The Role of Perceived University Support in the Formation of Students' Entrepreneurial Intention

By Saadat Saeed, Shumaila Y. Yousafzai, Mirella Yani-De-Soriano, Moreno Muffatto. Sustainable Entrepreneurship, 2015

427 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Entrepreneurship education is central to student entrepreneurship. Previous research has attempted to understand the role of entrepreneurship education in the formation of students' entrepreneurial intention and behavior, albeit in an isolated manner. Universities can support entrepreneurship in many ways, but it is important to measure students' perception of the support that they receive in order to understand the extent of such support and its impact on students. The current study proposed and tested an integrative, multiperspective framework. We have hypothesized that the three dimensions of university support, that is, perceived educational support, concept development support, and business development support, together with institutional support, shape students' entrepreneurial self‐efficacy. In turn, entrepreneurial self‐efficacy and individual motivations constitute the fundamental elements of the intention to start a business. A sample of 805 university students took part in the study and data were analyzed using structural equation modeling. Our findings showed that perceived educational support exerted the highest influence on entrepreneurial self‐efficacy, followed by concept development support, business development support, and institutional support. Self‐efficacy in turn had a significant effect on entrepreneurial intention. Individual motivations such as self‐realization, recognition, and role had an additional impact on intention. However, intention was not related to financial success, innovation, and independence. The findings suggest that a holistic perspective provides a more meaningful understanding of the role of perceived university support in the formation of students' entrepreneurial intention. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Subfields: Education, Management of Technology and Innovation, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4bbeeecd1ea78e3a8af6d68577b3d56151297789

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Education

  1. David Urbano
  2. Azadeh Amoozegar
  3. Temoor Anjum
  4. Bingchao Pan
  5. Virginia Hernández
  6. R. T. Anees
  7. Petra Heidler
  8. Javier Peña Miguel

In Management of Technology and Innovation

  1. Maribel Guerrero
  2. David Urbano
  3. Tommaso Minola
  4. Eduardo Gajón
  5. Anita Van Gils
  6. Jolien Huybrechts
  7. Davide Hahn
  8. Massimiliano Vesci

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

  1. Maribel Guerrero
  2. David Urbano
  3. Temoor Anjum
  4. Bingchao Pan
  5. Eduardo Gajón
  6. K. Wach
  7. Renata Schaefer
  8. Virginia Hernández

Citations in the corpus