Determinant factors in entrepreneurial intention among Social Work degree students: the moderating effect of entrepreneurship education

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine the factors that determine the entrepreneurial intention (EI) among Social Work degree students. This study considers the direct influence of personal traits, demographic characteristics, informal education and entrepreneurship education (EE) and, in addition, the possible moderating effect of EE on the other factors. Design/methodology/approach A sample of 139 undergraduate students registered in the Social Work degree offered by the University of Zaragoza (Spain) is analyzed, by using a longitudinal system based on questionnaires that were passed at two different times – before and after receiving the EE. Logistic regression models are built and estimated according to the explicative variables. Findings The results indicate that demographic factors, personality traits, professional experience and EE are significant factors in fostering social entrepreneurship among Social Work students. Additionally, EE has a moderating effect on the other variables, but only partially and not always positive. Practical implications The entrepreneurial initiative of social workers can make a very valuable contribution through the start-up of social enterprises. The findings suggest the convenience of promoting EE in the Social Work degree, with teaching contents and methodologies adapted to social entrepreneurship. Nevertheless, the interaction of educational methodologies with the other determinants does not always have a positive impact on EI. Originality/value This paper investigates EI in the context of undergraduate Social Work students, and this is a novel methodological approach. In addition to the analysis of the direct influence of the determinants of EI, we add the possible moderating effect of EE on the influence of the other explanatory variables.

A serial mediation model of the linkage between entrepreneurial education, self-efficacy, attitudes and intentions: does gender matter? A multi-group analysis

“…Similarly, ATE also significantly and directly influenced EI and significantly mediated the influence of EE on EI. This also demonstrated that ATE could increase the impact of EE on EI (García-Uceda et al , 2022). It also means that the impact of EE on EI may be more significant when higher education students possess higher degree of entrepreneurial self-confidence (or ESE) and interest (or ATE), as supported by the mediation role of ESE in the link between EE and EI (Uysal et al , 2022; Adebusuyi et al , 2022).…”

“…By focusing on EE as a strategy, students can benefit in multiple ways. First, it can enhance their entrepreneurial career interests and intentions, as they gain relevant knowledge and skills, and exposure to entrepreneurship (Lopes et al , 2023; García-Uceda et al , 2022). This can lead to increased motivation and an inclination to pursue entrepreneurial opportunities in their future careers (Wach et al , 2023).…”

Factors influencing social-media-based entrepreneurship prospect among female students in China

“…As a result, we strictly focused on entrepreneurship in the contemporary digital era where technology is an opportunity and a challenge faced by entrepreneurs. Some significant contexts of entrepreneurship were also included in this literature review as they are key in the field of entrepreneurship, including entrepreneurial education (Hahn et al., 2018), social and non-social start-ups ( Hechavarría and Welter, 2015 ), survival and growth of technology-enabled firms ( Rannikko et al., 2018 ), high-technology innovation and entrepreneurship ( Pan et al., 2018 ), entrepreneurship success in the digital platform ( Srinivasan and Venkatraman, 2018 ), app-enabled business opportunity ( Ehrenhard et al., 2017 ), employees’ access to rich media for small firms ( Labafi et al., 2018 ), communication procedure in entrepreneurial teams ( Khajeheian, 2018a , Khajeheian, 2018b ), opportunity recognition ( Khajeheian, 2018a , Khajeheian, 2018b ), science technology in cinema media ( Kirby, 2011 ) and entrepreneurial productivity of the students ( Aurelian-Petrus et al., 2018 ; García-Uceda et al., 2022 ).…”

Applying the stimulus-organism-response theory to investigate determinants of students’ social entrepreneurship: moderation role of perceived university support

“…Historically, studies that have applied the different theories, such as TPB, Entrepreneurial Even Model and Social Cognitive Career Theory, have focused on social entrepreneurs' personality, human capital and social capital (Zaremohzzabieh et al, 2019), money ethics and public service motivation (Chandra et al, 2021b), personal traits (Tan et al, 2020) and prior experiences (Hockerts, 2017;Sousa-Filho et al, 2020;García-Uceda et al, 2022a), but they have SEJ 19,2 ignored the role of entrepreneurial education and university support (Klarin and Suseno, 2022). To overcome the limitations of prior studies and fill this gap, our study combines the emotional psychology constructs in the Mair and Noboa (2006) model with the stimulus-organismresponse (SOR) theory (Mehrabian and Russell, 1974) to capture the significance and importance of education-related stimuli (i.e.…”

“…However, social entrepreneurship is still characterized by a lack of theoretical frontiers, and it is also confronted by contesting definitions and theoretical models (Sahasranamam and Nandakumar, 2020; García-Uceda et al , 2022b, Aloulou and Algarni, 2022; Vasilev, 2020), the extant knowledge gap and the limitations of empirical data for assessing contextual differences between countries (Canestrino et al , 2020). Indeed, definitions of social entrepreneurship are often multiple and vague: pursuing social aims via marketed-based approaches (Canestrino et al , 2020); encompassing entrepreneurial and innovative activities and services performed by firms with social aims (Diaz-Sarachaga and Ariza-Montes, 2022); tackling social demands that are not satisfied by commercial firms (Sahasranamam and Nandakumar, 2020); creating innovative solutions to address social problems (Rey-Martí et al , 2016; Duong and Antriyandarti, 2021; Garedow, 2021); aligning organizational values with existing societal values to activate support for change (Chatterjee et al , 2021); and using business principles to drive social impacts (Koehne et al , 2022).…”