ENTREPRENEURIAL ATTITUDE OF YOUNG FEMALE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS: A CASE STUDY Jimenez-Moreno, Juan J., Professor, Faculty of Economic and Business Sciences University of Castilla-La Mancha, Plaza de la Universidad, 1 – Albacete (Spain), Phone: +34967599200, e-mail: [email protected] Oliveras, Guadalupe, Teaching assistant, Universidad Provincial del Sudoeste, Alvarado 328 (8000) Bahía Blanca (Argentina), Phone: +542914538605, e-mail: [email protected] SUMMARY

Women represent 50% of the population, but are not present in this proportion in the social, political, cultural and economic activities. If women have sufficient training, why female entrepreneurial initiatives are less? How can affect the training received on the entrepreneurial intention?. A study group, of particular interest, is the young female university students, given the multiplier effect that can have their entrepreneurial intention. In this paper we study a case: Which is the effect of training received, depending on gender, in their self-efficacy, entrepreneurial attitudes and entrepreneurial intentions? Following the policy of the European Union ("Oslo Agenda for Entrepreneurship Education in Europe"), some European universities have been raised to promote entrepreneurial culture among students and provide entrepreneurial training. In this paper we analyze the case of students in a course of Entrepreneurship of the Degree of Business Administration at Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Castilla-La Mancha (Spain). Keywords: Entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial attitude, training, gender, university student

1

INTRODUCTION

The entrepreneurial function, conceived from a Schumpeterian perspective, is the motor of the economic system. Businesses are the most efficient instrument for the creation of wealth and employment. The vitality of the entrepreneurial system is explained according to the degree of competition—the relation between supply and demand—and on the entries and exists from the system, i.e. the birth and disappearance of businesses. An important part of the creation of new businesses is due to the entrepreneurial initiative that certain people develop (Schumpeter, 1934; Reynolds et al., 2004; Robbins et al., 2000; Thomas and Mueller, 2000).

In this sense, one of the main problems detected in society is the lack of entrepreneurial initiative. That lack is explained by the inexistence of a strong entrepreneurial culture to foster the creation of new businesses. One way to achieve the social permeability of those entrepreneurial values is by fostering them in the educational system. Some European universities have proposed fostering the entrepreneurial culture among their students1 and offering specific training, with the aim of achieving a significant qualitative change among young Europeans. Youths will be the future human, professional, business and research resources, a principal active key factor for European Union competitiveness.

The new European Higher Education Area (EHEA), emerging from the Bologna Declaration (1999), represents an opportunity to introduce the changes that the educational system needs. In the case of Spain, this new framework arises from the Organic Law for Universities (2001) and its subsequent reform (2007), as well as the measures taken for the elaboration of the new Graduate and Masters degrees.

Starting in the year 2003, the Spanish University of Castilla-La Mancha, involved in this process of Europeanization and contribution to socio-economic development2, offers an elective called “Business Creation” in the area of the Business Administration and

1 “Oslo Agenda for Entrepreneurship Education in Europe”: fostering the entrepreneurial mindset among young Europeans and education and training in the entrepreneurial mindset, as seen in the document “Education and Learning 2010” of the European Communities Commission. 2 The UCLM statues expressly say in article 63 that “the entrepreneurial mindset will be stimulated among the members of the university community and the creation of innovative businesses will be fostered.”

2

Management degree. The purpose of the subject is to train students in the knowledge of the business creation process.

During these years interesting observations have been obtained and some, none the less interesting, results. With the object of gaining a scientific foundation, various theoretical contributions and several models relative to intentionality were studied and they were related to entrepreneurial intention. A review was made of the existing literature about attitudes in entrepreneurial or business intention and about education or training in business creation.

The two most outstanding references are the Azjen (1987) and Shapero (1982) models. From the Azjen model (1991) a group of cognitive variables called “antecedents” exert their influence on the intentions of the human being. Following that model, the possible impact of the subject on those variables was studied.

The following sections address the theoretical framework, the main aspects of the subject. The methodology used for this study is explained and the main results are discussed. Some implications for consideration in a second part of this paper are also dealt with and some conclusions and possible applications derived from this research.

THEORETICAL BASIS Relation between self-efficiency, attitudes and entrepreneurial intention

Starting from the premise that the action of creating a business implies planned behaviour, it is understood that this behaviour can be predicted according to the previous intentions presented by the individual at any given time (Krueger, Reilly and Casrud, 2000). To understand how entrepreneurial intention works some psycho-sociological models can be used that explore attitudes and antecedents or beliefs (Krueger, 2007). Azjen’s Model of the Theory of Planned Behaviour (1987) is found in the field of Social Psychology. It proposes that the intention of carrying out an activity depends on how its attractiveness, feasibility and social norms are perceived. On the other hand, Shapero’s Entrepreneurial Event Model (1982) proposes that the entrepreneurial intention depends on how its desirability, feasibility and the propensity to act are perceived. These models were corroborated by Krueger, Reilly

3

and Casrud (2000), who concluded that both are very useful for understanding the process under study here.

Both models coincide in posing the relation between feasibility and self-efficiency. The beliefs of people about their own abilities for accomplishing the activity of “creating a business” can have a positive or a negative influence on whether they have future entrepreneurial behaviour. Intention reveals the desires of people to implement behaviour, having previously considered their own competencies, personal experience and the environmental conditions to be confronted. For such an intention to exist, and for the person to consider that the possibility of creating a business is desirable and feasible, it is necessary to influence their beliefs or attitudes previously. It is obvious that a simple change in beliefs or attitudes would not be enough to implement entrepreneurial behaviour, since the express intention of entrepreneurship must exist besides (Cooper and Lucas, 2008). But without influencing those beliefs and attitudes there will be no entrepreneurial intention.

Simplifying that causal chain, it can be proposed that beliefs of self-efficacy generate attitudes, attitudes influence the entrepreneurial intention and intention involves behaviour, i.e. creating a business. Beliefs (self-efficacy) → attitudes → intention → behaviour

Therefore, the level of confidence or self-efficacy that people have about their abilities and competency, as a manifestation of their beliefs regarding the possibility of carrying out a determined activity, exercises a very important role in entrepreneurial action (Boyd and Voizikis, 1994; Krueger and Brazeal, 1994; Chen, Green and Crick, 1998). In this way, the competency that people have will only be useful if those people are confident that with this competency they will achieve the proposed objectives (Bandura, 1989; 1997).

Several papers demonstrate that self-efficacy, understood as the confidence people have in themselves, based on the beliefs in their possibilities for success—more than on their real possibilities (Markman, Balkin and Baron, 2002)—is a key element in the human behaviour under study (Bandura, 1989). In this sense, the probability is understood that people who perceive themselves as having great self-efficacy for a determined activity will perform it and will be dedicated to it tenaciously (Bandura, 1997). 4

Simplistically, people’s entrepreneurial attitude can be considered equal to their perception of whether the possibility of creating their own business is attractive or not. Various authors have tried to contribute a more precise definition. For example, Kolvereid and Isaksen (2006) defined entrepreneurial attitude as the degree of commitment people have regarding the project which manifests how much they are willing to be implicated in the creation of the business. Liao and Welsch (2004) use a similar construct called entrepreneurial intensity in which they represent the so-called degree of entrepreneurship, that is to say, people’s degree of commitment to the (potential) creation of their business. This variable is described as the dedication or effort necessary to undertake the gestation period of the business successfully, which will permit its subsequent creation. That variable presents two interrelated dimensions: concentration and commitment. Concentration refers to the degree to which the person desires to be dedicated to the creation of the business versus other professional and/or personal alternatives. Commitment refers to the degree to which people are willing to implicate their material, economic and temporal resources in creating the business. Several multicultural researchers have verified that in effect this variable is directly related to entrepreneurial intention (Welsch and Pistrui, 1993; Pistrui, Liao and Welsch, 1998).

It has been observed that the perception of persons about surrounding conditions influence whether the creation of their own business is considered an alternative to other professional options. Curiously, people do not usually make decisions of this type of eminently economical characteristics from a purely rational and objective perspective, which would involve a strict criterion of efficiency. Rather those decisions are also influenced by their own, always subjective, perceptions of the conditions and norms of the context in which they find themselves (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1975). It has been demonstrated (Carayannis, Evans and Hanson, 2003) that factors of a macroeconomic, sociocultural and political-legal type, including the existence or not of active institutional policies for business creation, that define the various dimensions of the environment, have a high impact on entrepreneurial intention. Besides these environmental perceptions, the potential entrepreneurial intention and desirability and/or feasibility of creating a business is influenced in a very important and quasi-determinant way by the equally subjective opinions of the persons in their immediate family and social settings.

Does education have an impact on entrepreneurial intention?

5

Several research papers have demonstrated the relation between the accomplishment of informative activities and training in business creation and a greater propensity to create a business subsequently (Kolvereid and Moen, 1997; Luthje and Franke, 2003). Therefore, it can be deduced that education in entrepreneurial culture and values in general and technical training in business creation in particular can positively affect the generation of a more favourable perception of the desirability and feasibility of creating one’s own business (Peterman and Kennedy, 2003). This relation is established by understanding that entrepreneurial education improves perceived self-efficacy (Chen et al., 1998; Botha, Nieman and van Vuuren, 2006) and helps start the subsequent process necessary for creating a business. This relation was observed in some cases (Wilson, Kickul and Marlino, 2007) to have even a somewhat greater effect on women.

Confront the new globalized environment and due to the present crisis of the market economy model, public and private institutions and the whole of society should foster entrepreneurial values. These values promote the entrepreneurial mind-set, creativity, positive motivation, self-confidence, initiative, and innovative ability. They also invigorate the socio-economic system in benefit of the entire society.

Universities can and should exercise a very important role in fostering entrepreneurial values and in entrepreneurship training. When programs are designed for informative and training activities in entrepreneurship, contents as well as the most suitable pedagogical techniques for teaching it should be taken into account (Cooper and Lucas, 2008). For, the effect of an adequate relation between content and pedagogy will make it possible to produce truly positive changes in entrepreneurial attitude, in the perceived self-efficacy of entrepreneurial competency and in the perception of the environment. Forming an appropriate entrepreneurial intention, which will lead to the effective creation of a business, will certainly depend on this. THE SUBJECT OF “BUSINESS CREATION”

The University of Castilla-La Mancha was created in 1982 and began its activities in the 1985-1986 academic year. In 1987 the Faculty of Economic and Business Sciences was created where the Licentiate was offered in Economic Sciences and in Business Sciences.

6

The 1987 Curriculum for the Licentiate in Business Sciences offered an elective subject named “Administration of SMEs” for 1.5 credits that originally included limited contents on the creation of businesses. In the 1992 reform of the curriculum it was transformed into a new elective, “SME Management” for 4.5 credits in which the first contents in business creation now expressly appeared. In 2003, with the change in degrees from Licentiate in Business Sciences to Licentiate in Business Administration and Management, the subject of “Business Creation” appeared just as it is conceived at present. It is offered during the first term of each academic year from September to December. Its mission is to train students in the process of creating a business, for which they should develop competencies to exercise the role of an entrepreneurial person, generate innovative business ideas and elaborate a business plan. The aim is not for students to create their own business while taking the subject, but rather to acquire competencies for knowing the process of business creation, which obviously can help them later if they have that resolution.

The programme of the subject is structured into four parts. The first part addresses the environment and dynamism of the business system. The second part deals with the sociodemographic and psychological profile of entrepreneurial persons and their reason for starting a business. In the third part the process of the generation of ideas is analysed, creativity techniques are used, innovative ideas are generated and their validity as business ideas is evaluated. In the fourth part a business plan is prepared, touching on its technical, economic and social viability.

The evaluation for marking is established by considering the active individual participation of students in the various activities developed in face-to-face and virtual sessions (10%), their accomplishment of practical programmed activities (40%), written papers (40%: 20% for originality and sustainability, 20% for viability) and the oral presentation of a business plan (10%) prepared individually or in a group. Students should develop their projects by applying the theoretical and practical knowledge contributed during the course of the subject.

For preparing the subject, students count on the necessary resources through a virtual platform (Virtual Campus). All the required documentation is there, such as information about the subject, its objectives, program, methodology and grading; class material, i.e. the professor’s presentations; reading material, articles and other documents; simulators of business plans; outstanding papers from previous years; reference bibliography and web 7

siteography. The platform also serves for follow-up and control of the practical programmed activities.

Students carry out practical activities based on self-learning and participative learning. Various program contents are worked on through face-to-face sessions and the Virtual Campus, through individual autonomous papers, cooperative learning, individual and group tutored papers in the classroom and tutoring sessions.

In recent years there has been a progressive increment in the number of students who have registered, from 38 in the 2003-2004 academic year to 95 in the last course of the present academic year. At the beginning of the sessions, the students are asked the reason for their choice: a) time, b) interest in or attractiveness of the topic, c) the effort-result relation or d) recommendation by students from previous years. The majority of answers corresponded to interest-attractiveness (“It is interesting”, “it is novel”, “we have not seen it before”, etc.) and to recommendations (“it is original,” “it is entertaining,” “you learn in a different way,” “you enjoy it a lot,” etc.) The increase in registration has involved a considerable increase in the workload for the teacher in tutorial sessions and group follow-ups.

Another interesting aspect is the distribution of the student body by gender which is useful to know for verifying entrepreneurial intention according to gender. Regarding the choice of the subject, for the most part students took it as an elective, although there were students who took it under the modality of a free choice, which proves that it is attractive to other students who are not in Business Administration and Management. Regarding student origin, the majority were of Spanish nationality, even though there were students from other countries. Basically they were European students from Erasmus programs and Latin Americans. This fact proves the interest that the material has for these foreign students. In the majority of cases the reason for their choice is that it is not offered at their Universities of origin.

It seemed opportune to discover the impact of the subject on the students. The entrepreneurial intention of the students was measured and that impact was differentiated taking the gender of the students into account.

METHODOLOGY

8

This research has antecedents in other previous studies and is based on an already proven model (Diaz and Jimenez-Moreno, 2008a and 2008b; Jimenez-Moreno and Diaz, 2009). In that model it was analysed how the perception of one’s environment and social norms, selfefficacy, entrepreneurial intensity and gender interact in the gestation process of the entrepreneurial intention. Now the purpose was to discover the relation between gender and entrepreneurial intention, therefore the previously proposed methodology was followed. A standard questionnaire was used with validated questions already contrasted beforehand in other papers.

The desirability and feasibility that respondents felt might pertain to their own businesses were measured by using a 7 point Likert scale.

The measure of entrepreneurial self-efficacy was based on work by Krueger and Kickul (2006) and Kolvereid and Isaksen (2006) by using items from factors obtained from various previous studies that used specific scales for entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Subscales were used for risk assumption from Chen, Greene and Crick (1998), for development of new products and market opportunities and for facing unexpected situations from De Noble, Jung and Ehrlick (1999), and for economic management from Anna, Chandler, Jansen and Mero (1999). These specific scales of self-efficacy were chosen because in this way the predictive power of the intention to carry out the activity of creating a business is greater (Bandura, 1982; Chen et al., 1998).

Grilo and Thurik were followed (2005) for the evaluation of the perception of the generic environment. To measure entrepreneurial attitude, the scale by Liao and Welsch (2004) was used, which is very similar to the one used by Kolvereid and Isaksen (2006). Entrepreneurial intention was measured by means of the four item scale by Cooper and Lucas (2008).

Using a Likert scale where the highest value corresponded to the maximum positive answer, the various questions formulated in the questionnaire, among other aspects, addressed the perception of:

The degree to which the creation of a business is desirable and feasible Desirability (7 point scale) Feasibility (7 point scale) 9

Self-efficacy in entrepreneurial competency (10 point scale) The environment for the creation of a business (5 point scale) Entrepreneurial attitude (10 point scale) I would prefer having my own business to any other promising career (5 point scale) Entrepreneurial intention I will try to create my own business sometime (7 point scale)

Students were expressly asked about: their perception of their entrepreneurial competency by means of a 10 point Likert scale where 1 is barely entrepreneurial and 10 is very entrepreneurial, their perception of risk facing the creation of a business on a 7 point Likert scale where 1 implies little risk and 7 involves high risk and the probability of creating their own business in the mediate future on a 5 point Likert scale where 1 was very improbable and 5 was quite probable.

The respondent was identified for future follow-up. Interesting information, among other matters, was: gender, family and social settings, perception of the profile of what entrepreneurial persons were like, entrepreneurial self-evaluation and professional intention. Other aspects such as training or age were not relevant, since the majority of the students were studying Business Administration and Management full time and were between 20 and 22 years old. The questionnaire was given to students toward the end of the subject in December.

Previously, at the beginning of the subject in September, among other things information was gathered on whether they have or have had a business idea at some time, whether there was any entrepreneurial reference in their family and social setting and what their evaluation was of the difficulty of creating a business.

The following simple questionnaire was used for this:

Your reason for choosing this subject (choose only one option): [__] time [__] because of the work to pass [__] the topic interests me [__] it was recommended to me 10

Do you have a business idea or have you had one at some time? [__] No [__] Yes, what? Creating a business is very risky: No 0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 Yes There is a business person in my family/social setting: [__] No [__] Yes

RESULTS Ninety-five students were registered in the subject of “Business Creation” in the past academic year, of which 55.8% were female students and 44.2% were males.

Of the students, 86.3% were nationals, for the most part from the very region of Castilla-La Mancha. And 13.7% were foreigners, of which 53.8% came from different European countries through Erasmus agreements. The other 46.2% came from Latin America through bilateral agreements between Universities. The subject was interesting for these students basically because in the first place, they do not have similar material in their university centres of origin. In the second place, it was recommended by other foreign students from their same Universities who had studied it in previous years.

Regarding the way they gained admittance to the subject, 88.4% did so by choosing it as an “elective” and the remaining 11.6% as “free configuration.” At the time they were taking the subject the majority, 50.7% were in their 5th year of Business Administration; 22.7% were in their 4th year; 18.7%, in their 3rd year; and 8%, in their 2nd year.

At least 80% of the 30 sessions were face-to-face classes, divided into 2 sessions per week for 15 weeks. Regarding attendance at face-to-face sessions, 79.5% of the registered students attended regularly, of which 61.3% were female students and the remaining 38.7% were males. The other 20.5% did not attend regularly due to scheduling incompatibility with subjects from previous years or because they were training in businesses or were staying at other European Universities as Erasmus students.

Their marks indicate that 94% of the students that attended passed the subject. The results, over the total students registered, were: 45.3% passed with a 5 – 6 on a 10 point scale, 28.4% received a mark of 7 – 8, 10.5% received 9 – 10, 5.3% failed and 10.5% did not finish the subject. 11

The global evaluation of the subject, 7.99 over 10, is shown on Table 1.

Table 1 Question Interest of the subject Usefulness of the subject Contents of the curriculum Development of lessons Length (credits) Material used Virtual Campus Judgement of assessment Professor Global assess

Mean 8.34 8.53 7.58 7.81 7.32 7.92 7.70 8.04 8.34 8.34

Var. 1.19 1.72 1.90 4.35 2.30 1.99 2.98 1.77 2.11 1.96

Dev. 1.09 1.31 1.38 2.09 1.52 1.41 1.73 1.33 1.45 1.40

If the marks are analysed according to gender, there are no big differences between male and female students compared to the results from the previous evaluation. See Table 2.

A higher incidence of male students did not finish the subject (14.3%). Therefore, the average grade for female students (6.9 over 10) is higher than that for male students (6.1 over 10), as is demonstrated by the greater proportion of female students with a high mark: 13.2% had an 9, as opposed to 7.1% of the male students.

Table 2 Results Not finish 1-4 5-6 7-8 9 10

Female 7.5% 7.5% 45.3% 26.4% 13.2% 0.0%

Male 14.3% 2.4% 45.2% 30.9% 7.1% 0.0%

Returning to the information gathered at the beginning of the subject through the first questionnaire about whether they had a business idea then or previously, whether there was an entrepreneurial reference in their family or social environment and what their assessment was about the difficulty of creating a business, the most interesting results are as follows.

Regarding having a business idea, 76% of the students responded negatively. They have never had a business idea and never thought about starting a business, as opposed to 24% 12

who affirmed that they had or have had a business idea at some time. Of those persons who responded affirmatively, 61% explained unoriginal ideas for business projects—imitations— that already exist such as restaurants, driving schools, stores, leisure, video games, and consultants offices. Truly original, innovative ideas were presented by 22%. And 17% who responded affirmatively did not specify their business ideas. Among the students who indicated that they had an original business idea it is noteworthy that 75% were female students, 25% were nationals and 50% were foreigners, female European Erasmus students.

Taking nationality into account, 81.2% of the national student body does not have and has not had a business idea as opposed to 18.8% who responded affirmatively. These data contrast with the results for foreign students where 54.6% do have or have had a business idea versus 45.4% who expressed themselves negatively.

Considering the factor of gender, only 19.6% of the female students have a business idea, opposed to 31% of male students.

Relating to counting on their family and/or social environment for an entrepreneurial reference, of the students who responded negatively to having some immediate reference, 14.8% did present a business idea. Meanwhile 29.2% of the students who counted on a business idea did have an entrepreneurial reference in their environment.

Regarding risk assessment, 62.5% of those students had a business idea who gave a lower value to risk, either 5 or 4 over 10, where 10 was very risky. Meanwhile among those who gave higher values, only 16.7% had a business idea.

With regard to having an entrepreneurial environment, 64% of the students stated they had some entrepreneurial reference in their immediate environment. This data coincides independently of student nationality, since 64% of the nationals and 63.6% of the foreigners stated they had some entrepreneurial reference in their immediate family and/or social environment. If we consider the gender of the students, there certainly are variations, since 69.5% of the female students indicated having some reference in their environment, as opposed to 55.2% of the male students.

13

Relating the business idea to the tendency or not of having entrepreneurial references in their environment, 77.8% of the students that do have a business idea responded affirmatively that they counted on an entrepreneurial reference in their immediate family or social environment. Meanwhile those who had no idea responded in 59.6% of the cases that they did have an immediate entrepreneurial reference.

Regarding risk assessment for creating a business, the result is that of the students who presented the highest assessments, i.e. 8, 9 and 10 over 10, which is very risky, 70.9%, 71.4% and 80% respectively manifested having an entrepreneurial reference in their environment.

Taking note of student nationality by gender, it stands out that 17.4% of the female students are foreigners, as opposed to 10.3% of foreigners among male students. Regarding the business idea, it is noteworthy that of the students who manifested that they have or have had a business idea, one third were foreigners. As for environment, there were no differences due to nationality. In relation to risk, in the lowest valuations, 5 and 4 over 10, where 10 is very risky, there is a greater presence of foreign students, 40% and 33.3% respectively.

As for the risk that creating a business involves, at the beginning of the subject the mean value was 7.47 over 10 which is very risky. This value descends to 6.83 when they are asked at the end of the subject. Details can be seen on Table 3.

Table 3 Risk At the beginning At the end

Mean Var. Dev. 7.47 1.90 1.38 6.83 2.31 1.52

Regarding those who had a business idea¸ they assessed a somewhat lower risk (7.06 over 10: very risky) than those who showed that they did not have a business idea (7.61).

In relation to nationality, risk values were similar for national students (7.55 over 10: very risky) and foreigners (7.00). Regarding gender, female students valued risk at 7.63 as opposed to the value of 7.21 by males.

14

Those who said they had no immediate reference in their environment valued risk somewhat lower, at 7.3 over 10 which it was very risky, than those who do have some reference, at 7.56.

In relation to gender, among those who said they did not have a business idea, 64.9% were female students and 35.1% were males, while the distribution among those who did have a business idea was at 50% for both. Regarding nationality, the high number of female students (72.7%) among foreign students was noteworthy as opposed to a distribution of 59.4% and 40.6% respectively for national female and male students. Considering the environment of the students who showed no entrepreneurial reference, 51.8% were males while among those who do count on some reference it stands out that 66.7% were female. As for risk, among the students who presented the highest assessments, 8, 9 and 10 over 10 which was very risky, 69.7% were female students where 100% was the maximum risk assessment (10).

The second questionnaire collected data when the subject was quite advanced, but before the final stage of the presentation of their projects to avoid any bias that the mark might have on the data. In the end 61 valid questionnaires were obtained from students whose complete information was also available from the first questionnaire at the beginning of the subject.

The characterisation of the university population, the object of this paper, by gender and nationality is shown percentage-wise on Table 4. Other details such as age and academic year were not relevant.

Table 4 Gender Nationality

Spanish Foreigner s

Female 67.2 55.7 11.5

Male 32.8 29.5 3.3

As can be seen, two-thirds of the student body, 67.2%, were female students of which 17.1% were foreigners, representing 11.5% of the total students.

The appropriate statistical treatments were carried out on questions relative to the perception of desirability and feasibility, self-efficacy in entrepreneurial competency, environment and risk perception, entrepreneurial attitude, entrepreneurial intention and the probability of

15

creating a business. Some answers had been treated as quantitative, and others as qualitative, variables. The possible categories had been grouped into a lower interval for the purposes of treatment. Several results were obtained, some of which are explained below.

Regarding desirability and feasibility, for a maximum value of 7, the values obtained by gender show that female students showed a lower attraction to the idea of creating their own business and considered it less feasible than male students. The highest concentration of answers for desirability, 55%, was recorded in male students in high categories while the answers from females for those same categories were somewhat lower at 43.9%. As for feasibility, both groups gave the greatest response to medium categories. This data is shown on Table 5.

Table 5 Mea Desirability n Female Male Total Feasibility n Female Male Total

5.39 5.55 5.44 Mea 4.05 4.10 4.07

Var. 1.24 1.41 1.28

Dev. 1.11 1.19 1.13

Var. 1.59 1.98 1.70

Dev. 1.26 1.41 1.30

Regarding the preference to have their own business versus any other professional activity, for a maximum value of 5, the values obtained by gender, shown on Table 6, indicate that female students showed a greater preference than males. In this case, the greatest concentration of answers was recorded in the medium categories for both groups: 35% in males and 39% in females.

Table 6 Mea Preference n Female Male Total

3.00 2.90 2.97

Var. 0.70 1.14 0.83

Dev. 0.83 2.48 0.91

16

Relating to their self-evaluation as an enterprising person, for a maximum value of 10, the values show that male students considered themselves more entrepreneurial than females, as is seen in detail on Table 7. The greatest concentration of answers, 70%, was recorded in the medium to high categories for the male student group and 58.5% in the medium category for the female student group.

Table 7 Mea Enterprising n Female Male Total

Var. 2.55 4.47 3.18

6.00 6.55 6.18

Dev. 1.59 2.11 1.78

Considering risk perception, for a maximum value of 7, it is observed on Table 8 that female students presented higher values than male students. In this case, the greatest concentration of answers was recorded in the high categories for both group, 73.1% for females and 70% for males.

Table 8 Mea Risk Female Male Total

n 5.83 5.65 5.77

Var. 1.64 2.97 2.05

Dev. 1.28 1.75 1.43

Regarding their mediate professional perspectives about whether it is more probable that they would work in someone else’s business or in their own, only 9.7% of the female students indicated that it was more probable that they would create their own businesses, with a probability of 80%. The remainder considered that they would work for someone else with a probability of 69.6%. Regarding male students, 15% indicated that it was more probable that they would create their own businesses, with a probability of 73.2%. The remainder considered that they would work for someone else, with a probability of 72.9%.

Regarding intentionality of creating their own businesses at some time and the probability of doing so immediately, i.e. in 5 years, the results are shown on Table 9 for a maximum value of 7 and 5 respectively. As can be observed, the intention of trying to create their own business at some time is greater among female students, as well as the perception that it is 17

probable in the short term. In this case the greatest concentration of responses on intentionality was recorded for both groups in the middle categories, 68.2% for females and 65% for males. Regarding probability, the greatest concentration of responses was recorded for both groups in the low categories, 48.7% for female and 50% for male students.

Table 9 Mea

y

Intention n Female Male Total Probabilit n Female Male Total

4.63 4.50 4.59 Mea 2.68 2.55 2.63

Var. 2.53 2.78 2.58

Dev. 1.59 1.67 1.61

Var. 0.99 1.31 1.08

Dev. 0.99 1.14 1.04

With the aim of discovering how the set of responses acts, considering whether there were differences between male and female students, a Multivariate Factorial Analysis was performed. In this way the total behaviour of the variables and their correspondence to persons could be taken into account. On the one hand a Factorial Analysis of Principal Components was made with the active quantitative variables in order to find relations among them and discover how they affect the similarity or difference in behaviour among students. As a complement to the interpretation, the qualitative variables were considered as supplementary or illustrative. On the other hand, the inverse process was carried out, considering the

qualitative

variables

as active

(Factorial

Analysis

of Multiple

Correspondences), with the object of finding associations among them and consequently how they affect student behaviour. The quantitative variables were considered supplementary to help interpretation.

The relationship among quantitative variables was obtained in the first analysis of Principal Components. The ones that presented the greatest direct relationship were the desirability and feasibility of creating a business, considering oneself an entrepreneurial person and entrepreneurial intention: someday I will try to create my own business. This is observed in the correlation matrix on Table 10.

18

The variables that record the opinion of those who think it is risky to create a business, that it involves a high risk, are negatively related to the variables that express a clear entrepreneurial profile: those to whom the idea of creating a business is attractive, who consider it feasible and who will try to do it, if they can. The matrix of test values permits acceptance of the hypothesis that there is a significant relationship among the latter.

Tabla nº 10 | Arie | Atra | Fact | Empr | Ries | Trat | |

Arie Atra Fact 1.00 -0.01 1.00 -0.33 0.45 1.00 -0.26 0.46 0.29 0.33 -0.12 -0.34 -0.10 0.43 0.25 ARie Atra Fact

Empr Ries Trat

1.00 -0.32 1.00 0.41 -0.18 1.00 Empr Ries Trat

If that relationship is plotted on the First Factorial Plane, as is seen, it absorbs 61% of the total variability. See Table 11.

Table 11 Certainty of calculation Before diagonal 6.000 6 First owner variables histogram Owner values add 6.000 nº values % % accumulate 1 2.4598 41.00 41.00 2 1.1995 19.99 60.99 3 0.7596 12.66 73.65 4 0.6570 10.95 84.60 5 0.5777 09.63 94.23 6 0.3464 05.77 100.00

███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████

████████████████████████████████████████

█████████████████████████

██████████████████████

███████████████████

████████████

By graphically representing the 6 active variables on a plane (Graph 1), the first factorial plane having 61% of the total (inert) variable, together with the supplementary variables, it is possible to identify who are entrepreneurial and who have an aversion to risk.

Regarding factor 1 (horizontal axis) in the right semi-plane, it is found that male students are entrepreneurial, have a business idea (IdSi), prefer to have their own business (PreT), have entrepreneurial references in their family and social environment (EnYes), and consider the probability of creating their own business high (ProTH) or medium (ProR).

19

In the left semi-plane it is found that the female students who presented an aversion to risk did not have a business idea (IdNo), preferred not to have their own business (PreN and PreR), did not have entrepreneurial references in their environment (EnNo) and the probability of creating their own business soon was low or null (ProN). From the same graph and the tables of corresponding coordinates it is deduced that male and female students behaved in opposite ways.

Graph 1: plane representation of the active and supplementary variables of factors 1 and 2

Referring to the Factorial Analysis of Multiple Correspondences, the main results are on Table12 and Table 13.

ProT

ProR

ProN

EpNo

EpSí

PPrT

PPrR

PPrN

PreT

PreR

PreN

EnNo

EnSí

Hom

0

Muj

IdNo

Extr Nac Muj Hom IdSí

Nac

9 0 0 52 7 34 41 2 2 18 0 20 5 8 9 4 13

Extr

IdSí

Table 12

20

IdNo EnSí EnNo PreN PreR PreT PPrN PPrR PPrT EpSí EpNo ProN ProR ProT

4 6 3 3 4 2 1 1 7 2 7 3 3 3

44 35 17 16 19 17 2 24 26 5 47 26 16 10

32 31 10 12 16 13 2 18 21 4 37 19 13 9

16 0 48 10 11 30 41 0 10 2 18 0 20 7 2 17 12 7 19 0 0 7 4 19 13 10 0 23 0 6 7 12 16 3 0 0 19 1 0 3 3 0 3 0 0 7 6 19 20 5 5 9 11 12 7 26 18 15 11 14 8 3 2 5 5 2 1 4 2 17 11 43 36 18 18 19 17 10 5 24 18 11 13 8 8 6 4 15 12 7 4 11 4 4 4 9 11 2 2 4 7

3 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 33 0 1 6 3 24 27 2 13 14 0 8 11 1 4 8

7 0 0 54 2 27 29 0 0 1 18 0 19 0 4 9 0 0 13

Table 13 Certainty of calculation Before diagonal 1.5556 14 First owner variables histogram Owner values add 1.5556 nº values % % accumulate ███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ 1 0.2165 13.92 13.92 ██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ 2 0.2033 13.07 26.99 ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ 3 0.1709 10.99 37.97 ███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ 4 0.1597 10.26 48.24 ████████████████████████████████████████████████████ 5 0.1404 9.03 57.26 ███████████████████████████████████████████████ 6 0.1263 8.12 65.38 █████████████████████████████████████████ 7 0.1083 6.96 72.35 █████████████████████████████████ 8 0.0891 5.73 78.07 ████████████████████████████████ 9 0.0857 5.51 83.58 ██████████████████████████ 10 0.0702 4.51 88.10 ███████████████████████ 11 0.0620 3.99 92.08 ██████████████████ 12 0.0486 3.12 95.20 ████████████████ 13 0.0416 2.67 97.88 █████████████ 14 0.0330 2.12 100.0 With that analysis, the qualitative variables are considered active, determining the inertia of the cluster of points and they will project the form of that cluster on a plane with the object of visualizing the relation or association among student perceptions. It can be observed that the first factorial plane absorbs only 27% of the total inertia, with both first factors being very similar.

The active variables are represented graphically (Graph 2 and Graph 3) on a plane together with supplementary variables.

21

Graph 1: plane representation of the active and supplementary variables of factors 1 and 2

Considering both semi-planes to the right and the left of factor 1, female students and desirability are very close and both are well represented, as is evident in their tables of coordinates and test values, which are not shown in this paper. Related to previous results, this permits affirming that female students feel that the idea of creating their own business is attractive, in spite of considering that it involves a high risk.

Graph 3: plane representation of the active and supplementary variables of factors 1 and 5

22

As can be observed, this relation is also made evident when analysing the 1-5 factorial plane, since factor 5 shows a good representation of the variables in question.

CONCLUSIONS

Starting from the fact of considering that the degree in Business Administration and Management does not present pronounced biases between male and female students who study it, no specific peculiarity or noteworthy imbalance in one way or another can therefore be pointed out, as does occur in other degrees in Health Sciences, Education, Engineering, Humanities and other Social Sciences. That proportion is maintained, with nuances, in the case of the subject of “Business Creation” since the presence of feminine students is only slightly greater than the average of the total for the degree. But no particular reason stands out to explain this fact. It is not evident that there is a distinctive criteria in the feminine population registered for choosing this subject, either due to the manner of admittance or to the reason for studying it.

The fact certainly is interesting that a significant part of the students registered was foreign, either Europeans or Latin Americans. This circumstance can be explained by the interest

23

aroused in these students for this material which is not found in the educational offer of their Universities of origin. This shows initiative and a certain assumption of risk, since they will have to validate the credits from this subject but do not count on an equivalent or official authorization in their centres. Besides, the methodology implies that they have to carry out part of the work in a group, which involves an added difficulty. All of this, together with the fact that they have made the decision to study for a year outside their own countries, indicates that they are persons with a certain entrepreneurial profile. Another fact is surprising, that these foreign students were female for the most part, so that the proportion between both groups was not maintained. That is where an explanation can be found for some of the quantitative as well as qualitative results.

A different way of working at the subject is evident on the part of the female students. Their attendance at face-to-face sessions is higher. They hand in a higher number of voluntary papers, attend complementary activities and form exclusively feminine work groups. These facts are reflected in terms of their marks so that the mean mark for female students is higher than that of their male classmates.

Regarding the data collected at the beginning of the subject to discover the student profile, the fact stands out that only a fourth of the students have a business idea or have had one at some time. But the proportion of female students who responded that they had or have had a business idea at some time is one third less than the proportion of male students who responded in the same way, in spite of the female students being in the majority. On the contrary, the fact that among those who had an original—innovative—business idea, it is exceptionally outstanding that the immense majority corresponded to female students, which indicated greater creativity. And two thirds of them were foreign students.

Concerning whether they had entrepreneurial references in their immediate family and social environment, the great majority of female students responded affirmatively as opposed to half of the male students. But, in spite of having close references, or precisely because of it, their risk perception for creating a business was appreciably greater than that of their classmates.

In relation to the study made at the end of the subject on the perception of desirability and feasibility, self-efficacy in entrepreneurial competency, risk perception, entrepreneurial attitude, and entrepreneurial intention, it stood out that female students perceived the idea of 24

creating their own business as less attractive and feasible. Likewise their self-perception as an entrepreneurial person was lower than that of their male classmates. Something similar occurred with their immediate professional projection through the creation of their own business, which was also lower in female students, and which corresponded to a high risk perception for creating a business. Curiously, on the contrary, regarding the intentionality of creating their own businesses on some occasion, this perception in female students was slightly higher than in male students. The same thing occurred with their perception of the probability that it would be possible at some future moment. They did not leave that possibility closed and the idea of creating their own businesses continued holding certain attractiveness, although it was in their long term projection.

It is certainly interesting to emphasize that among the students there were persons who presented a clear entrepreneurial profile. The idea of creating their own businesses was attractive to such persons. They considered it as something feasible. They felt like entrepreneurs, had or have had a business idea and perceived the risk, but did not assess it excessively high. They contemplated the future possibility of undertaking the creation of their own businesses if possible.

There were also persons among the students who have clearly decided to try to create their own businesses in the near future. But it is evident that having taken the subject did not have a great effect on those characteristics. Rather this dealt with entrepreneurial persons who had a more or less defined business idea and who sought technical references in the subject for undertaking their project in the future.

Let us recall that the purpose of the subject was for the students to know the processes for creating a business by practising the role of an entrepreneurial person, generating ideas for an innovative business and preparing a business plan. Therefore, it did have a certain impact on some perceptions. For example, it is interesting to verify how, in the lapse of time between the beginning and the end of the subject, the risk perception involved in creating a business had decreased among the students.

It is obvious that, besides by gender, the data should be worked from other criteria, for example, the entrepreneurial or non-entrepreneurial profile. New categories should be established to search for differences or subgroups among female students. Even so, it seems 25

evident through the results that the role of gender did act on the female population in this subject because of the way that they perceived the dimensions addressed in this study, which was a different way than their male classmates.

It is particularly interesting to study the whole of the exceptionally numerous foreign female students who registered for the subject this year. Their results pointed to them as having an entrepreneurial profile, differentiated from the majority of their national classmates. For example, it is a fact that for the most part they presented original business ideas.

Logically, this paper is preliminary to a more profound study which will continue in the future. A follow-up of the students will be made for discovering the evolution of their perceptions on the desirability and feasibility of creating a business, their entrepreneurial selfefficacy and their entrepreneurial attitudes and intentions. Therefore, how to act on those female student perceptions will be discovered in order to improve them, given their potential.

REFERENCES Anna, A.L., Chandler, G.N., Jansen, E. y Mero, N.P. (1999): “Women business owners in traditional and non-traditional industries”, Journal of Business Venturing, 15, 279-303. Ajzen, I. (1987): “Attitudes, traits, and actions: Dispositional prediction of behaviour in social psychology”, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 1-63. Ajzen, I. (1991): “The theory of planned behaviour”, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211. Ajzen, I. y Fishbein, M. (1975): Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behaviour: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing. Bandura, A. (1982): “Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency”, American Psychologist, 37, 122-147. Bandura, A. (1989): “Human agency in social cognitive theory”, American Psychologist, 44 (9), 1175-1184. Bandura, A. (1997): Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman. Botha, M., Nieman, G. y van Vuuren, J. (2006): "Enhancing female entrepreneurship by enabling access to skills", The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 2 (4).

26

Boyd, N.G. y Vozikis, G.S. (1994): “The influence of self-efficacy on the development of entrepreneurial intentions and actions”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18 (4), 63-77. Carayannis, E., Evans, D. y Hanson, M. (2003): “A cross-cultural learning strategy for entrepreneurship education: outline of key concepts and lessons learned form a comparative study of entrepreneurship students in France and the US”, Technovation, 23 (9), 757. Chen, C.C., Green, P.G. y Crick, A. (1998): “Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers?”, Journal of Business Venturing, 13 (4): 295-316. Cooper, S. Y. and Lucas, W. A. (2007): “Developing entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intentions: Lessons from two programmes”. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 52nd ICSB World Conference. Cooper, S.Y. y Lucas, W.A. (2008): “Developing self-efficacy for innovation and entrepreneurship: An educational approach”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education. De Noble, A. F.; Jung, D.; Ehrlich, S. B. (1999): “Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: The development of measure and its relationship to entrepreneurial action”. En P. Reynolds et al. (Eds.): Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Babson College, MA: Babson Park, pp. 7387. Díaz, M.C. y Jiménez-Moreno, J.J. (2008a): “Factores que inciden en la intención empresarial: Propuesta de un modelo”, Hernández, R. (coord.) Creación de Empresas: Aproximación al Estado del Arte, Curitiba (Brasil): Juruá Editora. Díaz, M.C. y Jiménez-Moreno, J.J. (2008b): “Factores que inciden en la intención empresarial: evaluación del curso ‘Emprendedores’ para la promoción de la cultura emprendedora”, Vázquez, C. et al. (coord.) XIII Reunión Anual de la Red PYMES Mercosur, San Martín (Argentina): Graphos Editorial Científica. Díaz, M.C. y Jiménez-Moreno, J.J. (2010): “Entrepreneurial Intention: The Role of Gender”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol.6, nº3, pages 261-283. Grilo, I. y Thurik, R. (2005). Latent and actual entrepreneurship in Europe and the US: Some recent developments, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 1 (4), 441459. Jiménez-Moreno, J.J. y Díaz, M.C. (2009): “Evaluación del impacto de la asignatura ‘Creación de Empresas’ en la intención empresarial de su alumnado”, Legato, A. et al. (coord.) V Encuentro Regional de Centros de Investigación en Administración y disciplinas afines, Tandil (Argentina): UNICEN.

27

Kelley D., Bosma N., Amorós, J. E. (2010): GEM. Global Report. Babson, Universidad del Desarrollo. London Business School. Kolvereid, L. e Isaksen, E. (2006): “New business start-up and subsequent entry into selfemployment”, Journal of Business Venturing, 21 (6), 866-885. Kolvereid, L. y Moen, O. (1997): “Entrepreneurship among business graduates: does a major in entrepreneurship make a difference”, Journal of European Industrial Training, 21 (4), 154160. Krueger, N.F. (2007): “What lies beneath? The experiential essence of entrepreneurial thinking”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31 (1), 123-138. Krueger, N.F. y Brazeal, D.V. (1994): “Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs”, Entrepreneurship Theroy and Practice, Spring, 91-104. Krueger, N. y Kickul, J. (2006): “So You Thought the Intentions Model was Simple?: Navigating the Complexities and Interactions of Cognitive Style, Culture, Gender, Social Norms, and Intensity on the Pathways to Entrepreneurship”, USASBE conference, Tuscon, AZ. Krueger, N.F., Reilly, M.D. y Casrud, A.L. (2000): “Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions”, Journal of Business Venturing, 15, 411-432. Liao, J. y Welsch, H. (2004): “Entrepreneurial intensity”, en Gartner, W.B., Shaver, K.G., Carter, N.M., Reynolds, P.D. Handbook of Entrepreneurial Dynamics. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Liñán, F., Rodríguez, J. C., Rueda-Cantuche J. M. (2010). “Factors affecting entrepreneurial intention levels: a role for education”. International Entrepreneurship Journal. Luthje, C. y Franke, N. (2003): “The “making” of an entrepreneur: Testing a model of entrepreneurial intent among engineering students”, MIT, R&D Management, 33 (2), 135. Markman, G.D., Balkin, D.B. y Baron, R.A. (2002): “Inventors and new venture formation: The effects of general self-efficacy and regretful thinking”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27 (2), 149-165. Oliveras, G., Porras J., Vigier H., Robledo C. (2010): “Análisis global de las probabilidades de éxito en la creación y desarrollo de empresas y sus implicancias sobre la educación emprendedora”. 15º Reunión Anual de la Red PyMEs MERCOSUR, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas, Universidad Nacional de Cuyo, Argentina. Oliveras, G.; Porras, J.; Partal, C.; Indaco, A.; De Las Flores V. (2009). “Rasgos y características del emprendedor desde el punto de vista de la educación emprendedora”. 14º

28

Reunión Anual de la Red PyMEs. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas, Universidad Nacional del Litoral, Santa Fe 1 y 2 de octubre. Peterman, N.E. y Kennedy, J.K. (2003): “Enterprise education: influencing student’s perceptions of entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Winter, 129-144. Pistrui, D., Liao, J. y Welsch, H. (1998): “Entrepreneurial expansion plans: An empirical investigation of infrastructure predictors”, paper presentado en RENT XII, Lyon, France. Porras, J.; Oliveras G.; Vigier H. (2010). “Methodological Proposal for Determining Entrepreneurial Competencies from the Entrepreneurship Education Approach”. II International Workshop: Entrepreneurship, Culture and Finance, Cartagena, Spain, June 1718. Reynolds, P.D., Bygrave, W.D. y Autio, E. (2004). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2003 Executive Report. Babson College, London Business School and the Kauffman Foundation. Robbins, D.K., Patuosco, L.J., Parker, D.F. y Fuller, B.K. (2000): “An empirical assessment of the contribution of small business employment to U.S. state economic performance”, Small Business Economics, 15: 293–302. Shapero, A. (1982): “The social dimensions of entrepreneurship”, En C.A. Kent, D.L. Sexton y K. Vesper (eds.) The Encyclopaedia of Entrepreneurship, pp. 72-90, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Thomas, A.S. y Mueller, S.L. (2000): “A case for comparative entrepreneurship: Assessing the relevance of culture”, Journal of International Business Studies, 31: 287–301. Welsch, H. y Pistrui, D. (1993): “Entrepreneurship commitment and initiative in Romania”, Paper presentado en el RENT VII, Budapest, Hungría. Wilson, F., Kickul, J. y Marlino, D. (2007): “Gender, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial

career

intentions:

Implications

for

entrepreneurship

education”,

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30 (1), 387-406.

29