Witnessing entrepreneurial perceptions and proclivity in university students

Abstract

PurposeThis paper analyses the transition of university students from initial perceptions of enterprise to potentially heightened levels of proclivity towards creative behaviours and future entrepreneurial activity.Design/methodology/approachAdopting a positivist approach, an intention-based scorecard survey targeted to two cohorts totalling 75 undergraduate students leading to 150 responses at a Scottish university. These were circulated at start and end sessions of four relevant courses, to establish a measure for self-evaluation with respect to perception and proclivity.FindingsThe data gathered from the Entrepreneurial Scorecard emphasised differences in perception and proclivity between the two cohorts, namely creativity, risk-taking, leadership and business aspiration. This re-emphasised the three identified themes: awareness through trait identification; autonomy through developing enterprising skills; and achievement through practicing entrepreneurial activities. This formed the basis for our novel model in supporting the entrepreneurial development of students: The Perception to Proclivity Process Model.Research limitations/implicationsThis study focusses on a single case and further research within other institutions and domains is encouraged to contextually test the transferability of the two key outputs: the Entrepreneurial Scorecard and the Perception to Proclivity Process Model.Practical implicationsThe practical output of this research is a novel tool for evaluating entrepreneurial perceptions and proclivity through the scorecard. This study adds to the existing research base around entrepreneurial intention and action whilst providing a new model for a guiding framework for the entrepreneurial student and educator journey.Originality/valueThis paper's approach outlines many themes and inherent questions of concern to enterprise educators and university management towards the creation, maintenance, or development of an enterprise course or programme. This research introduces the concepts of entrepreneurial perception and entrepreneurial proclivity, explaining the important role they play in developing students. Additionally, the scorecard has potential for application in a longitudinal context as a means of establishing potential shifts in entrepreneurial perception and proclivity. However, the application is not limited to the scope of higher education, with clear potential to apply this tool and approach within other domains.

The Role of Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy in Mediating the Effect of Entrepreneurship Education and Financial Support on Entrepreneurial Behavior

“…The same results are also states that the better the entrepreneurship education provided by universities, the more it encourages the creation of many entrepreneurs among students (Murray & Crammond, 2020). However, there are also other researchers which shows the results that entrepreneurship education has no effect on the entrepreneurial behavior of students (Galvao et al, 2018;Hamzah et al, 2016;Sargani et al, 2020).…”

Developing a Scale: Perceptions of High School Students About the Relationship Between Chemistry and Daily Life

“…Combined with all these, it will be possible to create a selective perception system for students about chemistry and daily life. In the studies where perceptions of individuals are researched or perception definitions are made, it is seen that the components mentioned above related to interest, awareness, development, and consciousness have been mentioned (Argon & Ertürk, 2013;Assaraf & Damri, 2009;Banyard & Hayes, 1994, p.350;Coren et al, 1993, p.17;Murray & Crammond, 2020;Özdemir, 2010). In this respect, the research also has a feature that can be associated with social cognition processes and social psychology.…”

Formation of a Programmatic Management Mechanism for Risk Reduction in Educational Activity

“…In the process of making and implementing management decisions, it is likely impossible to achieve target indicators in the areas of activity, which is due to the influence of risk factors on the university (Fan et al, 2020). The need to identify the causes of deviations of actual indicators from planned ones implies the occurrence of a time lag between an adverse event and the response to it, which does not allow timely implementation of corrective actions in the face of rapid changes in external and internal environmental factors (Murray & Crammond, 2020). It should be noted that the reason for the low efficiency of the risk management system is also its imperfect, incomplete integration into the university management system (Jelonek & Mazur, 2020).…”