The growth of entrepreneurship is essential to the health of the US economy… small companies have generated 70% of net new jobs over the past decade

Discovering the factors that influence an individual’s choice to pursue entrepreneurship might positively influence economic growth and societal well-being

Colleges and universities have increasingly embraced the fostering of entrepreneurship among their students as part of their mission (Green, 2009)

The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between the college environment and the development of students’ “entrepreneurial intentions”

The strongest predictor of entrepreneurial behavior is “entrepreneurial intentions” --- a construct studied empirically (but without a consistent measure) since the 1990s (Chen, Greene, & Crick, 1998; Erikson, 1999; Krueger et al., 2000)

Previous studies have examined the relationship between person-specific and environmental factors and entrepreneurial intentions (Lent et al., 2000; Luthje & Franke, 2003)

Previous studies have also examined the relationship between student-specific characteristics and college environmental factors (including involvement) and relevant outcomes such as career choice and work values (Astin, 1993; Kuh et al., 1991; Pace, 1979; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005; Tinto, 1993; Weidman, 1989)

However, no studies to date have examined the relationship between the college environment and students’ entrepreneurial intentions directly (previous studies have been limited to the impact of entrepreneurship-specific courses)

There is a gap in both the “college impact” and “entrepreneurial intentions” literature – no studies have examined the relationship between the college environment and students’ entrepreneurial intentions

College students are generally pre-occupied with career choices – an opportune time for the development of entrepreneurial intentions (Shapero & Sokol, 1982)

Colleges seek to develop entrepreneurs, but struggle to

identify appropriate, evidence-based interventions (Green, 2009)

This study can assist institutions to focus resources and attention on those elements of the college environment that actually encourage students to develop entrepreneurial intentions

Conceptual Framework: Astin’s (1991) Input-Environment-Outcome Model of Student Change

Inputs = Students’ pre-college experiences and characteristics

Environment = Institutional characteristics + students’ various college experiences

Outcomes = Dependent variables examined for student changes during the college years

Conceptual Framework: Astin’s (1991) I-E-O Model

Rationale:Entrepreneurial intentions (O) are influenced by

environmental factors (E) (Gartner, 1988; Kolvereid, 1996; Krueger et al., 2000)

The college environment (E) has an influence on students’ career choices and work values (~O) (Astin 1993, Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005)

Differences among students upon their entry to college (I) influence student outcomes (O) (Feldman & Newcomb, 1994)

Theoretical Frameworks:… grounding the research questions and selection

of independent variables

1) Holland’s (1997) Person-Environment Theory of Vocational and Educational Behavior

2) Astin’s (1984) Theory of Student Involvement

1) Holland’s (1997) Person-Environment Theory of Vocational and Educational Behavior

Individuals and Environments can be classified using one or more of six basic types (Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional)

Majors can be grouped by Holland types, characterizing six different academic sub-environments that have been found to:› attract different types of faculty and peer groups,› reinforce different values and attitudes,› employ different instructional methods, and› emphasize different student outcomes (Pike et al.,

2012; Smart et al., 2000)

Holland’s (1973, 1985) Six Model Environments

The realistic (R) environment is characterized by technical competencies and achievement . It encourages people to emphasize mechanical ability and to downplay ability in human relations. Being persistent, frank, masculine, stable, and practical are stressed in this environment. It rewards valuing money, power, and possessions .

The investigative (I) environment encourages mathematical and scientific competencies and achievements. It encourages people to see themselves as scholarly, analytical and rational, to become authorities in their subjects, to be recognized among peers, rather than to be seen as executives. It promotes viewing the world in complex, abstract, independent, and original ways. It rewards displays of scientific values.

The artistic (A) environment fosters artistic competencies and achievement. It encourages people to see themselves as expressive, introspective, original, unconventional, and idealistic and to be recognized as such by peers. It rewards displays of esthetic values.

The social (S) environment stimulates people to engage in social activities. It encourages people to see themselves as liking to help and understand others and as being cooperative, flexible, and sociable. It rewards displays of social values.

The enterprising (E) environment is characterized by enterprising competencies and achievements such as selling or leading others. It encourages people to see themselves as aggressive, popular, self-confident and as possessing leadership and speaking ability. lt encourages viewing the world in terms of power, money, status, and responsibility.

The conventional (C) environment fosters conventional competencies, such as recording and organizing data or records. It encourages people to see themselves as conforming, orderly, non-artistic, and as having clerical competencies. It rewards valuing money, dependability, and conformity.

Classification of Major Fields by Holland-type (Holland, 1966; Smart, 1975, 1982)

Realistic: civil engineering, mechanical engineering, other engineering, agriculture, forestry

Investigative: biological science (biology, biochemistry, botany, marine science, microbiology, zoology, others), engineering (aeronautical, chemical, electrical, industrial), physical sciences (astronomy. atmospheric science, chemistry. earth science. marine science, math, physics. statistics), health technology, pharmacy, premed, anthropology, geography, computer science

Artistic: fine arts, English, journalism, language or literature, music, philosophy, speech, theater, other arts and humanities, architecture, library science, communication

Social: history, theology, education (elementary, physical, secondary, special, others), home economics, nursing, therapy, ethnic studies, political science, psychology, social work, sociology, women 's studies

Enterprising: business (business administration, marketing, management), law, economics

Conventional: accounting, finance, secretarial studies, business education

2) Astin’s (1984) Theory of Student Engagement

Students’ active involvement in academic and other activities is related to student development and has an influence on a number of student outcomes.

The amount of time and physical and psychological energy that students invest influences outcomes (Astin, 1996)

… the types and intensity of involvement matter

The two complementary theoretical frameworks facilitate the examination of:

The influence of specific academic environments on the outcome variable (Holland’s Theory)

The influence of specific types and degrees of involvement in those environments on the same outcome variable (Astin’s Theory)

What factors, if any, influence college students entrepreneurial intentions?

1. What influence, if any, do characteristics of incoming college students (input variables) have on students’ entrepreneurial intentions?

2. What influence, if any, do institutional characteristics (between-college variables) have on students’ entrepreneurial intentions?

3. What influence, if any, do academic sub-environments (major fields of study grouped by Holland-type) have on students’ entrepreneurial intentions?

4. What influence, if any, do academic involvement variables have on students’ entrepreneurial intentions?

5. What influence, if any, do student-faculty involvement variables have on students’ entrepreneurial intentions?

6. What influence, if any, do student-student involvement variables have on students’ entrepreneurial intentions?

7. What influence, if any, do non-academic involvement variables have on students’ entrepreneurial intentions?

Methodological Framework:

Causal-analytic methodology based on Astin’s (1991) I-E-O data analysis framework using stepwise, blocked multiple regression analysis

Secondary analysis of a major existing national data set (the results of College Institutional Research Program surveys administered by HERI at UCLA)

Longitudinal study with a pretest – posttest design

Dependent variable – Students’ entrepreneurial intentions as measured in senior year of college (the posttest)

Operationalized as self-rating of the importance of the goal, “becoming successful in a business of my own” (responses on a four-point scale: 1=not important, 2=somewhat important, 3=very important, or 4=essential)

Methodological Framework:

Independent variables will be organized into eight blocks:

Block 1- the pretest of entrepreneurial intentions

Block 2- student input variables (gender, age, ethnicity, SES, parental entrepreneurship, drive to achieve, risk-taking)

Block 3- institutional characteristics (size, type, control, selectivity)

Block 4- academic subenvironment (one of six, based on Holland-type of major field)

Block 5- measures of academic involvement (e.g., hours spent studying, enrollment in honors courses, undergraduate rserach, internships, etc.)

Block 6- measures of student-faculty involvement (e.g., hours spent with faculty outside of class, guest in professor’s home, worked on professor’s research project, etc.)

Block 7- measures of student-student involvement (e.g., hours spent socializing with friends, fraternity or sorority, student gov’t, intercollegiate athletics, etc.)

Block 8 – measures of non-academic involvement (e.g., paid work on-campus, paid work off-campus, career planning activities, drinking, etc.)

Data Collection & Analysis Procedures:

Data source – Subset of CIRP Senior Survey (31,000 students at 140 colleges) and the Freshman Survey (400,000) students at 600 colleges)

40-item instrument shown to be reliable and valid (Pryor & Hurtado, 2012)

Measure of dependent variable (entrepreneurial intentions) is consistent with that used in prior studies (Krueger et al., 2000; Kolvereid & Isaksen, 2006; Peterman & Kennedy, 2003; Veciana, Aponte, & Urbano, 2005).

Data was analyzed using Hierarchical Stepwise Multiple Regression

Predictors of Students’ Entrepreneurial Intentions

Inputs Pretest as freshmen +++Male gender ++Race (White) --Parental entrepreneurship (father) ++SES +Drive to achieve +Race (Black) +Parental entrepreneurship (mother) -

Predictors of Students’ Entrepreneurial IntentionsPredictors of Students’ Entrepreneurial Intentions

Institutional CharacteristicsInstitutional selectivity -

Academic sub-environmentsEnterprising ++Social --Investigative --Conventional +

Predictors of Students’ Entrepreneurial IntentionsPredictors of Students’ Entrepreneurial Intentions

Academic InvolvementAcademic Involvement

Missed class due to employmentMissed class due to employment ++++

Participated in undergraduate research Participated in undergraduate research -- --

Participated in internship programParticipated in internship program + +

Participated in study-abroad programParticipated in study-abroad program - -

Enrolled in honors or advanced coursesEnrolled in honors or advanced courses - -

Participated in an academic support programParticipated in an academic support program + +

Performed community service as part of a classPerformed community service as part of a class + +

Predictors of Students’ Entrepreneurial IntentionsPredictors of Students’ Entrepreneurial Intentions

Student-Faculty Interaction

Talking with faculty outside of class/office hours ++Talking with faculty during office hours +Communicating regularly with professors -Challenged a professor’s ideas in class +Was a guest in a professor’s home -

Predictors of Students’ Entrepreneurial IntentionsPredictors of Students’ Entrepreneurial Intentions

Student-Student InteractionPartying ++Joined a fraternity or sorority ++Studied with other students +

Non-Academic InvolvementWorking (for pay) on campus --Working FT while attending school ++Career planning activities +

Entrepreneurial Intentions gender gap – new approaches needed

Positive effects on Entrepreneurial Intentions of:Service LearningCollaborative LearningPaid Work

Awareness of negative influence on Entrepreneurial Intentions of : Investigative and Social academic sub-environments

(majors)“Professorial role models”Traditional paths to academic success