Ⅰ. Introduction
As the fourth industrial revolution has come, new technologies including AI(artificial intelligence), intelligent robot technology, big data, and oo technologies have emerged and advanced. These technological advancements have accelerated changes
in the labor market, most notably the replacement of human jobs, which means many people might be able to lose their jobs. Particularly, people most affected by the job losses are the youth in their 20s to 30s just starting their career. Accordingly, if there is no actual plan to tackle the employment issue, it can cause multiple social problems including a high rate of youth unemployment,
* Associate Professor, Department of School of Liberal Arts Education, Kyungwoon University([email protected]), First Author
** Associate Professor, Department of Aeronautical Computer Engineering, Kyungwoon University([email protected]), Co-Author
*** Team Manager, Career Development Center, Changshin University([email protected]), Corresponding Author
The Effect of Entrepreneurship on Entrepreneurial Intention of University Students:
Focused on Major and Self-efficacy
2)Eun Jin Lee * ⋅Hyeon Cheol Zin ** ⋅Si Yun An ***
Abstract
As the fourth industrial revolution has come, It has accelerated changes in the labor market. Start-up can be a new engine for economic growth as creative destruction which changes existing markets and industrial landscape through offering innovative products and service. Moreover, it also plays important roles in creating new jobs and training human resources necessary to lead in the future industry.
Entrepreneurship will have a positive effect on entrepreneurial intention was proved and was related to the moderating effect of majors between entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial intentions, Start-up education has an influence on entrepreneurial intention, There are some limits on this research as regional limitations of sample and response unfaithfulness because of online. Nevertheless, this research can be considered meaningful since it explains the relation between major of university students and self-efficacy, which can be used as preliminary materials for developing start-up related curricula and referred to select entrepreneurs-to-be.
│Key Words│Start-up, Education, Entrepreneurship, Intention, Self-efficacy
and in the long run, lead to weakening of national competitiveness.
As one of ways to tackle the issue, both the central and local governments have encouraged the youth to take an interest in start-up by providing supports including fund and several training programs. Start-up can be a new engine for economic growth as creative destruction which changes existing markets and industrial landscape through offering innovative products and service. Moreover, it also plays important roles in creating new jobs and training human resources necessary to lead in the future industry(Lee, 2008).
With that said, it cannot be stressed enough that how important finding out the way to boost entrepreneurship in university students and helping them understand entrepreneurial intention are(Bae and Lee, 2018).
It is known that technology-based startups have a huge ripple effect on the national economy and greatly make a contribution to the economic development including job creation since it, different from ordinary startups, helps create added value, and accelerate the development and diffusion of technologies(Sim et al., 2015). It is also partly proven in Korea that many success cases are from people with backgrounds in natural science or engineering. In addition, most students participating in various startup support programs including Leading University for Start-up Business program, LINC program, etc. are also from natural science or engineering majors(Kim, Ko, and Lee, 2015). Despite that, however, there are not many studies investigating the relationship/differences between entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial intention by major.
Accordingly, this research intends to verify moderating effects of major and self-efficacy on the relationship between entrepreneurship and
entrepreneurial intentions of university students. For this, existing literature about entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial intentions, and self-efficacy and the relationships of those three by major will be reviewed.
Following this, a research frame and hypotheses are to be developed. Then, how to measure variables and compromise a survey will be discussed. Based on this, regression analysis and verification of moderating effect are conducted, and the results discussed. Lastly, implications are described with some challenges.
Ⅱ. Theoretical Background
1. Entrepreneurship and Entrepreneurial Intention
Entrepreneurship usually means core thinking methods of or approaches to actively searching for business opportunities, but there are its various nuanced definitions depending on scholars or fields. Schumpeter defines entrepreneurship as innovative and original minds willing to challenge something new with insights able to predict the future(Hagedoorn, 1996). In terms of its key factors, Schumpetr(1934) considers innovation destroying existing markets and social structure, and creating completely new values as one of essential factors of entrepreneurship.
Taking a look at entrepreneur related studies,
Cantillon(1755) describes an entrepreneur as a risk taker
to earn one’s profits, and Knight(1921) defines an
entrepreneur as a person continuing one’s business
despite risks, based one’s subjective decision even under
uncertain situations. Slightly differently, Vesper(19820)
and Gartner(1990) defines an entrepreneur as one
making a new organization, and Bruyat and
Julien(2001) gives an entrepreneur a meaning of one
creating new values. In addition, Mises(1949) describes an entrepreneur as a doer reaching forward profits and success under uncertainty, and constantly striving for one’s achievement.
The most notable research of multiple studies related to entrepreneurship is Miller’s(1983) about entrepreneurial orientation based on constructs of innovativeness, progressiveness, and risk sensitivity.
First, innovativeness means original and experimental activities introducing something new, different from existing products or service. Progressiveness is about predicting future needs and taking pre-emptive actions against competitors. Lastly, risk sensitivity is described as being resolute such as investment of capital and resources even under high uncertainty. Covin and Slevin(1989) proposes instrument to measure those constructs of innovativeness, progressiveness, and risk sensitivity.
The constructs of entrepreneurship, innovativeness, progressiveness, and risk sensitivity are variables representing individual characteristics of entrepreneur, which have been considered deeply related to start-up behavior. Therefore, it can easily be regarded that entrepreneurial intention, an antecedent variable of start-up behavior, be significantly influenced by innovativeness, progressiveness, and risk sensitivity.
Accordingly, it can be predicted that the more university students have entrepreneurship including pursuing something new, being more active, and willing to take risks, the higher they have entrepreneurial intention.
Entrepreneurial intention can be defined as a state of mind directing towards start-up behavior with a will to create a new organization(Bird, 1988). Moreover, a self-convincing mind can also mean entrepreneurial intention, which makes new ideas or plans to develop start-up at a certain time(Thompson, 2009). Therefore,
entrepreneurial intention can be described as psychological orientation towards start-up such as hope or desire to decide start-up(Tran and Von Korflesch, 2016).
Since start-ups require a great deal of effort and investment with high risk, solid entrepreneurial intention is necessary. In other words, preparation for start-ups, the solid and step-by-step plan with strong intention is pre-requisite for successful start-up(Ajzen, 1991). Therefore, entrepreneurial intention can be translated as the first stage of the preparation or plan for start-ups. Entrepreneurial intention can also be a useful variable for predicting behavior, especially when that behavior is difficult to be observed just like start-up is(Krueger, Reilly, and Carsrud, 2000).
According to existing studies, it is revealed that the intention can predict the behavior more than 50%, and the behavior do the intention around 30%(Kim and Hunter, 1993). Consequently, antecedent variables can be verified based on the analysis of the correlation between entrepreneurial intention and start-up behavior.
H 1: Entrepreneurship will have a significant impact on entrepreneurial intention.
2. Major
Major is useful for not only deciding attitude,
behavior and beliefs of students but also determining
their knowledge, skills and career(North, 1990). This
means entrepreneurial intention can vary depending on
students’ major. According to Shinnar, Pruett, and
Toney(2009), it describes students majoring in Business
Administration show more interest in start-up than non
Business Administration majors. However, Levenburg,
Lane, and Schwarz(2006) shows there is no significant
difference in the intention between Business
Administration major and non Business Administration
majors in the universities in the U.S.
As university students move to a higher grade, it is said that they spend much time in deciding their future or career, which is one of major sources of their stress(Kim, 2003; Lee and Gang, 2011). Jou, Bak, Chun, Kim, and Lee(2002) shows there is a higher rate that students majoring in natural sciences or engineering more tend to choose their major because of their future career or employment prospects than non natural sciences or engineering majors do. It means, when it comes to students from natural sciences or engineering majors, they usually consider their careers as getting into a major company, or being a professor or researcher, which can be translated that their intention for start-up might be not as high as non natural sciences or engineering majors are. Nonetheless, empirical research targeting Chinese university students discovers that engineering students have much higher intention for start-up than non engineering majors(Wu and Wu, 2008). It is also true in Korea that many venture entrepreneurs have got their Bachelor’s degree in natural sciences or engineering.
Therefore, it is fair to say that natural sciences or engineering students with higher entrepreneurship also have relatively high entrepreneurial intention.
H 2a: Major will have a significant impact on entrepreneurial intention.
H 2b: Major will have a significant moderating effect on the relationship between entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial intention.
3. Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy is defined as one’s belief in own ability to accomplish a given task(Bandura, 1977b). It is formed based on four learning experiences including mastery experience, vicarious experience, psychology
arousal, and social persuasion or encouragement which people have experienced until their youth depending on environments they have been exposed to(Bandura, 1982; Wood et al. 1989). Mastery experiences or repetitive achievements can be the most effective way to create strong self-efficacy(Bandura, 1977a, 1982; Gist, 1987; Wood et al. 1989). In addition, frustration from failure in achieving task can even be a useful means to help realize consistent efforts are essential for success.
Moreover, when confidence on one’s ability improved by experiencing success is raised, the frustration can be dealt with effectively. Nevertheless, ones experinecing success only in easy ways might be easily discouraged when facing failure, so direct experiences such as overcoming obstacles through much effort and patience are necessary to obtain self-efficacy, more stable and easily recoverable(Wood et al. 1989).
For entrepreneurs, self-efficacy can be defined as the strength of belief in one’s ability to successfully perform roles and tasks as an entrepreneur(Chen, Green, and Crick, 1998). This self-efficacy influences effort, patience and performance spent to accomplish tasks, and more importantly, is the key factor to determine strength of entrepreneur’s intention and the possibility of putting their intention into action(Boyd and Vozikis, 1994).
Krueger and Brazeal(1994) also points out self-efficacy as one of requirements to be a potential entrepreneur. It is because self-efficacy perceived by the entrepreneur can actually be a significant factor having an impact on career decision and growth as an entrepreneur. With that said, self-efficacy is not only just closely related to direct ⋅ indirect experiences in start-ups but also greatly contribute to forming entrepreneurial intention and efforts(Gist, 1987).
Salomon(1984) shows people with high self-efficacy
have more effort and great amount of learning for harder
task but less effort and learning for easily achievable ones. This result explains potential advantages of self-efficacy especially in uncertainty of task accomplishment. In other words, self-efficacy can be helpful for obtaining knowledge and skills related to certain tasks considered difficult to be achieved but challengeable through more effort and learning. More specifically, Bandura(1997) shows that when people look for new career, they usually decide their career fitting in their current ability rather than requiring more than what they have. However, the higher self-efficacy people have, the more they choose challengeable task, which means they constantly make efforts to accomplish what they decide. These findings show that when it comes to start-ups with quite challengeable task for entrepreneurs, how important the role of self-efficacy is(Baek, 2003).
According to the existing literature, it is not difficult to know self-efficacy is regarded as a critical concept in research on entrepreneurship. There are several reasons.
First, self-efficacy, as a construct concept about specific tasks, helps address lack of clear evidence mentioned in the existing studies on characteristics of entrepreneurs (Brockhaus and Horwitz, 1986; Gartner, 1989). Second, self-efficacy has a direct effect on behavior and its intention(Bird, 1988; Boyd et al. 1994), which means it is very useful concept both to predict selection of start-up, patience, and effectiveness and to explain entrepreneurship. Lastly, self-efficacy can foresee behaviors, in other words risky situations and a possibility to challenge uncertainty. With all that said, it is fair to say self-efficacy best explains characteristics of entrepreneurship(Chen et al., 1998).
Chen et al.(1998) argues there is a significant difference in self-efficacy between 140 university students with an without strong entrepreneurial
intention. In addition, Yoon(2004) also proves self-efficacy influences entrepreneurial intention the most by targeting current university students and graduates majoring in Business Administration in Korea. Lastly, Wu and Wu(2008) discovers by targeting 150 Chinese university students that although individual’s active attitude has an important role in establishing entrepreneurial intention, self-efficacy, or perceived behavior control, more influences that intention.
H 3a: Self-efficacy will have a significant impact on entrepreneurial intention.
H 3b: Self-efficacy will have a significant moderating effect on the relationship between entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial intention.
4. Start-up Education
Start-up education includes from knowledge and
skills necessary for current entrepreneurs and
entrepreneurs-to-be, to minds and attitudes
entrepreneurs should have(Cho and Lee, 2018). One of
reasons for successful start-ups in Israel which is proud
of a high rate of venture start-ups and produces various
star companies, besides Yozm fund and Chutzpah spirit,
is start-up education(Lee and Cha, 2013). Vesper and
Gartner(1997) mentions entrepreneurs who receive
advice from experts have a higher possibility to succeed
in their business. Moreover, Lussier(1995) also proves
that counselling or advice from experts have a
statistically significant impact on success or failure of
start-ups. Furthermore, Han and Lee(1998) argues that it
is important to make entrepreneurs-to-be recognize that
start-up education can raise a possibility of success of
start-ups since the training can improve confidence
about the start-ups.
Since start-up related courses(entrepreneurship course) were first open to graduate students at Harvard University in 1945, start-up education has remarkably grown along with great interests in start-up all across the world(Vesper and Gartner, 1997). There are various perspectives on start-up education and training programs just like a variety of views on studies on start-up exist. For example, several start-up training programs including entrepreneurship, management in small to medium ‐ sized enterprises, management of a high-growth venture, start-up and management of franchise, corporate venture, management of family-owned business, venture capital, and so forth are provided.
Many researchers have insisted that start-up can teach as well as be taught just like arts. McGrath(1999) mentions that factors failing in start-up can be taught through start-up education, which helps avoid making same mistakes. To succeed in start-up, knowledge, skills and team work are also necessary for tackling problems able to be faced in the process of start-up(Lee, Chang, and Lim, 2005). Particularly, the knowledge and skills are the ones stressed to be taught in start-up education by Timmons(1994). That is because those factors can help students strengthen both their confidence and capabilities for success in start-ups(Gist and Mitchell, 1992). Furthermore, start-up education is helpful for getting rid of negative images of failure and risk in start-up, and boosting entrepreneurs-to-be have confidence that start-up can be one part of their career(Donckels, 1991; Guerrero, Rialp, and Urbano, 2008). In other words, they can have a chance to meet entrepreneurs succeeding in their start-up and find out their role models by sharing success cases, which means they can have more confidence or positive attitude on start-up(Wilson, Kickul, and Marlino, 2007).
Peterman and Kennedy(2003) verifies that start-up education has a statistically significant impact on desire and tendency towards start-up, then eventually positively influences entrepreneurial intention.
According to Kolvereid and Moen(1997), it appears that business school’s graduate students majoring in start-up in Norway have a higher level of entrepreneurial intention than students in non start-up majors.
Noel(2002) also discovers start-up majors show much higher entrepreneurial intention than not only non start-up majors but also other Business Administration majors.
In addition, research targeting students majoring in natural sciences or engineering also proves participation in start-up education has a positive impact on entrepreneurial intention(Kuttim et al.,2014).
Ⅲ. Research Methodology
1. Research Framework and Hypotheses
This research aims at empirically analyzing and discussing the impacts of major and self-efficacy on the relationship between entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial intention based on the related existing studies, the framework was established as shown in
<Figure 1> below.
H 1: Entrepreneurship will have a significant impact on entrepreneurial intention.
H 2a: Major will have a significant impact on entrepreneurial intention.
H 2b: Major will have a significant mediating effect
on the relationship between entrepreneurship
and entrepreneurial intention.
H 3a: Self-efficacy will have a significant impact on entrepreneurial intention.
H 3b: Self-efficacy will have a significant moderating effect on the relationship between en- trepreneurship and entrepreneurial intention.
2. Data Collection and Analysis
This research was analyzed based on an online survey by targeting university students in Gyeongsangbuk-do.
A questionnaire was sent to a total of 544 students.
Through reviewing the questionnaires, 268 reliable ones were finally collected and analyzed by applying the SPSS statistical program. Validity and reliability of the research were tested through factor analysis and reliability analysis as well as correlation analysis was conducted. In addition, descriptive statistics were also used to explain the basic features of the data of this study.
Moreover, mean centering was applied before regression analysis to avoid multicollinearity between variables.
3. Variables
The total of 8 questions for the entrepreneurship were selected being referred to the studies of Miller(1983), Covin and Slevin(1989), Lee(2000), and Yun(2012), including “I am interested in things happening around me”, “I like doing things that are challenging even if I can go through hardships sometimes”, “I think I can even with things that are even much harder than what I am doing now”, “I am not afraid of new challenges”, “I can think creatively and innovatively which helps sense an opportunity”, “I am inquisitive about new trends”, “I am inclined to think positively about things to come”, and “I always want to stand out from others.”
When it comes to the questions about entrepreneurial intention, 4 items from the studies of Kim(2009), Jeong and Ban(2008), and Yun(2012) were used including “I think I can have new chances of doing start-up”, “I want to start my business later even if not yet”, “I will create opportunities for start-up with new ideas”, and “I
<Figure 1> Research Model
consider start-up something future-oriented.”
Lastly, control variables were measured by using questions asking experiences of joining start-up education. The 2 items were used including “how many start-up classes or courses have you taken so fa” and
“how much have you participated in start-up education.”
Ⅳ. Empirical Analysis
1. Demographic Characteristics
Taking a look at demographic factors of the respondents, for the gender ratios, male students accounted for 61.2%(164 students) of all participants and females made up 38.8%(104). Classified by their majors, students majoring in natural sciences or engineering appeared 54.1%(145) and ones studying non-natural sciences or engineering, 45.9%(123). When it comes to categorization by year, the 76, 132 and 60 respondents were sophomores, juniors and seniors accounting for 28.4%, 49.3% and 22.4% respectively.
2. Analysis of Validity and Reliability Taking a close look at the figures analyzed, unique value is over 1.0, factor loading and communality are
over 0.4, cumulative variance is over 60% and Cronbach’s Alpha is 0.6, it can be considered that validity and reliability of this study are verified. In particular, Cronbach’s Alpha which ranges from 0 to 1, is one of tools to measure reliability. The criteria can vary depending on scholars, however, it is commonly regarded that when the coefficient is under 0.6, it lacks reliability, when ranging between 0.6 and 0.7, acceptable, and when over 0.8, reliable enough.
According to the factor analysis of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial intention, the two factors appeared significant; factor loading is 0.685 ∼ 0.886;
communality, 0.398 ∼ 0.811; unique values, 3.421 and 3.331.
3. Descriptive Statistics and Outcomes of Correlation Analysis
The descriptive statistics and the outcomes of correlation of the measured variables are shown below in <Table 2>. The relations between participation in start-up class and start-up education appeared positively, as well as between entrepreneurial intention, entrepreneurship, and start-up education positively.
However, the link between entrepreneurial intention and major displays a negative relation. Lastly, it was Measured Variables Measured Items Factor Loading Communality Unique Value Cronbach’s Alpha
Entrepreneurship
en1 en2 en3 en4 en5
.601 .603 .751 .732 .685
3.410 3.421 .825
Entrepreneurial Intention
in1 in2 in3 int4
.811 .887 .856 .803
3.194 3.331 .904
KMO .891
<Table 1> Results of Validity and Reliability Analysis of Measured Variables
revealed that start-up education had a negative relation with major and self-efficacy, a positive relation with major.
Moreover, it has shown that participation in start-up class has a positive relation with taking start-up education as well as there was also a positive relationship among entrepreneurial intention, entrepreneurship, and start-up education. However, there appeared a negative relation between entrepreneurial intention and major. Lastly, the results show that the relationship between start-up education and major appeared negative but self-efficacy and major, positive.
4. Outcomes of Empirical Analysis
The main effects of this study were examined by applying multiple regression analysis as shown in
<Table 3>. For the analysis of the main effects, control variables including start-up education, entrepreneurship,
major and self-efficacy were applied. According to the results of multiple regression analysis, the adjusted R-squared value was 36.2%.
Since the VIF values of the independent variables accounted for 1.023 ∼ 1.236, below 10, there are no multicollinearity problems in the equation. It has explained that start-up education, one of control variables, has a positive impact on entrepreneurial intention(=.150, t=3.346, p<0.01). Therefore, since its has proved that entrepreneurship will have a significant(positive) impact on entrepreneurial intention (=.510, t=11.401, p<0.01), which means that Hypothesis 1 was accepted. Moreover, that major will have a significant impact on entrepreneurial intention has been proved(=.-.121, t=-2.479, p<0.05), which can be translated Hypothesis 2a was also accepted. Lastly, Hypothesis 3a was also accepted as that self-efficacy will have a significant impact on entrepreneurial intention appeared positive(=.129, t=2.936, p<0.01).
Classification Mean Standard Deviation 1 2 3 4 5
Entrepreneurial Intention 3.55 .841 1
Entrepreneurship 3.53 .620 .563*** 1
Taking Start-up Class 1.62 1.024 .216*** .135*** 1
Major .31 .470 .084*** .048*** .031*** 1
Self-efficacy 2.01 .855 .049 .033 .008 .0143*** 1
* : p<0.1, ** : p<0.05, *** : p<0.01
<Table 2> Descriptive Statistics and Correlation of Measured Variables
Dependent Variables Control/ Independent Variables β t Adj R2
Entrepreneurial Intention
Start-up Education .150 3.346***
Entrepreneurship .510 11.401*** .362
Major -.121 -2.479**
Self-efficacy .129 2.936***
* : p<0.1, ** : p<0.05, *** : p<0.01
1) Major(natural science or engineering =1, non-natural science or engineering =2) 2) Self-efficacy
<Table 3> Result of Multiple Regression Analysis
To verify moderating effects of major and self-efficacy, hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted.
The variables were analyzed based on three steps.
First, the relationships between the independent and dependent variables were examined. Second, the moderating variables were added to verify the relations among independent, dependent and moderating variables. Lastly, whether R-square can be increased or not was examined by adding interaction term. The results are shown below in <Table 4> and <Table 5>.
<Table 4> displays the result of the hierarchical multiple regression analysis examining the relationship between entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial intentions,
and the moderating effect of the major. First, it is discovered that entrepreneurship has a positive impact on entrepreneurial intentions. Second, there is a negative relationship between major and entrepreneurial intentions. On the third, regressive analysis was conducted with interaction terms(Entrepreneurship * Major) added, which reveals that there is a statistical significance. Moreover, it was also found that adjusted R-squared increased interaction terms when the interaction terms were added. Accordingly, Hypothesis 2b that major will have a moderating effect on the relationship between entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial intention was proved right.
<Table 5> shows the results of ANOVA to identify
Classification β t Adj R2
Stage 1 Start-up Education .165 3.701
Entrepreneurship .520 11.421 .342
Stage 2
Start-up Education .150 3,242
.345
Entrepreneurship .510 11.321
Major .094 2.045
Stage 3
Start-up Education .150 3.426
Entrepreneurship .521 11.301 .355
Major .102 1.901
Entrepreneurship Major 1 .112 2.415
* : p<0.1, ** : p<0.05, *** : p<0.01
1) Major(natural science or engineering =1, non-natural science or engineering 2)
<Table 4> Moderating Effects of Major on the Relation between Entrepreneurship and Entrepreneurial Intention
Dependant Variables Sub-group Mean Standard Deviation F
Entrepreneurial Intention
(A) Non-natural science or engineering major with a high
level of entrepreneurship 4.3301 1.0194
28.012 (B) Natural science or engineering major with a high level of
entrepreneurship 4.3994 .53561
(C) Non-natural science or engineering major with a low
level of entrepreneurship 2.9013 .65187
(D) Natural science or engineering major with a low level of
entrepreneurship 2.6353 .78001
<Table 5> Differences in the Entrepreneurship’s Impact on Entrepreneurial Intention by Major
entrepreneurship’s impact on entrepreneurial intention more specifically, based on average ∓ 1SD of entrepreneurship, depending on different majors including natural science or engineering ⋅ non-natural science or engineering by being divided into 4 sub-groups; ① non-natural science or engineering with a high level of entrepreneurship(A), ② natural science or engineering with a high level of entrepreneurship(B),
③ non-natural science or engineering with a low level of entrepreneurship(C), and ④ natural science or engineering with a low level of entrepreneurship(D).
As a result, there was a significant difference with F value of 26.654, in entrepreneurship’s impact on entrepreneurial intention between natural science or engineering ⋅ non-natural science or engineering.
According to the result of post-hoc analysis, the differences appeared significant in order, non-natural science or engineering with a high level of entrepreneurship(A) > non-natural science or engineering with a low level of entrepreneurship(C) > natural science or engineering with a low level of entrepreneurship(D), and natural science or engineering with a high level of entrepreneurship(B) > non-natural
science or engineering with a low level of entrepreneurship(C) > natural science or engineering with a low level of entrepreneurship(D) respectively.
The results of this research verified from multiple regression analysis and hierarchical multiple regression analysis can be summarized as follows in <Table 6>.
Ⅴ. Conclusion
As youth unemployment has been one of major concerns all over the world, the need for examining entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial intention of university students is continuously growing.
Accordingly, this research has analyzed the impact of university students‘ entrepreneurship on their entrepreneurial intention.
First, according to the results, Hypothesis 1, entrepreneurship will have a positive effect on entrepreneurial intention was proved.
Second, when it comes to the moderating effect of majors(natural science or engineering, non-natural science or engineering) between entrepreneurship and Dependant
Variables
Independant Variables
Moderating
Variable Hypotheses Acceptance
Entrepreneurial Intention
Entrepreneurship H1 Entrepreneurship will have a significant impact on
entrepreneurial intention. Accepted
Major H2a Major will have a significant impact on entrepreneurial intention. Accepted
Entrepreneurship Major H2b Major will have a significant mediating effect on the relationship between entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial intention.
Accepted
Self-efficacy H3a Self-efficacy will have a significant impact on
entrepreneurial intention. Accepted
Entrepreneurial
Intention Self-efficacy H3b Self-efficacy will have a significant moderating effect on the relationship between entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial intention.
Accepted
<Table 6> Verification of the 5 Hypotheses
entrepreneurial intentions, entrepreneurial intentions of the students from non-natural science or engineering appeared relatively higher than that of natural science or engineering. Moreover, entrepreneurial intention of students studying natural science or engineering with a low level of entrepreneurship was lower than that of non-natural science or engineering with a low level of entrepreneurship. For a high level of entrepreneurship, it was verified that entrepreneurial intention of university students majoring in natural science or engineering with a high level of entrepreneurship has a relatively high level of entrepreneurial intention as much as the intention of the students from non-natural science or engineering with a high level of entrepreneurship. In other words, it is true that entrepreneurship has a positive effect on entrepreneurial intention regardless of major, but the impact of entrepreneurship on entrepreneurial intention of the students from natural science or engineering is much larger than that of the students from non-natural science or engineering. Since start-up education has a significant influence on entrepreneurial intention proved in the results of this research, it can be considered that there should be continuous education programs to expand start-ups.
Third, the moderating effects of the major(natural science or engineering, non-natural science or engineering) on the relations between entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial intention were investigated. It was revealed that entrepreneurial intention of the students from non-natural science or engineering appeared higher than those from natural science or engineering, and entrepreneurial intention of the students studying natural science or engineering with a low level of entrepreneurship, lower than those from non-natural science or engineering with a low level of entrepreneurship. In particular, entrepreneurial
intention of the natural science or engineering students with a high level of entrepreneurship was as high as that of non-natural science or engineering majors by showing no statistically significant differences between those two majors. That can be translated that although entrepreneurship has a positive impact on entrepreneurial intention regardless of majors, it is obvious that the effect of entrepreneurship of natural science or engineering students on entrepreneurial intention is much bigger than non-natural science or engineering majors’. These results show how significantly start-up education has an influence on entrepreneurial intention, which means related education should be continuously provided.
Despite the implications mentioned above, however, there are some limits on this research, in particular related to its empirical research method. First, the sample selected to be used in this study is limited. Since the range of target universities are narrowed down to ones in Gyeongangbuk-do, there could be some problems about limited sample sizes or lack of representativeness. Second, the questionnaire used in this research was conducted online, so the self- administered survey type can cause unreliable responses. Nevertheless, this research can be considered meaningful since it explains the relation between major of university students and self-efficacy, which can be used as preliminary materials for developing start-up related curricula and referred to select entrepreneurs- to-be.
References
Aiken, L. S. and S. G. West(1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and
Interpreting Interactions, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ajzen, I.(1991), “The Theory of Planned Behavior,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
Arenius, P. and M. Minniti(2005), “Perceptual Variables and Nascent Entrepreneurship,” Small Business Economics, 24(3), 233-247.
Bae, B. Y. and J. H. Lee(2015), “A Study on the Regulatory Focus, Entrepreneurial Orientation, and Entrepreneurial Intentions of College Students in Korea,” Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Venturing and Entrepreneurship, 10(6), 215-223.
Bae, B. Y. and J. H. Lee(2018), “A Study on the Relationships of Regulatory Focus, Entrepreneurial Orientation, Entrepreneurial Motivation and Entrepreneurial Intentions of Korean College Students,” Journal of the Korean Entrepreneurship Society, 13(2), 29-52.
Baron, R. M. and D. A. Kenny(1986), “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research:
Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations,”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1,173-1,182.
Bird, B.(1988), “Implementing Entrepreneurial Ideas: The Case for Intention,” Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 442-453.
Bruyat, C. and P. Julien(2001), “Defining the Field of Research in Entrepreneurship,” Journal of Business Venturing, 16(2), 165-180.
Cantillon, R.(1755), Essai sur la Nature du Commerce en General, Fetcher Gyler.
Chaganti, R.(1986), “Management in Women-owned Enterprises,”
Journal of Small Business Management, 24(4), 18-29.
Cho, Y. H. and J. H. Lee(2018), “Entrepreneurial Orientation, Entrepreneurial Education, and Performance,” Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 12(2), 124-134.
Chun, B. J.(2002), “Characteristics of their Start-up Process and Management Style: Women Entrepreneurs in SMEs in Korea and in the United States,” Asia Pacific Journal of Small Business, 24(2), 61-87.
Coleman, S.(2000), “Access to Capital and Terms if Credit: A Comparison of Men and Women-owned Small Business,”
Journal of Small Business Management, 38(3), 34-46.
Covin, J. G. and D. P. Slevin(1989), “Strategic Management of Small Firms in Hostile and Benign Environments,” Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 75-87.
Crant, J. M.(1996), “The Proactive Personality Scale as a Predictor of Entrepreneurial Intentions,” Journal of Small Business Management, 34(3), 42-49.
Davis, J. L., R. G. Bell, G. T. Payne, and P. M. Kreiser(2010),
“Entrepreneurial Orientation and Firm Performance: The Moderating Role of Managerial Power,” American Journal of Business, 25(2), 41-54.
Deng, S., L. Hassan, and S. Jivan(1995), “Female Entrepreneurs Doing Business in Asia: A Special Investigation,” Journal of Small Business and Enterprise, 12(2), 60-80.
Donckels, R.(1991), “Education and Entrepreneurship Experience from Secondary and University Education in Belgium,”
Journal of Small Business, 9(1), 35-42.
Douglas, E. J. and D. A. Shepherd(2002), “Self-employment as a Career Choice: Attitudes, Entrepreneurial Intentions, and Utility Maximization,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(3), 81-90.
Gartner, W. B.(1990), “What Are We Talking about When We Talk about Entrepreneurship,” Journal of Business Venturing, 5(1), 15-28.
Gist, M. E. and T. R. Mitchell(1992), “Self-efficacy: A Theoretical Analysis of its Determinants and Malleability,” Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 183-211.
Guerrero, M., J. Rialp, and D. Urbano(2008), “The Impact of Desirability and Feasibility on Entrepreneurial Intentions: A Structural Equation Model,” International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4(1), 35-50.
Hair, J. F., W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, and R. E. Anderson(2010), Multivariate Data Analysis(7th ed.), NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hayek, F. A.(1945), “The Use of Knowledge in Society,” American Economic Review, 35(4), 519-530.
Jeong, H. S.(2002), “A Study on Characteristics of Women-owned Businesses and their Management Style,” Duksung Journal of Social Sciences, 7, 197-221.
Jeong, Y. U. and S. S. Bahn(2008), “A Study on the Teenager
Entrepreneurship Education and Entrepreneurial Intentions,” Journal of the Korean Entrepreneurship Society, 3(1), 45-67.
Jou, H. H., J. M. Bak, J. Y. Chun, S. U. Kim, and J. H. Lee(2002), “The Structure of Job Selection and Labor Market Entrance of Recent S&T Graduates by the Field of Studies,” Science and Technology Policy Institute, 1-169.
Kim, M. S. and J. E. Hunter(1993), “Relationships among Attitudes, Behavioral Intentions, and Behavior: A Meta-analysis of Past Research, part 2,” Communication Research, 20(3), 331-364.
Kim, S. K.(2003), “Life Stress in Freshman and Adjustment to College,”
Korean Journal of Youth Studies, 10(2), 215-237.
Kim, S. W., H. J. Ko, and Y. S. Lee(2015), “A Study of Entrepreneurship Education of University in Science and Engineering for Vitalization of Technology-based Startup,” Journal of Engineering Education Research, 18(2), 3-7.
Kim, S. S.(2010), A Comparative Study of the Entrepreneurial Intention between Korea and China, Graduate of School of Venture, Hoseo University, Doctoral Dissertation.
Kim, Y. J., Y. K. Kwon, and H. H. Yoon(2014), “A Study on the Relationship between Entrepreneurship and Entrepreneurial Intention of College University Students,” Journal of Foodservice Management Society of Korea, 17(2), 7-26.
Kirzner, I. M.(1973), Competition and Entrepreneurship, University of Chicago Press.
Knight, F. H.(1921), Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, Courier Corporation.
Kolvereid, L. and Ø. Moen(1997), “Entrepreneurship among Business Graduates: Do es a Majo r in Entrepreneurship Make a Difference,” Journal of European Industrial Training, 21(4), 154–160.
Krueger, N. F., M. D. Reilly, and A. L. Carsrud(2000), “Competing Models of Entrepreneurial Intentions,” Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5), 411-432.
Kwon, Y. K. and H. H. Yoon(2014), “A Study on the Influence of Entrepreneurial Motivations of College Students Majoring in Foodservice on Entrepreneurial Intentions: Focused on the Moderating Effects by Gender,” Korean Journal of Culinary Research, 19(4), 193-210.
Lee, M. H. and D. W. Cha(2013), Creative Economy, Seoul: Book Concert.
Lee, J. W.(2000), “Individual Characteristics and Entrepreneurial Intentions,” Asia Pacific Journal of Small Business, 22(1), 121-146.
Lee, J. H.(2008), “A Study on Entrepreneurial Motivations and Entrepreneurial Decision Makings,” Korean Small Business Review, 30(1), 93-116.
Lee, S. M., D. Chang, and S. B. Lim(2005), “Impact of Entrepreneurial Education: A Comparative Study of the U.S. and Korea,”
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 1(1), 27-43.
Lee, Y. and K. Kang(2011), “The Analysis about Employment Stress and Career Decision Efficacy of Undergraduates,” Journal of Engineering Education Research, 14(2), 60-67.
Levenburg, N. M., P. Lane, and T. Schwarz(2006), “Interdisciplinary Dimensions in Entrepreneurship,” Journal of Education for Business, 81(5), 275-281.
Lumpkin, G. T. and G. G. Dess(1996), “Clarifying the Entrepreneurial Orientation Construct and Linking it to Performance,”
Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135-172.
Lussier, R. N.(1995), “A Nonfinancial Business Success versus Failure Prediction Model for Young Firms,” Journal of Small Business Management, 33(1), 8-20.
Masters, R. and R. Meier(1988), “Sex Differences and Risk-taking Propensity of Entrepreneurs,” Journal of Small Business Management, 26(1), 31.
McGrath, R. G.(1999), “Falling Forward: Real Options Reasoning and Entrepreneurial Failure,” Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 13-30.
Miller, D.(1983), “The Correlates of Entrepreneurship in Three Types of Firms,” Management Science, 29(7), 770-791.
Mises, L. V.(1949), Human Action: A Treatise on Economics, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Moore, D. P.(1990), “An Examination of Present Research on the Female Entrepreneur–Suggested Research Strategies for 1990’s,”
Journal of Business Ethics, 9(4/5), 275-281.
Na, J. D., S. H. Kim, and T. Y. Choe(2004), “The Effects of Environment,
CEO Characteristics, and Collaborative Activity on the
Performance of Woman Start-up Firm,” Asia Pacific Journal of Small Business, 26(1), 175-201.
Noel, T. W.(2002), “Effects of Entrepreneurial Education on Intent to Open a Business: an Explo rato ry Study,” Journal of Entrepreneurial Education, 5, 3-13.
North, D. C.(1990), Institution, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Park, N. G., M. S. Kim, and J. W. Ko(2015), “The Effect of the Government’s Entrepreneurial Support Policy on Entrepreneurship and Entrepreneurial Intention,”
Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Venturing and Entrepreneurship, 10(6), 89-98.
Peterman, N. and J. Kennedy(2003), “Enterprise Education:
Influencing Students’ Perception of Entrepreneurship,”
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(2), 129-142.
Rosa, P. and A. Dawson(2006), “Gender and the Commercialization of University Science: Academic Founders of Spinout Companies,” Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 18(4), 341-366.
Schumpeter, J. A.(1934), The Theory of Economic Development, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Shabbir, A. and S. Di Gregorio(1996), “An Examination of the Relationship between Women’s Personal Goals and Structural Facto rs Influencing their Decisio n to Start a Business: The Case of Pakistan,” Journal of Business Venturing, 11(6), 507-529.
Shinnar, R. S., M. Pruett, and B. Toney(2009), “Entrepreneurship Education: Attitudes across Campus.” Journal of Education for Business, 84(3), 151–158.
Stetz, P. E., R. Howell, A. Stewart, J. D. Blair, and M. D. Fottler(2000), Multidimensionality of Entrepreneurial Firm-level Processes: Do the Dimensions Covary?, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley, MA: Babson College Thompson, E. R.(2009), “Individual Entrepreneurial Intent: Construct Clarification and Development of an Internationally Reliable Metric,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 669-694.
Timmons, J. A.(1994), New Venture Creation: Entrepreneurship for the
21st Century, Burr Ridge, Irwin.
Tran, A. T. and H. Von Korflesch(2016), “A Conceptual Model of Social Entrepreneurial Intention based on the Social Cognitive Career Theory,” Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 10(1), 17-38.
Vesper, K. H.(1982), Research on Education for Entrepreneurship, in Kent, C., Sexton, D., & Vesper, K.(Eds), Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Vesper, K. H. and W. B. Gartner(1997), “Measuring Progress in Entrepreneurship Education,” Journal of Business Venturing, 12(5), 403-421.
Wilson, F., J. Kickul, and D. Marlino(2007), “Gender, Entrepreneurial Self-efficacy, and Entrepreneurial Career Intentions:
Implications for Entrepreneurship Education,”
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(3), 387–406.
Wu, S. and L. Wu(2012), “The Impact of Higher Education on Entrepreneurial Intentions of University Students in China,”
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15(4), 752-774.
Yoon, N. S.(2012), “The Effect of Potential Entrepreneurial Motivations on Entrepreneurship and Commitment to Starts-up:
Mediating Role of Entrepreneurship,” Review of Business and Economics, 25(2), 1,537-1,557.
논 문 투 고 일 2020. 02. 24.
논문최종심사일 2020. 03. 09.
논문게재확정일 2020. 03. 09.
<국문요약>
기업가정신이 대학생의 창업의도에 미치는 영향:
전공과 자기효능감을 중심으로1)
이은진 * ⋅진현철 ** ⋅안시연 ***
4 차 산업혁명 시대가 도래함에 따라 일자리가 급속하게 줄어드는 현상을 가져오고 있다 . 창업은 혁신적 제 품 및 서비스를 제공함으로써 기존 시장 및 산업지형을 변화시키는 창조적 파괴로 경제성장의 밑거름이 될 뿐 만 아니라 신규고용을 창출하고 미래 산업의 주역인 혁신 인재의 양성역할도 담당하고 있다 . 기업가정신은 창 업의도에 정 (+) 의 영향을 미칠 것이라는 가설이 유의하게 지지됨을 확인할 수 있었으며 기업가 정신이 창업의 도와의 관계에 있어 전공과 자기효능감의 조절효과를 확인하였다 . 또한 창업교육이 창업의도에 유의한 영향 을 주는 것으로 나타났다 .
본 연구에서는 표본과 지역적 한계가 존재한다 . 그럼에도 불구하고 지역대학생의 전공과 자기효능감 사이 의 관계를 규명하여 대학에서 학생들의 창업을 독려하기 위한 교육과정 개발이나 창업자 선발에 참고할 수 있 다는 점에서 의미 있는 연구라 할 수 있다 .
주제어 : 기술창업 , 창업교육 , 기업가 정신 , 창업의도 , 자기효능감
* 경운대학교 기초교육학부 조교수([email protected]), 주저자
** 경운대학교 항공컴퓨터학과 조교수([email protected]), 공동저자
*** 창신대학교 취⋅창업지원혁신센터 팀장([email protected]), 교신저자
저 자 소 개
1. 주저자
이은진(Eun Jin Lee) [email protected]
저자는 현재 경운대학교 기초교육학부 조교수로 재직 중이며, 주요 연구 분야는 글로벌시 민의식, 국제개발협력, ODA 등이다.
2. 부저자
진현철(Hyeon Cheol Zin) [email protected]
저자는 현재 경운대학교 항공공과대학 항공컴퓨터학과에 조교수로 재직 중이며, 주요 연 구 분야는 컴퓨터 네트워크, 기술창업 등이다.
3. 교신저자
안시연(Si Yun An) [email protected]
저자는 현재 창신대학교 취⋅창업지원혁신센터 팀장으로 재직 중이며, 리더십, 마케팅, 유통관리, 진로, 취업, 창업 등이 주 연구분야이다.
