Gend Entrep. 2019 doi: 10.1108/IJGE-02-2019-0039. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alin LD, Dil E. Determinants of somali student’s entrepreneurial intentions: the case study of university students in Mogadishu 1. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Sos Bilim Derg. 2022; 23 :130–142. doi: 10.17494/ogusbd.1092867. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Jubari I, Hassan A, Hashim J. The role of autonomy as a predictor of entrepreneurial intention among university students in Yemen. Int J Entrep Small Bus. 2017 doi: 10.1504/IJESB.2017.081950. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Jubari I, Hassan A, Liñán F. Entrepreneurial intention among University students in Malaysia: integrating self-determination theory and the theory of planned behavior. Int Entrep Manag J. 2019 doi: 10.1007/s11365-018-0529-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Jubari I, Mosbah A, Anor Salim FAB. Motivational and attitudinal determinants of entrepreneurial intention: hospitality and tourism students’ perspectives. J Hosp Tour Educ. 2021 doi: 10.1080/10963758.2021.1963747. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Mamary YHS, Abdulrab M, Alwaheeb MA, Alshammari NGM. Factors impacting entrepreneurial intentions among university students in Saudi Arabia: testing an integrated model of TPB and EO. Educ Train. 2020 doi: 10.1108/ET-04-2020-0096. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Shammari M, Waleed R. Entrepreneurial intentions of private university students in the kingdom of Bahrain. Int J Innov Sci. 2018 doi: 10.1108/IJIS-06-2017-0058. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alshebami AS, Seraj AHA. The Antecedents of saving behavior and entrepreneurial intention of Saudi Arabia University Students. Educ Sci Theory Pract. 2021 doi: 10.12738/jestp.2021.2.005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alzamel S, Nazri M, Omar S. Factors influencing e-entrepreneurial intention among female students in Saudi Arabia. Int J Criminol Sociol. 2020 doi: 10.6000/1929-4409.2020.09.234. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amanamah RB, Acheampong A, Owusu EK. An exploratory study of entrepreneurial intention among university students in Ghana. Int J Sci Technol Res. 2018; 7 (1):140–148. [ Google Scholar ]
• Amofah K, Saladrigues R. Impact of attitude towards entrepreneurship education and role models on entrepreneurial intention. J Innov Entrep. 2022 doi: 10.1186/s13731-022-00197-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anjum T, Farrukh M, Heidler P, Tautiva JAD. Entrepreneurial intention: creativity, entrepreneurship, and university support. J Open Innov Technol Mark Complex. 2021 doi: 10.3390/joitmc7010011. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anjum T, Heidler P, Amoozegar A, Anees RT. The impact of entrepreneurial passion on the entrepreneurial intention; moderating impact of perception of university support. Adm Sci. 2021 doi: 10.3390/admsci11020045. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anwar I, Saleem I, Islam KMB, et al. Entrepreneurial intention among female university students: examining the moderating role of entrepreneurial education. J Int Bus Entrep Dev. 2020 doi: 10.1504/JIBED.2020.110254. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anwar I, Thoudam P, Saleem I. Role of entrepreneurial education in shaping entrepreneurial intention among university students: testing the hypotheses using mediation and moderation approach. J Educ Bus. 2022 doi: 10.1080/08832323.2021.1883502. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ao J, Liu Z. What impact entrepreneurial intention? Cultural, environmental, and educational factors. J Manag Anal. 2014 doi: 10.1080/23270012.2014.994232. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arango-Botero D, Arias MLB, Montoya MH, Valencia-Arias A. Determinants of entrepreneurial intention among engineering students based on structural equation modeling. Pertanika J Soc Sci Humanit. 2020 doi: 10.47836/PJSSH.28.4.08. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arasti Z, Pasvishe FA, Motavaseli M. Normative institutional factors affecting entrepreneurial intention in iranian information technology sector. J Manag Strategy. 2012 doi: 10.5430/jms.v3n2p16. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arranz N, Ubierna F, Arroyabe MF, et al. The effect of curricular and extracurricular activities on university students’ entrepreneurial intention and competences. Stud High Educ. 2017 doi: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1130030. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arranz N, Arroyabe MF, Fdez. de Arroyabe JC. Entrepreneurial intention and obstacles of undergraduate students: the case of the universities of Andalusia. Stud High Educ. 2019 doi: 10.1080/03075079.2018.1486812. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arshad M, Farooq O, Sultana N, Farooq M. Determinants of individuals’ entrepreneurial intentions: a gender-comparative study. Career Dev Int. 2016 doi: 10.1108/CDI-10-2015-0135. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arshad M, Farooq O, Farooq M. The effect of intrinsic and extrinsic factors on entrepreneurial intentions: the moderating role of collectivist orientation. Manag Decis. 2019 doi: 10.1108/MD-04-2016-0248. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ashari H, Abbas I, Abdul-talib AN, Mohd Zamani SN. Entrepreneurship and sustainable development goals: a multigroup analysis of the moderating effects of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intention. Sustainability. 2022 doi: 10.3390/su14010431. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ashokan N, Priya K, Rajeswari PS. Determinants of personal attitudes dimensions on entrepreneurial intentions. Int J Eng Adv Technol. 2019; 8 (5):488–490. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ashraf MA. “Is Old Gold?” the role of prior experience in exploring the determinants of Islamic social entrepreneurial intentions: evidence from Bangladesh. J Soc Entrep. 2021 doi: 10.1080/19420676.2019.1702580. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Asma PX, Hassan S, et al. Determinants of social entrepreneurial intentions for educational programs. J Public Aff. 2019 doi: 10.1002/pa.1925. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Atitsogbe KA, Mama NP, Sovet L, et al. Perceived employability and entrepreneurial intentions across university students and job seekers in Togo: the effect of career adaptability and self-efficacy. Front Psychol. 2019 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00180. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Autio E, KeeleyKlofsten RHM, et al. Entrepreneurial intent among students in Scandinavia and in the USA. Enterp Innov Manag Stud. 2001 doi: 10.1080/14632440110094632. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ayodele TO, Ekemode BG, Kajimo-Shakantu K. Bridging the gap in real estate enterprise: the impact of mentoring on entrepreneurial intentions of real estate students in Nigeria. Prop Manag. 2021 doi: 10.1108/PM-02-2021-0015. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bae TJ, Qian S, Miao C, Fiet JO. The relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions: a meta-analytic review. Entrep Theory Pract. 2014 doi: 10.1111/etap.12095. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura A. Social learning theory. Hoboken: Prentice Hall; 1977. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev. 1977; 84 :191–215. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall; 1986. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura A, Ross D, Ross SA. Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. J Abnorm Soc Psychol. 1961 doi: 10.1037/h0045925. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura A, Ross D, Ross SA. Imitation of film-mediated aggressive models. J Abnorm Soc Psychol. 1963 doi: 10.1037/h0048687. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bapoo MA, Tehseen S, Haider SA, et al. Sustainability orientation and sustainable entrepreneurship intention: the mediating role of entrepreneurial opportunity recognition. Acad Entrep J. 2022; 28 :1–23. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barba-Sánchez V, Atienza-Sahuquillo C. Entrepreneurial motivation and self-employment: evidence from expectancy theory. Int Entrep Manag J. 2017 doi: 10.1007/s11365-017-0441-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barba-Sánchez V, Atienza-Sahuquillo C. Entrepreneurial intention among engineering students: the role of entrepreneurship education. Eur Res Manag Bus Econ. 2018 doi: 10.1016/j.iedeen.2017.04.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barba-Sánchez V, Mitre-Aranda M, del Brío-González J. The entrepreneurial intention of university students: an environmental perspective. Eur Res Manag Bus Econ. 2022 doi: 10.1016/j.iedeen.2021.100184. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barth J, Muehlfeld K. Thinking out of the box—by thinking in other boxes: a systematic review of interventions in early entrepreneurship vs. STEM education research. Manag Rev Q. 2021 doi: 10.1007/s11301-021-00248-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bazan C, Shaikh A, Frederick S, et al. Effect of memorial university’s environment & support system in shaping entrepreneurial intention of students. J Entrep Educ. 2019; 22 (1):1–35. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bazkiaei HA, Heng LH, Khan NU, et al. Do entrepreneurial education and big-five personality traits predict entrepreneurial intention among universities students? Cogent Bus Manag. 2020 doi: 10.1080/23311975.2020.1801217. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bazkiaei HA, Khan NU, Irshad A-R, Ahmed A. Pathways toward entrepreneurial intention among Malaysian universities’ students. Bus Process Manag J. 2021; 27 :1009–1032. doi: 10.1108/BPMJ-01-2021-0021. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Belas J, Gavurova B, Schonfeld J, et al. Social and economic factors affecting the entrepreneurial intention of university students. Transform Bus Econ. 2017; 16 (3):220–239. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bell R. Predicting entrepreneurial intention across the university. Educ Train. 2019 doi: 10.1108/ET-05-2018-0117. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bello MI, Danjuma IM. Relationship between psychological factors and entrepreneurial intentions of university undergraduates in north east,&nbsp;Nigeria. J Tech Educ Train. 2017; 9 (2):81–93. [ Google Scholar ]
• Benedictohanu I, Shodipe TO, Chukwu DU, Chukwuma JNW. Impact of behavioural factors as related to available resources on entrepreneurial intentions of electrical installation and maintenance works students. Int J Eng Educ. 2020; 36 (1):142–154. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bernhofer L, Han Z. Contextual factors and their effects on future entrepreneurs in China: a comparative study of entrepreneurial intentions. Int J Technol Manag. 2014 doi: 10.1504/IJTM.2014.060955. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bhat IH, Singh S. Analyzing the moderating effect of entrepreneurship education on the antecedents of entrepreneurial intention. J Entrep Educ. 2018; 21 (1):1–10. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bickenbach F, Dohse D, Liu WH. University students’ entrepreneurial intentions: a comparative analysis of Hong Kong and Guangzhou. China World Econ. 2017 doi: 10.1111/cwe.12194. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bird B. Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: the case for intention. Acad Manag Rev. 1988 doi: 10.5465/amr.1988.4306970. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Biswas A, Verma RK. Attitude and alertness in personality traits: a pathway to building entrepreneurial intentions among university students. J Entrep. 2021 doi: 10.1177/09713557211025656. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boyd NG, Vozikis GS. The influence of self-efficacy on the development of entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrep Theory Pract. 1994 doi: 10.1177/104225879401800404. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brüne N, Lutz E. The effect of entrepreneurship education in schools on entrepreneurial outcomes: a systematic review. Manag Rev Q. 2020 doi: 10.1007/s11301-019-00168-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bui THV, Nguyen TLT, Tran MD, Nguyen TAT. Determinants influencing entrepreneurial intention among undergraduates in universities of Vietnam. J Asian Financ Econ Bus. 2020 doi: 10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no7.369. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buli BM, Yesuf WM. Determinants of entrepreneurial intentions: technical-vocational education and training students in Ethiopia. Educ Train. 2015 doi: 10.1108/ET-10-2014-0129. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buschow C, Laugemann R. What makes a media entrepreneur? Factors influencing entrepreneurial intention of mass communication students. J Mass Commun Educ. 2020 doi: 10.1177/1077695820912146. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cai X, Hussain S, Zhang Y. Factors that can promote the green entrepreneurial intention of college students: a fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis. Front Psychol. 2022 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.776886. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Canever MD, Barral MRM, Ribeiro FG. How does the public and private university environment affect students’ entrepreneurial intention? Educ Train. 2017 doi: 10.1108/ET-12-2016-0187. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cano JA, Tabares A. Determinants of university students’ entrepreneurial intention: GUESSS Colombia study. Espacios. 2017; 38 (45):22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cao VQ, Ngo TTT. Linking entrepreneurial intentions and mindset models: a comparative study of public and private universities in Vietnam. Gadjah Mada Int J Bus. 2019; 21 (2):115–133. doi: 10.22146/gamaijb.34753. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carey TA, Flanagan DJ, Palmer TB. An examination of university student entrepreneurial intentions by type of venture. J Dev Entrep. 2010 doi: 10.1142/S1084946710001622. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Caro-González FJ, Romero-Benabent H, Sánchez-Torné I. The influence of gender on the entrepreneurial intentions of journalism students. Intang Cap. 2017 doi: 10.3926/ic.927. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Castelló-Sirvent F, Pinazo-Dallenbach P. Corruption shock in Mexico: FsQCA analysis of entrepreneurial intention in university students. Mathematics. 2021 doi: 10.3390/math9141702. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Çelik AK, Yıldız T, Aykanat Z, Kazemzadeh S. The impact of narrow personality traits on entrepreneurial intention in developing countries: a comparison of Turkish and Iranian undergraduate students using ordered discrete choice models. Eur Res Manag Bus Econ. 2021 doi: 10.1016/j.iedeen.2020.100138. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chang YY, Wannamakok W, Kao CP. Entrepreneurship education, academic major, and university students’ social entrepreneurial intention: the perspective of Planned Behavior Theory. Stud High Educ. 2021 doi: 10.1080/03075079.2021.2021875. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Che Nawi N, Al MA, Hassan AA, et al. Agro-entrepreneurial Intention among University Students: a study under the premises of theory of planned behavior. SAGE Open. 2022 doi: 10.1177/21582440211069144. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen CC, Greene PG, Crick A. Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? J Bus Ventur. 1998 doi: 10.1016/S0883-9026(97)00029-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen SC, Hsiao HC, Chang JC, et al. Can the entrepreneurship course improve the entrepreneurial intentions of students? Int Entrep Manag J. 2015 doi: 10.1007/s11365-013-0293-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chinaire TI, Chimucheka T, Khayundi HA. Factors influencing social entrepreneurial intentions of students at a University in South Africa. Acad Entrep J. 2021; 27 :1–16. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chukwuma-Nwuba EO. The influence of culture on entrepreneurial intentions: a Nigerian university graduates’ perspective. Transnatl Corp Rev. 2018 doi: 10.1080/19186444.2018.1507877. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Contreras-Barraza N, Espinosa-Cristia JF, Salazar-Sepulveda G, Vega-Muñoz A. Entrepreneurial intention: a gender study in business and economics students from Chile. Sustainability. 2021 doi: 10.3390/su13094693. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dao TK, Bui AT, Doan TTT, et al. Impact of academic majors on entrepreneurial intentions of Vietnamese students: an extension of the theory of planned behavior. Heliyon. 2021 doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06381. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Datta A, Bazan C, Arnold K. Effect of gender role identity on the entrepreneurial intention of university students. J Small Bus Entrep. 2021 doi: 10.1080/08276331.2021.1981729. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Díaz-Casero JC, Ferreira JJM, Mogollón RH, Raposo MLB. Influence of institutional environment on entrepreneurial intention: a comparative study of two countries university students. Int Entrep Manag J. 2012 doi: 10.1007/s11365-009-0134-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Diegoli RB, Gutierrez HSM, Los Salmones MDMG De (2018) Teachers as entrepreneurial role models: the impact of a teacher’s entrepreneurial experience and student learning styles in entrepreneurial intentions. J Entrep Educ 21(1)
• Díez-Echavarría L, Valencia-Arias A, Bermúdez-Hernández J. Tool for measuring the influence of the field of knowledge on entrepreneurial intention among university students. Period Polytech Soc Manag Sci. 2020 doi: 10.3311/PPso.12873. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Do BR, Dadvari A. The influence of the dark triad on the relationship between entrepreneurial attitude orientation and entrepreneurial intention: a study among students in Taiwan University. Asia Pacific Manag Rev. 2017 doi: 10.1016/j.apmrv.2017.07.011. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Doan XT, Phan TTH. The impact of entrepreneurial education on entrepreneurial intention: the case of Vietnamese. Manag Sci Lett. 2020 doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2019.12.040. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Doanh DC. The moderating role of self-efficacy on the cognitive process of entrepreneurship: an empirical study in Vietnam. J Entrep Manag Innov. 2021 doi: 10.7341/20211715. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Doanh DC. The role of contextual factors on predicting entrepreneurial intention among Vietnamese students. Entrep Bus Econ Rev. 2021 doi: 10.15678/EBER.2021b.090111. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Doanh DC, Bernat T. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intention among Vietnamese students: a meta-analytic path analysis based on the theory of planned behavior. Procedia Comput Sci. 2019; 159 :2447–2460. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2019.09.420. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dong Y, Pang L, Fu L. Research on the influencing factors of entrepreneurial intentions based on mediating effect of self-actualization. Int J Innov Sci. 2019 doi: 10.1108/IJIS-03-2018-0027. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dragin AS, Mijatov MB, Munitlak Ivanović O, et al. Entrepreneurial intention of students (managers in training): personal and family characteristics. Sustainability. 2022; 14 :7345. doi: 10.3390/su14127345. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Duong CD. Exploring the link between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions: the moderating role of educational fields. Educ Train. 2021 doi: 10.1108/ET-05-2021-0173. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Duong CD, Nguyen HX, Ngo TVN, et al. The impact of individual and environmental characteristics on students’ entrepreneurial intention. Manag Sci Lett. 2020 doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2019.9.020. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Duque Aldaz FJ, Pazan Gómez EG, Álvarez Vasco WA (2018) Factors affecting entrepreneurial intention of Senior University Students. Espacios 39(9)
• Dzomonda O, Fatoki O, Oni O. The effect of psychological and contextual factors on the entrepreneurial intention of university students in South Africa. Corp Ownersh Control. 2015 doi: 10.22495/cocv13i1c11p2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Echchabi A, Omar MMS, Ayedh AM. Entrepreneurial intention among female university students in Oman. J Int Bus Entrep Dev. 2020 doi: 10.1504/JIBED.2020.110251. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eid R, Badewi A, Selim H, El-Gohary H. Integrating and extending competing intention models to understand the entrepreneurial intention of senior university students. Educ Train. 2019 doi: 10.1108/ET-02-2018-0030. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elnadi M, Gheith MH. Entrepreneurial ecosystem, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial intention in higher education: evidence from Saudi Arabia. Int J Manag Educ. 2021 doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100458. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elnadi M, Gheith MH, Farag T (2020) How does the perception of entrepreneurial ecosystem affect entrepreneurial intention among university students in Saudi Arabia? Int J Entrep 24
• Entrialgo M, Iglesias V. Entrepreneurial intentions among university students: the moderating role of creativity. Eur Manag Rev. 2020 doi: 10.1111/emre.12386. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ezeh PC, Nkamnebe AD, Omodafe UP. Determinants of entrepreneurial intention among undergraduates in a Muslim community. Manag Res Rev. 2020 doi: 10.1108/MRR-09-2018-0348. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fanea-Ivanovici M, Baber H. Sustainability at universities as a determinant of entrepreneurship for sustainability. Sustainability. 2022 doi: 10.3390/su14010454. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fatoki O. Parental and gender effects on the entrepreneurial intention of university students in South Africa. Mediterr J Soc Sci. 2014 doi: 10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n7p157. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fatoki O. Sustainability orientation and sustainable entrepreneurial intentions of University students in South Africa. Entrep Sustain Issues. 2019 doi: 10.9770/jesi.2019.7.2(14). [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fernandes C, Ferreira JJ, Raposo M, et al. Determinants of entrepreneurial intentions: an international cross-border study. Int J Innov Sci. 2018 doi: 10.1108/IJIS-02-2017-0017. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ferreira ADSM, Loiola E, Gondim SMG, Pereira CR. Effects of entrepreneurial competence and planning guidance on the relation between university students’ attitude and entrepreneurial intention. J Entrep. 2022 doi: 10.1177/09713557211069261. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ferri L, Ginesti G, Spano R, Zampella A. Exploring factors motivating entrepreneurial intentions: the case of Italian university students. Int J Train Dev. 2019 doi: 10.1111/ijtd.12158. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fitz-Koch S, Nordqvist M, Carter S, Hunter E. Entrepreneurship in the agricultural sector: a literature review and future research opportunities. Entrep Theory Pract. 2018 doi: 10.1177/1042258717732958. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fragoso R, Rocha-Junior W, Xavier A. Determinant factors of entrepreneurial intention among university students in Brazil and Portugal. J Small Bus Entrep. 2020 doi: 10.1080/08276331.2018.1551459. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fukuda K. An empirical study on entrepreneurial intentions among Japanese university students. Int J Entrep Small Bus. 2014 doi: 10.1504/IJESB.2014.059474. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Galloway L, Brown W. Entrepreneurship education at university: a driver in the creation of high growth firms? Educ Train. 2002 doi: 10.1108/00400910210449231. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gangwani S, Ballout S. Factors influencing the entrepreneurial intention of business graduate students of Saudiarabia University. Acad Entrep J. 2020; 26 (4):1–7. [ Google Scholar ]
• Garcez A, Franco M. Effects of psychological and cognitive factors on the relation between entrepreneurial intention and academic hazing: case of the new students in the faculty of social and human sciences at the University of Beira - Portugal. Entrep Res J. 2021 doi: 10.1515/erj-2020-0351. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• García-Uceda E, Murillo-Luna JL, Lafuente JA. Determinant factors in entrepreneurial intention among social work degree students: the moderating effect of entrepreneurship education. Soc Enterp J. 2022 doi: 10.1108/SEJ-07-2021-0061. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ghazali Z, Ibrahim NA, Zainol FA. Factors affecting entrepreneurial intention among UniSZA students. Asian Soc Sci. 2012 doi: 10.5539/ass.v9n1p85. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Giacomin O, Janssen F, Pruett M, et al. Entrepreneurial intentions, motivations and barriers: differences among American, Asian and European students. Int Entrep Manag J. 2011 doi: 10.1007/s11365-010-0155-y. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gieure C, del Benavides-Espinosa M, M, Roig-Dobón S, Entrepreneurial intentions in an international university environment. Int J Entrep Behav Res. 2019 doi: 10.1108/IJEBR-12-2018-0810. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gismera Tierno L, Pérez-Macías N, Medina-Molina C. Visual thinking boosting Spanish higher education students’ entrepreneurial intentions. J Knowl Econ. 2021 doi: 10.1007/s13132-020-00700-x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Godswill Agu A, Okwara OO, Okocha ER, Madichie NO. COVID-19 pandemic and entrepreneurial intention among university students: a contextualisation of the Igbo Traditional Business School. Afr J Econ Manag Stud. 2022 doi: 10.1108/AJEMS-05-2021-0227. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• González-Serrano MH, Valantine I, Hervás JC, et al. Sports university education and entrepreneurial intentions: a comparison between Spain and Lithuania. Educ Train. 2018 doi: 10.1108/ET-12-2017-0205. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goyanes M. Factors affecting the entrepreneurial intention of students pursuing journalism and media studies: evidence from Spain. JMM Int J Media Manag. 2015 doi: 10.1080/14241277.2015.1055748. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gulzar F, Fayaz A. Youth entrepreneurial intentions: an integrated model of individual and contextual factors. Int J Organ Anal. 2021 doi: 10.1108/IJOA-08-2021-2928. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gurel E, Altinay L, Daniele R. Tourism students’ entrepreneurial intentions. Ann Tour Res. 2010 doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2009.12.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gurel E, Madanoglu M, Altinay L. Gender, risk-taking and entrepreneurial intentions: assessing the impact of higher education longitudinally. Educ Train. 2021 doi: 10.1108/ET-08-2019-0190. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guzmán-Alfonso C, Guzmán-Cuevas J. Entrepreneurial intention models as applied to Latin America. J Organ Chang Manag. 2012 doi: 10.1108/09534811211254608. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hassan A, Saleem I, Anwar I, Hussain SA. Entrepreneurial intention of Indian university students: the role of opportunity recognition and entrepreneurship education. Educ Train. 2020 doi: 10.1108/ET-02-2020-0033. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hattab HW. Impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intentions of university students in Egypt. J Entrep. 2014 doi: 10.1177/0971355713513346. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hendieh J, Aoun D, Osta A. Students’ attitudes toward entrepreneurship at the Arab Open University-Lebanon. J Entrep Educ. 2019; 22 (2):1–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Henley A, Contreras F, Espinosa JC, Barbosa D. Entrepreneurial intentions of Colombian business students: planned behaviour, leadership skills and social capital. Int J Entrep Behav Res. 2017 doi: 10.1108/IJEBR-01-2017-0031. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hien DTT, Cho SE. Relationship between entrepreneurship education and innovative start-up intentions among university students. Int J Entrep. 2018; 22 (3):1–16. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoang G, Le TTT, Tran AKT, Du T. Entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions of university students in Vietnam: the mediating roles of self-efficacy and learning orientation. Educ Train. 2021 doi: 10.1108/ET-05-2020-0142. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hockerts K. Determinants of social entrepreneurial intentions. Entrep Theory Pract. 2017 doi: 10.1111/etap.12171. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoda N, Ahmad N, Ahmad M, et al. Validating the entrepreneurial intention model on the University Students in Saudi Arabia. J Asian Financ Econ Bus. 2020 doi: 10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no11.469. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hossain MU, Al Asheq A, Arifuzzaman SM. Entrepreneurial intention of Bangladeshi students: impact of individual and contextual factors. Probl Perspect Manag. 2019 doi: 10.21511/ppm.17(4).2019.40. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hou F, Su Y, Lu M, Qi M. Model of the entrepreneurial intention of university students in the Pearl River Delta of China. Front Psychol. 2019 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00916. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hsu CY, Wang SM. Social entrepreneurial intentions and its influential factors: a comparison of students in Taiwan and Hong Kong. Innov Educ Teach Int. 2019 doi: 10.1080/14703297.2018.1427611. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hudea OS, Toma SG, Burcea M. A non-parametric analysis of the relationship between business experience and entrepreneurial intention of final-year university students. Mathematics. 2021 doi: 10.3390/math9161955. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huston SA. Factors associated with entrepreneurial intentions in doctor of pharmacy students. Am J Pharm Educ. 2018; 82 :6355. doi: 10.5688/ajpe6355. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Iakovleva T, Kolvereid L, Stephan U. Entrepreneurial intentions in developing and developed countries. Educ Train. 2011 doi: 10.1108/00400911111147686. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ibidunni AS, Mozie D, Ayeni AWAA. Entrepreneurial characteristics amongst university students: insights for understanding entrepreneurial intentions amongst youths in a developing economy. Educ Train. 2021 doi: 10.1108/ET-09-2019-0204. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Iglesias-Sánchez PP, Jambrino-Maldonado C, Velasco AP, Kokash H. Impact of entrepreneurship programmes on university students. Educ Train. 2016 doi: 10.1108/ET-01-2015-0004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• İlerisoy ZY, Aycı A, Aycı H, Kınacı EB. Impacts of architectural education on entrepreneurial intention: a case study of senior architects from six universities in Turkey. Archnet-IJAR. 2021 doi: 10.1108/ARCH-11-2020-0269. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ismail N, Jaffar N, Khan S, Leng TS. Tracking the cyber entrepreneurial intention of private universities students in Malaysia. Int J Entrep Small Bus. 2012 doi: 10.1504/IJESB.2012.050169. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jang Y, Hadley B, Son J, Song C. Determinants of students’ entrepreneurial intention to compete in a fast-pitch competition. J Educ Bus. 2019 doi: 10.1080/08832323.2018.1540389. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jiang X, Sun Y. Study on constructing an education platform for innovation and entrepreneurship of university student. Res J Appl Sci Eng Technol. 2015 doi: 10.19026/rjaset.9.2630. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jwara N, Hoque M. Entrepreneurial intentions among university students: a case study of Durban University of Technology. Acad Entrep J. 2018; 24 (3):1–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kalitanyi V, Bbenkele E. Assessing the role of socio-economic values on entrepreneurial intentions among university students in Cape Town. S Afr J Econ Manag Sci. 2017 doi: 10.4102/sajems.v20i1.1768. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kalitanyi V, Bbenkele E. Cultural values as determinants of entrepreneurial intentions among university students in Cape Town-South Africa. J Enterp Communities. 2018 doi: 10.1108/JEC-01-2017-0017. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kalitanyi V, Visser DJ. Social values as determinants of entrepreneurial intentions among university students in Cape Town-South Africa. Probl Perspect Manag. 2016 doi: 10.21511/ppm.14(3-1).2016.05. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Karimi S, Makreet AS. The role of personal values in forming students’ entrepreneurial intentions in developing countries. Front Psychol. 2020 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.525844. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Karimi S, Biemans HJA, Naderi Mahdei K, et al. Testing the relationship between personality characteristics, contextual factors and entrepreneurial intentions in a developing country. Int J Psychol. 2017 doi: 10.1002/ijop.12209. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kayed H, Al-Madadha A, Abualbasal A. The effect of entrepreneurial education and culture on entrepreneurial intention. Organizacija. 2022 doi: 10.2478/orga-2022-0002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kilonzo PM, Nyambegera SM. Determinants of entrepreneurial intention among university business students in Kenya: lessons from Kenyatta University. Int J Entrep Small Bus. 2014 doi: 10.1504/IJESB.2014.062503. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim J-R. People-centered entrepreneurship: the impact of empathy and social entrepreneurial self-efficacy for social entrepreneurial intention. Glob Bus Financ Rev. 2022; 27 :108–118. doi: 10.17549/gbfr.2022.27.1.108. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim CNT, Van HP, Van HT, Kim TP. The relationship between higher education and entrepreneurial intention among Vietnamese students. Manag Sci Lett. 2020 doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2020.1.009. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kobylińska U. Attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived control versus contextual factors influencing the entrepreneurial intentions of students from Poland. WSEAS Trans Bus Econ. 2022 doi: 10.37394/23207.2022.19.10. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kör B, Wakkee I, Mutlutürk M. An investigation of factors influencing entrepreneurial intention amongst university students. J High Educ Theory Pract. 2020 doi: 10.33423/jhetp.v20i1.2777. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kowang TO, Apandi SZBA, Hee OC, et al. Undergraduates entrepreneurial intention: holistic determinants matter. Int J Eval Res Educ. 2021 doi: 10.11591/ijere.v10i1.20733. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Krueger N. Understanding the entrepreneurial mind. Cham: Springer; 2009. Entrepreneurial intentions are dead: long live entrepreneurial intentions; pp. 13–34. [ Google Scholar ]
• Krueger NF, Carsrud AL. Entrepreneurial intentions: applying the theory of planned behaviour. Entrep Reg Dev. 1993 doi: 10.1080/08985629300000020. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Krueger NF, Reilly MD, Carsrud AL. Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. J Bus Ventur. 2000 doi: 10.1016/S0883-9026(98)00033-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuckertz A, Block J. Reviewing systematic literature reviews: ten key questions and criteria for reviewers. Manag Rev Q. 2021; 71 (3):519–524. doi: 10.1007/s11301-021-00228-7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuckertz A, Wagner M. The influence of sustainability orientation on entrepreneurial intentions—investigating the role of business experience. J Bus Ventur. 2010 doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.09.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kurniawan MEH, Yudoko G, Basri MH, Umbara AN. Do entrepreneurship students have an intention to become an entrepreneur? J Entrep Educ. 2019; 22 (2):1–14. [ Google Scholar ]
• Laguía A, Moriano JA, Gorgievski MJ. A psychosocial study of self-perceived creativity and entrepreneurial intentions in a sample of university students. Think Ski Creat. 2019 doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2018.11.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Law KMY, Jakubiak M. Determinants of students’ entrepreneurial intention: a comparative study in Poland and Hong Kong. Int J Innov Learn. 2020 doi: 10.1504/IJIL.2020.108459. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Le Trung T, Xuan HD, Ngoc HN, et al. A comparative analysis of entrepreneurial intention and migration attitudes of students in Vietnam and Poland. Manag Sci Lett. 2020 doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2019.8.022. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee-Ross D. An examination of the entrepreneurial intent of MBA students in Australia using the entrepreneurial intention questionnaire. J Manag Dev. 2017 doi: 10.1108/jmd-10-2016-0200. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leiva JC, Mora-Esquivel R, Krauss-Delorme C, et al. Entrepreneurial intention among Latin American university students [Intención emprendedora entre estudiantes universitarios en Latinoamérica] Acad Rev Latinoam Adm. 2021; 34 (3):399–418. doi: 10.1108/ARLA-05-2020-0106. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lent RW, Brown SD, Hackett G. Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. J Vocat Behav. 1994; 45 (1):79–122. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.1994. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lim WL, Yusof M, Nor LM. The impact of entrepreneurial alertness on entrepreneurial intention among university students in Malaysia: theory of planned behaviour. J Eng Appl Sci. 2017 doi: 10.3923/jeasci.2017.1409.1418. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lin S, De-Pablos-Heredero C, Montes Botella JL, Lin-Lian C. Entrepreneurial intention of Chinese students studying at universities in the community of Madrid. Sustainability. 2022; 14 :5475. doi: 10.3390/su14095475. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liñán F, Fayolle A. A systematic literature review on entrepreneurial intentions: citation, thematic analyses, and research agenda. Int Entrep Manag J. 2015 doi: 10.1007/s11365-015-0356-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lingappa AK, Shah A, Mathew AO. Academic, family, and peer influence on entrepreneurial intention of engineering students. SAGE Open. 2020 doi: 10.1177/2158244020933877. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu X, Zhao WGW. Family education? Unpacking parental factors for tourism and hospitality students’ entrepreneurial intention. J Hosp Leis Sport Tour Educ. 2021 doi: 10.1016/j.jhlste.2020.100284. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu X, Lin C, Zhao G, Zhao D. Research on the effects of entrepreneurial education and entrepreneurial self-efficacy on college students’ entrepreneurial intention. Front Psychol. 2019 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00869. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lo C, Sun H, Law K. Comparing the entrepreneurial intention between female and male engineering students. J Women’s Entrep Educ. 2017; 1–2 :28–51. [ Google Scholar ]
• Locke E, Baum R (2007) Entrepreneurial motivation. In: Baum JR, Frese M, Baron RA (eds) The psychology of entrepreneurship. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, pp 93–112
• Looi KH. Contextual motivations for undergraduates’ entrepreneurial intentions in emerging Asian economies. J Entrep. 2020 doi: 10.1177/0971355719893500. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lopes J, Teixeira SJ, Ferreira JJM, et al. University entrepreneurial intentions: mainland and insular regions—are they different? Educ Train. 2020 doi: 10.1108/ET-03-2019-0055. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lopez T, Alvarez C. Influence of university-related factors on students’ entrepreneurial intentions. Int J Entrep Ventur. 2019 doi: 10.1504/IJEV.2019.103751. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• López-Delgado P, Iglesias-Sánchez PP, Jambrino-Maldonado C. Gender and university degree: a new analysis of entrepreneurial intention. Educ Train. 2019 doi: 10.1108/ET-04-2018-0085. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lu G, Song Y, Pan B. How university entrepreneurship support affects college students’ entrepreneurial intentions: an empirical analysis from China. Sustainability. 2021 doi: 10.3390/su13063224. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Luc PT. The relationship between perceived access to finance and social entrepreneurship intentions among university students in Vietnam. J Asian Financ Econ Bus. 2018 doi: 10.13106/jafeb.2018.vol5.no1.63. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lüthje C, Franke N. The “making” of an entrepreneur: testing a model of entrepreneurial intent among engineering students at MIT. R D Manag. 2003 doi: 10.1111/1467-9310.00288. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maes J, Leroy H, Sels L. Gender differences in entrepreneurial intentions: a TPB multi-group analysis at factor and indicator level. Eur Manag J. 2014 doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2014.01.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Magasi C. The influence of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intentions. Int J Res Bus Soc Sci. 2022; 11 :371–380. doi: 10.20525/ijrbs.v11i2.1701. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maheshwari G. Factors influencing entrepreneurial intentions the most for university students in Vietnam: educational support, personality traits or TPB components? Educ Train. 2021 doi: 10.1108/ET-02-2021-0074. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maheshwari G, Kha KL. Investigating the relationship between educational support and entrepreneurial intention in Vietnam: the mediating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy in the theory of planned behavior. Int J Manag Educ. 2021 doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100553. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maheshwari G, Nayak R, Ngyyen T. Review of research for two decades for women leadership in higher education around the world and in Vietnam: a comparative analysis. Gend Manag Int J. 2021; 36 (5):640–658. doi: 10.1108/GM-04-2020-0137. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mahola S, Aderibigbe JK, Chimucheka T. South African university students’ entrepreneurial intention as a correlate of entrepreneurship risk perceptions and aversion. J Hum Ecol. 2019 doi: 10.31901/24566608.2019/67.1-3.3153. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maresch D, Harms R, Kailer N, Wimmer-Wurm B. The impact of entrepreneurship education on the entrepreneurial intention of students in science and engineering versus business studies university programs. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2016 doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2015.11.006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Margaça C, Hernández-Sánchez B, Sánchez-García JC, Cardella GM. The roles of psychological capital and gender in university students’ entrepreneurial intentions. Front Psychol. 2021 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.615910. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martins I, Perez JP. Testing mediating effects of individual entrepreneurial orientation on the relation between close environmental factors and entrepreneurial intention. Int J Entrep Behav Res. 2020 doi: 10.1108/IJEBR-08-2019-0505. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maslakçı A, Sürücü L, Şeşen H. Relationship between positive psychological capital and entrepreneurial intentions of university students: the mediating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. World J Entrep Manag Sustain Dev. 2022; 18 :305–319. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maslakçı A, Sürücü L, Şeşen H. Positive psychological capital and university students’ entrepreneurial intentions: does gender make a difference? Int J Educ Vocat Guid. 2022 doi: 10.1007/s10775-022-09545-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maziriri ET, Maramura TC, Nzewi OI. Determinants of entrepreneurial intention among generation y students within the Johannesburg Metropolitan Area of South Africa. African J Bus Econ Res. 2019 doi: 10.31920/1750-4562/2019/14n3a6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mirjana PB, Ana A, Marjana MS. Examining determinants of entrepreneurial intentions in Slovenia: applying the theory of planned behaviour and an innovative cognitive style. Econ Res Istraz. 2018 doi: 10.1080/1331677X.2018.1478321. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mohammadi P, Kamarudin S, Omar R. Do Islamic values impact social entrepreneurial intention of university students in Malaysia? An empirical investigation into the mediating role of empathy. Int J Econ Manag. 2020; 14 (3):365–378. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mónico L, Carvalho C, Nejati S, et al. Entrepreneurship education and its influence on higher education students’ entrepreneurial intentions and motivation in Portugal. BAR Braz Adm Rev. 2021 doi: 10.1590/1807-7692BAR2021190088. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morales-Alonso G, Pablo-LerchundiNúñez-Del-Río IMC. Entrepreneurial intention of engineering students and associated influence of contextual factors/Intención emprendedora de los estudiantes de ingeniería e influencia de factores contextuales. Rev Psicol Soc. 2016 doi: 10.1080/02134748.2015.1101314. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mustafa MJ, Hernandez E, Mahon C, Chee LK. Entrepreneurial intentions of university students in an emerging economy: the influence of university support and proactive personality on students’ entrepreneurial intention. J Entrep Emerg Econ. 2016 doi: 10.1108/JEEE-10-2015-0058. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mykolenko O, Ippolitova I, Doroshenko H, Strapchuk S. The impact of entrepreneurship education and cultural context on entrepreneurial intentions of Ukrainian students: the mediating role of attitudes and perceived control. High Educ Ski Work Learn. 2022 doi: 10.1108/HESWBL-08-2020-0190. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nabi G, Holden R, Walmsley A. Entrepreneurial intentions among students: towards a re-focused research agenda. J Small Bus Enterp Dev. 2010; 17 :537–551. doi: 10.1108/14626001011088714. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nabi G, LiñáN F, Fayolle A, et al. The impact of entrepreneurship education in higher education: a systematic review and research agenda. Acad Manag Learn Educ. 2017; 16 (2):277–299. doi: 10.5465/amle.2015.0026. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nasar A, Kamarudin S, Rizal AM, et al. Short-term and long-term entrepreneurial intention comparison between Pakistan and Vietnam. Sustainability. 2019 doi: 10.3390/su11236529. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nasip S, Amirul SR, Sondoh SL, Tanakinjal GH. Psychological characteristics and entrepreneurial intention: a study among university students in North Borneo, Malaysia. Educ Train. 2017 doi: 10.1108/ET-10-2015-0092. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nathani N, Dwivedi G. Influence of technology entrepreneurship on entrepreneurial intentions: a cross country analysis. SSRN Electron J. 2019 doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3319889. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Neneh BN. An assessment of entrepreneurial intention among university students in Cameroon. Mediterr J Soc Sci. 2014; 5 :542–552. doi: 10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n20p542. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nguyen C. Entrepreneurial intention of international business students in Viet Nam: a survey of the country joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership. J Innov Entrep. 2017 doi: 10.1186/s13731-017-0066-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nguyen TT. The impact of access to finance and environmental factors on entrepreneurial intention: the mediator role of entrepreneurial behavioural control. Entrep Bus Econ Rev. 2020 doi: 10.15678/EBER.2020.080207. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nguyen AT, Do THH, Vu TBT, et al. Factors affecting entrepreneurial intentions among youths in Vietnam. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2019 doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.01.039. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nguyen PM, Dinh VT, Luu TMN, Choo Y. Sociological and theory of planned behaviour approach to understanding entrepreneurship: comparison of Vietnam and South Korea. Cogent Bus Manag. 2020 doi: 10.1080/23311975.2020.1815288. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nowiński W, Haddoud MY, Lančarič D, et al. The impact of entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and gender on entrepreneurial intentions of university students in the Visegrad countries. Stud High Educ. 2019; 44 :361–379. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2017.1365359. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nsahlai VK, Zogli LJ, Lawa E, Dlamini BI (2020) Factors influencing entrepreneurial intention: a case of students in a South African University. Acad Entrep J 26(1)
• Nuan W, Xin G. Rational thinking upon entrepreneurship education of college students. High Educ Soc Sci. 2012; 3 :41–44. doi: 10.3968/j.hess.1927024020120303.1121. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nuringsih K, Puspitowati I. Determinants of eco entrepreneurial intention among students: study in the entrepreneurial education practices. Adv Sci Lett. 2017 doi: 10.1166/asl.2017.9351. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ohanu IB, Shodipe TO. Influence of the link between resources and behavioural factors on the entrepreneurial intentions of electrical installation and maintenance work students. J Innov Entrep. 2021 doi: 10.1186/s13731-021-00154-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ojewumi KA, Fagbenro DA, Babatunde SI. Psycho-demographic factors and entrepreneurial intention among university students. Open J Psychol Res. 2020 doi: 10.32591/coas.ojpr.0401.03031o. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ozcan NA, Sahin S, Cankir B. The validity and reliability of thriving scale in academic context: mindfulness, GPA, and entrepreneurial intention among university students. Curr Psychol. 2021 doi: 10.1007/s12144-021-01590-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paiva LEB, Sousa ES, Lima TCB, Da Silva D. Planned behavior and religious beliefs as antecedents to entrepreneurial intention: a study with university students. Rev Adm Mackenzie. 2020 doi: 10.1590/1678-6971/eRAMG200022. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Palalić R, Ramadani V, Ðilović A, et al. Entrepreneurial intentions of university students: a case-based study. J Enterp Communities. 2017 doi: 10.1108/JEC-12-2016-0046. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paul J, Hermel P, Srivatava A. Entrepreneurial intentions—theory and evidence from Asia, America, and Europe. J Int Entrep. 2017 doi: 10.1007/s10843-017-0208-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pérez-Macías N, Fernández-Fernández JL, Rúa Vieites A. The impact of network ties, shared languages and shared visions on entrepreneurial intentions of online university students. Stud High Educ. 2020 doi: 10.1080/03075079.2019.1619682. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pérez-Macías N, Fernández-Fernández JL, Rúa-Vieites A. Entrepreneurial intention among online and face-to-face university students: the influence of structural and cognitive social capital dimensions. J Int Entrep. 2021 doi: 10.1007/s10843-020-00280-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pérez-Pérez C, González-Torres T, Nájera-Sánchez JJ. Boosting entrepreneurial intention of university students: is a serious business game the key? Int J Manag Educ. 2021 doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100506. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Phuc PT, Vinh NQ, Do QH. Factors affecting entrepreneurial intention among tourism undergraduate students in Vietnam. Manag Sci Lett. 2020 doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2020.6.026. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Phuong NTM, Quoc TH, Van CL, Lien LTK. The students’ attitudes and entrepreneurial intention: evidence from Vietnam universities. Manag Sci Lett. 2021 doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2020.10.028. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pittaway L, Cope J. Entrepreneurship education: a systematic review of the evidence. Int Small Bus J. 2007; 25 (5):479–510. doi: 10.1177/0266242607080656. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Popescu CC, Bostan I, Robu IB, et al. An analysis of the determinants of entrepreneurial intentions among students: a Romanian case study. Sustainability. 2016 doi: 10.3390/su8080771. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pouratashi M. Entrepreneurial intentions of agricultural students: levels and determinants. J Agric Educ Ext. 2015 doi: 10.1080/1389224X.2014.960528. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Prabowo H, Ikhsan RB, Yuniarty Y. Drivers of green entrepreneurial intention: why does sustainability awareness matter among university students? Front Psychol. 2022 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.873140. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pradana M, Wardhana A, Wijayangka C, et al. Indonesian university students’ entrepreneurial intention: a conceptual study. J Crit Rev. 2020 doi: 10.31838/jcr.07.07.101. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pruett M, Shinnar R, Toney B, et al. Explaining entrepreneurial intentions of university students: a cross-cultural study. Int J Entrep Behav Res. 2009 doi: 10.1108/13552550910995443. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Qudus A, Mazhar M, Tabassum MF, Farhan M (2022) The role of psychological factors on entrepreneurial intentions among business students 32(1)
• Rahaman MA, Ali MJ, Mamoon ZR, Al Asheq A. Understanding the entrepreneurial intention in the light of contextual factors: gender analysis. J Asian Finance Econ Bus. 2020 doi: 10.13106/JAFEB.2020.VOL7.NO9.639. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rakib M, Tawe A, Azis M, et al. Determinants of entrepreneurial intention: empirical study of student entrepreneurs. Acad Entrep J. 2020; 26 (3):1–12. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ramayah T, Rahman SA, Taghizadeh SK. Modelling green entrepreneurial intention among university students using the entrepreneurial event and cultural values theory. Int J Entrep Ventur. 2019 doi: 10.1504/IJEV.2019.101629. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reuel Johnmark D, Munene JC, Balunywa W. Robustness of personal initiative in moderating entrepreneurial intentions and actions of disabled students. Cogent Bus Manag. 2016 doi: 10.1080/23311975.2016.1169575. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodriguez-Gutierrez P, Cabeza-Ramírez LJ, Muñoz-Fernández GA. University students’ behaviour towards entrepreneurial intention in Ecuador: testing for the influence of gender. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 doi: 10.3390/ijerph17228475. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Romero-Colmenares LM, Reyes-Rodríguez JF. Sustainable entrepreneurial intentions: exploration of a model based on the theory of planned behaviour among university students in north-east Colombia. Int J Manag Educ. 2022 doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100627. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roxas B. Effects of entrepreneurial knowledge on entrepreneurial intentions: a longitudinal study of selected South-east Asian business students. J Educ Work. 2014 doi: 10.1080/13639080.2012.760191. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roy R, Das N. A critical comparison of factors affecting science and technology students’ entrepreneurial intention: a tale of two genders. Int J Educ Vocat Guid. 2020 doi: 10.1007/s10775-019-09393-4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rueda Barrios GE, Rodriguez JFR, Plaza AV, et al. Entrepreneurial intentions of university students in Colombia: exploration based on the theory of planned behavior. J Educ Bus. 2022 doi: 10.1080/08832323.2021.1918615. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rungsrisawat S, Sutduean C. Entrepreneurial education and entrepreneurial intention: the mediating role of creativity disposition among University Students in Thailand. Int J Innov Creat Change. 2019; 6 (10):213–232. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rusu VD, Roman A, Tudose MB. Determinants of entrepreneurial intentions of youth: the role of access to finance. Eng Econ. 2022 doi: 10.5755/j01.ee.33.1.28716. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Salhieh SM, Al-Abdallat Y. Technopreneurial intentions: the effect of innate innovativeness and academic self-efficacy. Sustainability. 2022 doi: 10.3390/su14010238. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sánchez AC. Personal values as predictors of entrepreneurial intentions of university students. J Evol Stud Bus. 2021 doi: 10.1344/jesb2021.2.j096. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sankar P, Irin Sudha A. Determinants of entrepreneurial intention of pharmacy students in Chennai. Int J Pharm Sci Rev Res. 2016; 41 (1):150–154. [ Google Scholar ]
• Saptono A, Purwana D, Wibowo A, et al. Assessing the university students’ entrepreneurial intention: entrepreneurial education and creativity. Humanit Soc Sci Rev. 2019 doi: 10.18510/hssr.2019.7158. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schlaegel C, Engle RL, Richter NF, Taureck PC. Personal factors, entrepreneurial intention, and entrepreneurial status: a multinational study in three institutional environments. J Int Entrep. 2021 doi: 10.1007/s10843-021-00287-7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sesen H. Personality or environment? A comprehensive study on the entrepreneurial intentions of university students. Educ Train. 2013 doi: 10.1108/ET-05-2012-0059. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shah N, Soomro BA. Investigating entrepreneurial intention among public sector university students of Pakistan. Educ Train. 2017 doi: 10.1108/ET-11-2016-0168. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shahid MS, Ahsen SR. Linking entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions: an interactive effect of social and personal factors. Int J Learn Change. 2021 doi: 10.1504/IJLC.2021.111670. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shahid MS, Imran Y, Shehryar H. Determinants of entrepreneurial intentions: an institutional embeddedness perspective. J Small Bus Entrep. 2018 doi: 10.1080/08276331.2017.1389053. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shahneaz MA, Bin Amin M, Eni LN. The interplay between the psychological factors and entrepreneurial intention: an empirical investigation. J Asian Financ Econ Bus. 2020 doi: 10.13106/JAFEB.2020.VOL7.NO12.139. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shahzad MF, Khan KI, Saleem S, Rashid T. What factors affect the entrepreneurial intention to start-ups? The role of entrepreneurial skills, propensity to take risks, and innovativeness in open business models. J Open Innov Technol Mark Complex. 2021 doi: 10.3390/JOITMC7030173. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shamsudin SFFB, Al MA, Nawi NBC, et al. Factors influencing entrepreneurial intention and the moderating role of entrepreneurship education: a conceptual model. Adv Sci Lett. 2017 doi: 10.1166/asl.2017.7635. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shamsudin MF, Alias MN, Majid ZA, et al. Does the support system mediate the relationship between university roles and entrepreneurial intentions among university students? J Inf Technol Manag. 2021 doi: 10.22059/JITM.2021.83112. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shapero A. The entrepreneurial event. Columbus: College of Administrative Science, Ohio State University; 1984. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shapero A, Sokol L (1982) The social dimensions of entrepreneurship.&nbsp;In: The encyclopaedia of entrepreneurship. Prentice-Hall, pp 72–90
• Sharahiley SM. Examining entrepreneurial intention of the Saudi Arabia’s university students: analyzing alternative integrated research model of TPB and EEM. Glob J Flex Syst Manag. 2020 doi: 10.1007/s40171-019-00231-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sherkat A, Chenari A. Assessing the effectiveness of entrepreneurship education in the universities of Tehran province based on an entrepreneurial intention model. Stud High Educ. 2022 doi: 10.1080/03075079.2020.1732906. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shi L, Yao X, Wu W. Perceived university support, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, heterogeneous entrepreneurial intentions in entrepreneurship education: the moderating role of the Chinese sense of face. J Entrep Emerg Econ. 2020 doi: 10.1108/JEEE-04-2019-0040. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Silva N, Fernández-Robin C, Yáñez D, Romaní G. Influence of educational programs oriented toward entrepreneurship on the entrepreneurial intention of university students: the case of Chile. Acad Rev Latinoam Adm. 2021 doi: 10.1108/ARLA-06-2020-0146. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Solesvik MZ. Entrepreneurial motivations and intentions: investigating the role of education major. Educ Train. 2013 doi: 10.1108/00400911311309314. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Solesvik M, Westhead P, Matlay H. Cultural factors and entrepreneurial intention: The role of entrepreneurship education. Educ Train. 2014 doi: 10.1108/ET-07-2014-0075. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Soria K, Honores G, Gutiérrez J. Gender and social legitimacy of entrepreneurship: contribution to entrepreneurial intention in university students from Chile and Colombia. J Technol Manag Innov. 2016 doi: 10.4067/S0718-27242016000300008. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sriyakul T, Jermsittiparsert K. The mediating role of entrepreneurial passion in the relationship between entrepreneur education and entrepreneurial intention among university students in Thailand. Int J Innov Creat Chang. 2019; 6 (10):193–212. [ Google Scholar ]
• St-Jean É, Nafa A, Tremblay M, et al. Entrepreneurial intentions of university students: an international comparison between African, European and Canadian students. Int J Entrep Innov Manag. 2014 doi: 10.1504/IJEIM.2014.062878. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Su Y, Zhu Z, Chen J, et al. Factors influencing entrepreneurial intention of university students in China: integrating the perceived university support and theory of planned behavior. Sustainability. 2021 doi: 10.3390/su13084519. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sumathi P, Ahamed SBI, Karthikeyan M. Descriptive research study on factors influencing entrepreneurial intention among engineering students in Virudhunagar District. J Adv Res Dyn Control Syst. 2018; 10 (1):605–611. [ Google Scholar ]
• Suratno E, Kusmana A. The analysis of the effect of entrepreneurship education, perceived desirability, and entrepreneurial self-efficacy on university students’ entrepreneurial intention. Univers J Educ Res. 2019 doi: 10.13189/ujer.2019.071131. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tamprateep P, Tanaboriboon C, Rathprasert B. Factors affecting the entrepreneurial intentions among university students of Thailand. J Comput Theor Nanosci. 2019 doi: 10.1166/jctn.2019.8389. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tassawa C. A structural model for predicting entrepreneurial intention of university students. Humanit Arts Soc Sci Stud. 2019 doi: 10.14456/hasss.2019.11. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thanh LT, Hau DX, Huyen NN, et al. The effects of internal and external barriers on Vietnamese students’ entrepreneurial intention. Manag Sci Lett. 2020 doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2019.8.032. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tiwari P, Bhat AK, Tikoria J, Saha K. Exploring the factors responsible in predicting entrepreneurial intention among nascent entrepreneurs: a field research. South Asian J Bus Stud. 2020 doi: 10.1108/SAJBS-05-2018-0054. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tomal M, Szromnik A. Determinants of entrepreneurial intentions of university students in selected post-communist countries in Europe: investigating cross-cultural differences. J Bus Econ Manag. 2021 doi: 10.3846/jbem.2021.15546. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Torres FC, Méndez JCE, Barreto KS, et al. Exploring entrepreneurial intentions in Latin American university students. Int J Psychol Res. 2017 doi: 10.21500/20112084.2794. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tran TVH, Duong CD, Nguyen TH, et al. UPPS impulsivity, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intentions among university students: ADHD symptoms as a moderator. J Appl Res High Educ. 2022 doi: 10.1108/JARHE-12-2021-0464. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tung DT, Hung NT, Phuong NTC, et al. Enterprise development from students: the case of universities in Vietnam and the Philippines. Int J Manag Educ. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2019.100333. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Turker D, Selcuk SS. Which factors affect entrepreneurial intention of university students? J Eur Ind Train. 2009 doi: 10.1108/03090590910939049. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ubierna F, Arranz N, de Arroyabe JCF. Entrepreneurial intentions of university students: a study of design undergraduates in Spain. Ind High Educ. 2014 doi: 10.5367/ihe.2014.0191. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Uddin MA, Mohammad S, Hammami S. Influence of demographic factors on the entrepreneurial intentions of university students in Oman. Investig Manag Financ Innov. 2016 doi: 10.21511/imfi.13(1-1).2016.08. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Uike DD. Effect of demographic factors on entrepreneurial intention of management students in Nagpur university, India. Int J Sci Technol Res. 2019; 8 (11):3737–3743. [ Google Scholar ]
• Utami CW (2017) Attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavior, entrepreneurship education and self-efficacy toward entrepreneurial intention university student in Indonesia. Eur Res Stud J 20
• Valencia-Arias A, Rodríguez Correa PA, Cárdenas-Ruiz JA, Gómez-Molina S. Factors that influence the entrepreneurial intention of psychology students of the virtual modality [Factores que influyen en la intención emprendedora de estudiantes de psicología de la modalidad virtual] Retos. 2022; 12 :5–24. doi: 10.17163/ret.n23.2022.01. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Ewijk AR, Belghiti-Mahut S. Context, gender and entrepreneurial intentions: how entrepreneurship education changes the equation. Int J Gend Entrep. 2019 doi: 10.1108/IJGE-05-2018-0054. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Trang T, Doanh DC. The role of structural support in predicting entrepreneurial intention: insights from Vietnam. Manag Sci Lett. 2019 doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2019.6.012. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Trang T, Do QH, Loan NTB. Relationships between students’ work values and entrepreneurial intention among Vietnamese students. Acad Entrep J. 2020; 26 :1–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Velásquez JAT, Arias AV, Hernández JB, et al. Characterization of entrepreneurial intention in university students as from systemic entrepreneurship intention Model: a case study. Cuad Gest. 2018 doi: 10.5295/cdg.160670jt. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Virginia Guadalupe LT, Yesenia ST, Luis Ramón MM, Diego Alfredo PR. Determinantes de la intención emprendedora en estudiantes universitarios mexicanos. Rev Ciencias Soc. 2021 doi: 10.31876/rcs.v27i.36998. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vroom V. Work and motivation. New York: Wiley; 1964. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vuong BN, Phuong NND, Huan DD, Quan TN. A model of factors affecting entrepreneurial intention among information technology students in Vietnam. J Asian Financ Econ Bus. 2020 doi: 10.13106/JAFEB.2020.VOL7.NO8.461. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Walter SG, Block JH. Outcomes of entrepreneurship education: an institutional perspective. J Bus Ventur. 2016 doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2015.10.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang W, Tang Y, Liu Y, et al. Can sense of opportunity identification efficacy play a mediating role? Relationship between network embeddedness and social entrepreneurial intention of university students. Front Psychol. 2019 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01342. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang Q, Sun Z, Wu C. The impact of university innovation and entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intention from the perspective of educational psychology. Front Psychol. 2021 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.745976. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ward A, Hernández-Sánchez BR, Sánchez-García JC. Entrepreneurial potential and gender effects: the role of personality traits in university students’ entrepreneurial intentions. Front Psychol. 2019 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02700. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Waris I, Barkat W, Ahmed A, Hameed I. Fostering sustainable businesses: understanding sustainability-driven entrepreneurial intention among university students in Pakistan. Soc Responsib J. 2021 doi: 10.1108/SRJ-10-2020-0399. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wegner D, Thomas E, Teixeira EK, Maehler AE. University entrepreneurial push strategy and students’ entrepreneurial intention. Int J Entrep Behav Res. 2020 doi: 10.1108/IJEBR-10-2018-0648. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wibowo SF, Purwana D, Wibowo A, Saptono A. Determinants of entrepreneurial intention among millennial generation in emerging countries. Int J Entrep. 2019; 23 :1. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wiramihardja K, N’daryAl Mamun VA, et al. Sustainable economic development through entrepreneurship: a study on attitude, opportunity recognition, and entrepreneurial intention among university students in Malaysia. Front Psychol. 2022 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.866753. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wu J, Rudnák I. Exploring the impact of studying abroad in Hungary on entrepreneurial intention among international students. Sustainability. 2021 doi: 10.3390/su13179545. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wu S, Wu L. The impact of higher education on entrepreneurial intentions of university students in China. J Small Bus Enterp Dev. 2008 doi: 10.1108/14626000810917843. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wu YCJ, Wu T (2017) A decade of entrepreneurship education in the Asia Pacific for future directions in theory and practice. Manag Decis 55. 10.1108/MD-05-2017-0518
• Wu WH, Wei CW, Yu MC, Kao HY. Exploring factors surrounding students’ entrepreneurial intentions in medical informatics: the theory of planning behavior perspective. Front Psychol. 2020 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.544887. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wu J, Alshaabani A, Rudnák I. Testing the influence of self-efficacy and demographic characteristics among international students on entrepreneurial intention in the context of Hungary. Sustainability. 2022 doi: 10.3390/su14031069. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xuan HD, Le Trung T, Ngoc HN, et al. The effect of educational background on entrepreneurial intention. Manag Sci Lett. 2020 doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2019.8.013. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yaghmaei O, Ghasemi I, Assadian S. Relationship among influential factors of entrepreneurial intention in terms of gender: case of postgraduate students in Malaysia. Mediterr J Soc Sci. 2015 doi: 10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n3p195. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yasir N, Liren A, Mehmood N, Arfat Y. Impact of personality traits on entrepreneurial intention and demographic factors as moderator. Int J Entrep. 2019; 23 :1–20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yasir N, Xie R, Zhang J. The impact of personal values and attitude toward sustainable entrepreneurship on entrepreneurial intention to enhance sustainable development: empirical evidence from Pakistan. Sustainability. 2022; 14 :6792. doi: 10.3390/su14116792. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yu T, Khalid N, Ahmed U. Factors influencing entrepreneurial intention among foreigners in Kazakhstan. Sustainability. 2021 doi: 10.3390/su13137066. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang P, Cain KW. Reassessing the link between risk aversion and entrepreneurial intention: the mediating role of the determinants of planned behavior. Int J Entrep Behav Res. 2017 doi: 10.1108/IJEBR-08-2016-0248. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang J, Huang J. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy mediates the impact of the post-pandemic entrepreneurship environment on college students’ entrepreneurial intention. Front Psychol. 2021 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.643184. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang Y, Duysters G, Cloodt M. The role of entrepreneurship education as a predictor of university students’ entrepreneurial intention. Int Entrep Manag J. 2014 doi: 10.1007/s11365-012-0246-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang P, Wang DD, Owen CL. A study of entrepreneurial intention of university students. Entrep Res J. 2015 doi: 10.1515/erj-2014-0004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang SN, Li YQ, Liu CH, Ruan WQ. Critical factors identification and prediction of tourism and hospitality students’ entrepreneurial intention. J Hosp Leis Sport Tour Educ. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.jhlste.2019.100234. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhao H, Hills GE, Seibert SE. The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. J Appl Psychol. 2005 doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1265. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhao J, Wei G, Chen KH, Yien JM. Psychological capital and university students’ entrepreneurial intention in China: mediation effect of entrepreneurial capitals. Front Psychol. 2020 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02984. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhu R, Zhao G, Long Z, et al. Entrepreneurship or employment? A survey of college students’ sustainable entrepreneurial intentions. Sustainability. 2022; 14 :5466. doi: 10.3390/su14095466. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zovko L, Dulčić Ž, Bilić I. Determinants of students’ entrepreneurial intention: an empirical research. Management. 2020; 25 :25–44. doi: 10.30924/mjcmi.25.1.2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• University Home
• Campus Life

Clemson News

Brook T. Smith Launchpad celebrates entrepreneurship at their annual Blue Ridge Market

From handmade t-shirts to pottery and photography services, the Blue Ridge Market hosted its annual event as a platform for student entrepreneurs on Clemson’s Campus. Organized through the Brook T. Smith Launchpad , 27 entrepreneurs participated in the event selling and advertising their goods and services.

Launched earlier this year in 2024, the Brook T. Smith Launchpad is an entrepreneurial hub for students of all majors at Clemson. Through the launchpad, students have access to networking opportunities, events and a community to develop their entrepreneurial skills. Events like the Blue Ridge Market offer opportunities for students and alumni to connect with the Clemson community and showcase their small businesses.

Liz Brooks ‘23, owner of Lizart, says the event is a great opportunity for any student entrepreneur. “The Blue Ridge Market is an incredible opportunity for students and alumni to market their businesses to the local community on campus. I have attended the past four markets as a student and now as an alum, and I am so grateful to the Brook T. Smith Launchpad for providing this opportunity! Having these markets to engage with customers and other entrepreneurs on campus has allowed me to grow my photography business and network with so many wonderful people!”

To learn more about Brook T. Smith Launchpad events, visit their website.

Get in touch and we will connect you with the author or another expert.

Or email us at [email protected]

Find Info For

• Current Students
• Prospective Students
• Research and Partnerships
• Entrepreneurship and Commercialization

Quick Links

• Health and Life Sciences
• Info Security and AI
• Transformative Education
• Purdue Today
• Purdue Global
• Purdue in the News

April 22, 2024

Purdue’s Manufacturing and Materials Research Laboratories announces new Indianapolis presence

Purdue’s Manufacturing and Materials Research Laboratories will establish a presence at 16 Tech Innovation District in Indianapolis, inside the Machyne makerspace — central Indiana’s leading makerspace for prototyping. (Photo provided 16 Tech Community Corp.)

MMRL’s Indy footprint at 16 Tech Innovation District will fuel manufacturing excellence across the Hard-Tech Corridor 

INDIANAPOLIS — In an effort to accelerate physical, digital and sustainable manufacturing efforts across Indiana, Purdue University’s Manufacturing and Materials Research Laboratories (MMRL) will establish a presence in Indianapolis at 16 Tech Innovation District, the city’s destination for innovation and entrepreneurship, deep inside the heart of the Hard-Tech Corridor. MMRL will locate in 16 Tech’s Machyne makerspace, the region’s leading makerspace for prototyping. This latest announcement comes just before the official launch of Purdue University in Indianapolis, Purdue’s new, comprehensive urban campus in Indiana’s capital city, on July 1.

“Manufacturing, or ‘making,’ is the core pillar of who we are as Boilermakers,” said Ajay Malshe, inaugural director of MMRL and the R. Eugene and Susie E. Goodson Distinguished Professor of Mechanical Engineering. “Having a significant presence for MMRL in Indianapolis will empower Purdue, along with industry and government partners in central Indiana, to accelerate manufacturing excellence across the Hard-Tech Corridor for opportunities and wealth creation in Indiana.”

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

• Fueling advanced manufacturing growth across Indiana’s Hard-Tech Corridor: Reimagine IN-MaC through Purdue in West Lafayette and Indianapolis
• Purdue University, High Alpha partner to house programs in downtown Indianapolis
• Purdue University in Indianapolis: Launching Purdue’s first comprehensive urban campus and forming America’s Hard-Tech Corridor

With its flagship location in West Lafayette, MMRL collaborates with industries and foundations, accelerates tech commercialization in manufacturing, and attracts top talent. As one of the first offshoots of Purdue’s  eXcellence in Manufacturing and Operations (XMO)  initiative, MMRL brings together world-class Purdue faculty and staff from top-ranked schools such as Mechanical Engineering, Materials Engineering, Industrial Engineering and Nuclear Engineering, with a concentration on manufacturing research and experimentation. Together, MMRL and XMO are vital components of a renaissance in domestic manufacturing, logistics and supply chains revitalizing the nation’s industrial resilience by linking physical, digital and sustainable manufacturing for an integrated ecosystem of manufacturers of all sizes. Now, with a new foothold in Indianapolis, MMRL will have a robust workforce-development component and intentional technology-uptake efforts, ensuring critical job creation and local impact while sustaining national security.

“With a dual presence in West Lafayette and Indianapolis, MMRL’s faculty, staff and students will operate across the Hard-Tech Corridor as one unit in partnerships with organizations of consequence to achieve shared goals for the state of Indiana,” said Dan Hasler, chief operating officer of Purdue University in Indianapolis. 

Indiana is a manufacturing leader. Manufacturers in the state generate a nine-figure economic output and employ over 500,000 workers, according to a recent study by the National Association of Manufacturers . Manufacturing as a share of state GDP is higher in Indiana than in any other state, at 25.7%, with more than 1 in 5 Indiana residents currently working in advanced manufacturing. Both production and capital investment are returning to, and staying within, the borders of the U.S., and initiatives like MMRL uniquely position Purdue to fulfill that domestic workforce need with job-ready graduates. “The Indiana Next Generation Manufacturing Competitiveness Center (IN-MaC) node, in partnership with MMRL at Purdue University in Indianapolis, will be part of this joint venture , with a focus on applied manufacturing research, learning and technology transfer,” said Arvind Raman, the John A. Edwardson Dean of the College of Engineering.   

Purdue will also partner with Conexus Indiana, an organization with a powerful network of industry, education and public-sector leaders that is working to strengthen Indiana’s competitive advantage in advanced manufacturing and logistics. The shared goal of Conexus and Purdue is to drive industry innovation and develop homegrown talent to ensure Indiana will be a global leader in the advanced manufacturing sector for generations to come.

“Over the last few years, we’ve seen a steady increase in the manufacturing industry’s adoption of advanced technologies,” said Fred Cartwright, president and CEO of Conexus Indiana. “As industry technology adoption scales and more small- to midsize businesses digitize operations, the skills they need from their workforce will continue to shift in tandem. We’re eager to partner with Purdue University — as it grows its presence in Indianapolis and across the state — to fuel innovation and help build this essential future workforce for Indiana’s top industry sector.”

Innovation is leading the way in the manufacturing sector, as critical technology platforms such as digital twinning, 3D printing, artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things and more are offered to industries of all sizes for new advancements, technology updates and workforce training at scale. 16 Tech is the perfect incubator for those innovations and technology uptake, fostering world-changing discoveries and economic opportunity in the heart of Indiana’s industrial center.

“MMRL is a perfect addition to 16 Tech and the Indianapolis ecosystem,” said Emily Krueger, president and CEO of the nonprofit 16 Tech Community Corp. “By locating in 16 Tech, MMRL joins a growing community that has the infrastructure to enable and scale interactions among university researchers, corporations and startups.” 

About Purdue University in Indianapolis

Purdue University in Indianapolis is a new, fully integrated extension of the West Lafayette campus, expanding the academic rigor and accessible excellence that Purdue is known for to central Indiana. As the state’s only public top 10 university, most trusted university and most innovative university, Purdue is focused and committed to strengthening its presence in Indiana’s industrial and technological center. Purdue University in Indianapolis will create an innovative, STEM-based collegiate experience by connecting future-ready Purdue students and faculty in Indianapolis to local businesses to accelerate Indiana’s STEM pipeline and tech ecosystem, fueling impact for our region and the world. Realignment of the existing IUPUI partnership will be completed by the start of the fall semester in 2024. Learn more about Purdue’s latest giant leap at  https://www.purdue.edu/campuses/indianapolis/

About Conexus Indiana

For more than a decade, Conexus Indiana, one of the Central Indiana Corporate Partnership (CICP) non-profit initiatives, has been positioning the Hoosier State as the best place for advanced manufacturing and logistics industries to innovate, invest, employ and succeed. By collaborating with industry, academic and public sector partners on a shared vision for an innovative, skilled workforce and stronger business climate, Conexus Indiana has helped to create opportunities for advanced manufacturing and logistics companies, prepare Hoosiers to succeed in the state’s largest industry sectors and maintain Indiana’s competitive advantage. For more information, visit http://conexusindiana.com

About 16 Tech

Opened in 2020, the 16 Tech Innovation District is a growing destination for innovation and entrepreneurship and a driver of the tech enablement of the life-sciences and advanced manufacturing industries key to Indiana’s economy. Connected to diverse neighborhoods in downtown Indianapolis and intentionally resourced with facilities and programs to foster innovation, 16 Tech is home to three buildings with a variety of office, wet and dry lab spaces and makerspaces and 200+ innovation related entities that employ more than 800 people. At full build-out, 16 Tech anticipates more 2 million square feet of innovation related space that support 3,000 jobs.

Writer/Media contact:  Derek Schultz,  [email protected]  

Sources:  Dan Hasler, Ajay Malshe, Fred Cartwright, Emily Krueger

Research News

Communication.

• OneCampus Portal
• Brightspace
• BoilerConnect
• Faculty and Staff
• Human Resources
• Colleges and Schools

Info for Staff

• Purdue Moves
• Board of Trustees
• University Senate
• Center for Healthy Living
• Information Technology
• Ethics & Compliance
• Campus Disruptions

Purdue University, 610 Purdue Mall, West Lafayette, IN 47907, (765) 494-4600

© 2015-24 Purdue University | An equal access/equal opportunity university | Copyright Complaints | Maintained by Office of Strategic Communications

Trouble with this page? Disability-related accessibility issue? Please contact News Service at [email protected] .