STUDENTS’ APPROACH TO NEW BUSINESS CREATION: THE CASE OF AN ENTREPRENEURIAL HACKATHON
Syed Mubaraz*, Rakhshanda Khan, Jari Luomakoski & Jutta Heikkilä
New business creation is at the core of entrepreneurial education. It is a challenging process that requires the clear approach of an entrepreneur. With the aim of the study to explore international students’ approach to new business creation, analysis of students’ choices of factors that influence new business creation was conducted. The study also explores the skills and support that students need to materialise the novel ideas created in a hackathon to create new start-ups. This study followed a mixed method research methodology. For the purpose of data collection, a survey was developed to collect quantitative and qualitative data from the participants at the end of the event. Our quantitative analysis shows students ranked ‘creativity/innovation’ as the most important attribute for new business creation, followed by ‘knowledge of the customers’ and ‘knowledge of the market’. Among the least selected attributes were ‘trade regulation knowledge’, ‘the ability to forecast future markets’ and ‘entrepreneur’s network’. Further, it was found t that students with entrepreneurial education and experience had different views about certain attributes (e.g. ‘market knowledge’ and ‘entrepreneur’s network’) compared to those without any entrepreneurial education and experience. The qualitative analysis highlighted that there was a noticeable difference between male and female participants’ approach in terms of skills and traits for new business creation. For both genders, ‘finding external funding’ was by far the most sought-after support. This study contributes in providing insights into the influence of entrepreneurship education for regional economic development.
Keywords: entrepreneurship, new business creation, entrepreneurial skills, hackathon, higher education, regional development 156 YKTT2020 INTRODUCTION New business creation is the hallmark of entrepreneurship which stimulates economic growth and development (Elizabeth et al., 2020; Audretsch, 2007; Cooper, 2003). Research from the Global Entrepreneur Monitor (GEM) programme estimates that more than a quarter of a billion people are actively engaged in new business firms around the world (Reynolds and Hechavarria, 2009). The project considers new business creation by nascent entrepreneurs and identifies the factors that influence the establishment of new firms (Reynolds et al., 2005). It is commonly agreed that the creation of new organisations and commercial ventures significantly contributes to a region’s economic stability, development, employment creation and social advancement (Tomizawa et al., 2019). Besides this, new business creation provides means for achieving micro- and macro-level economic goals (Rasmussen and Sørheim, 2006). In this study, new business creation means a newly opened, active and independent start-up company that engages in trade and economic activity after being formed as a legal business entity. This definition of new business creation is in line with previous literature on start-up classification (Lugar and Koo, 2005).
Since entrepreneurship involves both art, for example, creativity and innovation, and science, for example, functional skills, there is no straightforward method to teach it (De Faoite et al., 2003). Several international studies highlight the importance of research in entrepreneurial education, stating that there is a gap between students’ entrepreneurial understanding and the start-up creation rate (Matsheke and Dhurup, 2017). Besides this, the analysis of new business creation and entrepreneurship still demands more research (Reynolds and Curtin, 2011). According to Louw et al. (2003), university students should be equipped with essential skills to take full advantage of an entrepreneurial-driven economy. According to Ahlstrom (2010), little research examines how entrepreneurship is ignited. New and improved academic and practical insights are demanded to understand the start-up formation process (Elizabeth et al., 2020). We present a case of an entrepreneurial hackathon in which international students from a Finnish higher educational institute participated. Students’ approach to new business creation was explored during the hackathon. As such, the aim of this study is to explore students’ approach to new business creation by analysing their choices of factors that influence it. The study also explores the skills and support required by the students to materialise the novel ideas created in an entrepreneurial hackathon. In the later phase, the participants were coupled with students from partner institutes from Estonia and Latvia. Hence, this study is directly related to entrepreneurship education as a tool for regional development among three European Union states. Developing entrepreneurial spirit in the university students, who intend to transform business ideas into active and independent start-ups, would possibly become a means to achieve the desired micro and macro benefits.
YKTT2020 157 According to Tan and Frank (2006), entrepreneurial education provides students with skills to recognise economic opportunities and knowledge to capitalise on them without hesitation. Galloway and Brown (2002) posit that when delivered successfully, entrepreneurship education enables students to undertake new business creation. However, there is a lack of research related to the role of entrepreneurship-related subjects in new business creation (Matsheke and Dhurup, 2017). The prevailing reality is that university students perceive several challenges that hinder new business creation.
Nowadays, higher education institutions (HEIs) are engaged in new trends to foster and develop students’ understanding of business ecosystems. HEIs intend to disseminate knowledge on this, and entrepreneurship education is not an exception. There are examples of entrepreneurial hackathons being arranged to motivate and transform the attitudes of university students towards forming new start-ups boosting regional competitiveness and economic development (Veciana et al., 2005). In the next section, we review new business creation in the extant literature. The methodology is presented prior to the results. In the later part, we present the discussion and conclusion of the study.
NEW BUSINESS CREATION IN THE LITERATURE Among entrepreneurial academics (Vesper, 1988), new business creation stands at the crossroads of behavioural and occupational entrepreneurship (Gartner, 1989a). The behavioural perspective deals with the sense of seizing an economic opportunity, whereas the occupational perspective is related to owning and managing a business on one’s own account and risk (Hoselitz, 1960; He´bert and Link, 1982). It is the occupational or dynamic perspective of entrepreneurship that focuses on new business creation and is related to innovation and competition (Sternberg and Wennekers, 2005). The following review of the literature touches upon some of the main factors that influence new business creation as well as the choices a nascent entrepreneur has to make while creating a new start-up. At the outset, we draw attention to the process of new business creation. According to Reynolds and Curtin (2011), new start-ups do not emerge spontaneously: rather, interested individuals or teams that decide to pursue a new start-up go through several substantial activities. First, the nascent entrepreneurs should consider themselves to be in the process of new start-up creation, prepare a business plan, organise a team, arrange capital and finally launch a new firm. Entry into new business creation warrants serious efforts and an array of activities to assemble and allocate resources (Yang and Liberia, 2008). A firm comes into being when such decisions are implemented and activities are operationalised. Those who see it through prevail and a new start-up emerges as a new registered firm; others fail.
Entrepreneurship has been viewed from a behavioural perspective in the literature while addressing the creation of new start-ups (Gartner, 1989a) as well as identification and exploita- 158 YKTT2020 tion of economic opportunities (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000). In this sense, entrepreneurship deals with active management, independent ownership and intention to maintain these (Stewart and Roth, 2001). To Caprana and Cervone (2000), personality traits are specific type of responses in various scenarios. In general, personality traits include creativity, leadership, marketing knowledge, risk-taking, stability, proactive personality, temperament, achievement motive and self-efficacy (Rauch and Frese, 2007). Self-efficacy has been defined in terms of an entrepreneur’s belief in their own ability to perform various tasks necessary to pursue a new start-up (Matsheke and Dhurup, 2017). Several studies in entrepreneurship research (e.g. Cooper and Gimeno-Gascon, 1992; Gartner, 1989b) have examined the relationships between entrepreneurial behaviour and personality traits, and found a positive relationship between personality traits with business creation and entrepreneurial processes. Menzies et al. (2006), through a longitudinal study, analyse several personal characteristics of people involved in new business creation. Through the extensive GEM study, Reynolds and Curtin (2011) highlight the relationship of factors like age, gender, level of education and previous work or entrepreneurial experience to new business creation. Similar empirical analysis was done by Alsos et al. (2006). Other characteristics that influence new business creation are previous managerial experience, being an active worker, entrepreneurial experience in the family, relatives or close friends with own businesses and monthly income or savings (Reynolds and Curtin, 2011). Similarly, according to a study conducted by Rauch and Frese (2007), goal orientation, self-efficacy, a proactive personality, tenacity, a need for achievement, stress tolerance, a need for autonomy, innovativeness, endurance, flexibility and passion for work are personality traits that match with an entrepreneurial attitude, start-up creation and success. It has been shown that the majority of new start-ups are created by a team of nascent entrepreneurs (Ruef et al., 2003). Lee and Tsang (2001) advocate that new business firms which start with a team carry a higher possibility of growth. Hence, it is pertinent to analyse the teams of new start-ups. The characteristics of the founding team have been analysed in previous research, which reveals that factors like age, gender, ethnicity and past working experience influence new business creation (Reynolds and Curtin, 2011).
A team brings on board stocks of knowledge, experience and skills known as human capital. It is noticeable that empirical research shows that human capital has been a predictive link between a new business firm and its survival; however, others propose contrary results with no such linkage (e.g. Montgomery et al., 2005, Wetter and Wennberg, 2008). Similarly, according to Carayannis et al. (2003), a nascent entrepreneur’s network also plays an important role in developing relationships. In the literature, an entrepreneur’s network with other people is considered social capital or networking capital (Anderson and Jack, 2002; Cope et al., 2007). Such network relationships may consist of strong and weak ties with other people. According to Manolova et al. (2006), a nascent entrepreneur may access critical resources through relationships based on strong ties. Studies have analysed the relationship YKTT2020 159 between the size and strength of the network with entrepreneurial activities and value of social capital (Anderson, 2008). Even at the emergence stage of a start-up, social capital, based on trust and cooperation, becomes a prerequisite that needs to remain durable (Jayawarna et al., 2011). Similar emphasis has been placed by other scholars, who stress the importance of social capital on the early stages of the new start-up process (Lee and Jones, 2008).
The GEM research also indicates that the knowledge of the nascent entrepreneur about potential customers and their expected locations, e.g. local, regional, national or international, influence the new start-up. Besides this, factors such as knowledge about impact on market structure, information on competitors and information on regulatory requirements are also considered important decision elements (Reynolds and Curtin, 2011). Furthermore, an entrepreneur’s judgement about the technological emphasis in the new business also influences the decision about new start-up formation because in the case of a high-tech start-up, it may affect the products or technique related to the business idea (Reynolds and Curtin, 2011). On the other hand, the introduction of a general-purpose technology, e.g. cloud computing, supports new business creation by reducing the cost of entry into the economy (Etro, 2009). Business creation can be seen as an opportunistic means towards economic wealth via creative start-ups that operate in an uncertain environment and with limited tangible resources (Nga and Shamuganathan, 2010).
One such obstacle is securing financial resources, which are critical to start-up creation (Levenson and Willard, 2000). There is considerable research on the relationship between equity funding and business start-ups (Lam, 2010). Studies within the small firm finance literature propose numerous difficulties that nascent entrepreneurs face to secure primary funding for their start-ups other than their own savings. Essentially, the main reasons include higher return demand from investors, lack of information about possible lenders, higher risks around start-up sustainability and low credibility for external financers (Jayawarna et al., 2011). Finally, institutional conditions chalking out the rules of the game must favour new startups in order to materialise the positive outcomes of new business creation (Urbano et al., 2019). According to Elizabeth et al. (2020), such formal or informal support can be in the form of explicit rules/law, enforcing market mechanisms or professional norms. Besides this, regulations around intellectual property rights, structure of taxation, protection against corruption and national start-up registration procedures are some of the main factors that a nascent entrepreneur needs to tackle (Dau et al., 2014; Thai and Turkina, 2014). The presence of clear and well-established processes leads to new business creation and the economic development of a region (Elizabeth et al., 2020). A considerable portion of new start-ups are formed by university graduates. Future graduates should be able to make informed decisions and find solutions to the prevailing challenges that exist in the complex environment (Rafael et al., 2019). Students’ positive attitude towards 160 YKTT2020 new business creation is essential because it opens up new avenues for their future prospects (Matsheke and Dhurup, 2017). Without such an entrepreneurial attitude, graduates and students can become stagnant, leading to possible delays in long-term regional economic growth and success (Taatila, 2010).
Through entrepreneurship education, HEIs transform students’ understanding about entrepreneurship and guide their behaviour, tendencies and intentions in favour of becoming entrepreneurs (Dhliwayo, 2008). In this sense, events like entrepreneurial hackathons can enhance students’ perception of new business creation. Once such perception is developed into concrete understanding, the students may effectively implement entrepreneurial processes in future, while creating new business entities and operating more competently. METHODOLOGY This study focuses on students’ approach to new business creation. The data for this study come from 81 international students who participated in an entrepreneurial hackathon. Seventy-two male and female students form the sample for this study, out of which the majority (69) belonged to undergraduate degree programmes and three were Master’s level students. Further, eight coaches supported the students’ learning during the event by continuously coaching and organising various activities for the students. The hackathon was organised over two days as a 22-hour cruise in the Baltic Sea in October 2019. The aim of the hackathon was to gather interdisciplinary students together in order to generate business ideas which could result in viable business models at a later stage. During the hackathon, the students were divided into small teams of three to five students, who received coaching from the eight coaches during the whole event. The coaches had the responsibility to design activities and introduce various business management tools that would guide the student teams during this innovation process. By the end of the event, each student team had generated a novel business idea and had the opportunity to present the idea to other student teams and a jury of judges. This study utilised a mixed methods approach as both qualitative and quantitative data were collected to study the students’ approach to new business creation by analysing their choices of factors that influence it. By combining the two approaches, the researchers were able to bring more depth to the study, as each method brought clarity and insight to the other (Burns et al., 2014). The questionnaire developed for this study consisted of two major parts. The first part included demographic data and questions measuring attributes of viable business models and the second part consisted of open-ended questions, which gave the participants an opportunity to express their ideas. The quantitative part of the questionnaire mostly consisted of questions that were designed to assess the importance of various attributes based on a Likert scale from ‘least important’ (1) to ‘most important’ (5). Nominal scales were mainly used to study the demographics of the respondents. YKTT2020 161 The items for the questionnaire were operationalised based on a literature review. In order to maximise the validity and reliability of the study, existing measurements were used and new items were built on the basis of extant literature. The researchers reviewed and revised the questionnaire a few times. They critically analysed each item and added a couple more items, which resulted in small changes in the presentation of the questionnaire. Keeping in view ethical standards, the researchers obtained the consent of the participants prior to collecting the research data.
The data were analysed with the help of SPSS and Excel. The empirical data were entered into the IBM SPSS statistical tool and the data analysis was carried out by applying the Kruskal-Wallis test and pairwise comparisons with Dunn’s post hoc test. The qualitative data were arranged into categories and analysed using Excel. After categorising the data, connections were formed between categories and relationships were identified. The open-ended questions were analysed by picking the individual traits and skills and support needed that the students mentioned. Having analysed the terms, the researchers grouped them together under certain themes. RESULTS This study explores students’ approach to new business creation.
Through the analysis of quantitative empirical data from 69 competed surveys, it touches upon the choices made by male and female students about the attributes of new business creation. 3,00 3,53 3,42 3,48 3,49 3,76 4,03 3,97 4,08 3,00 3,00 3,30 3,50 3,70 3,33 3,69 4,08 4,22 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00 Trade Regulation Knowledge Forecasting Future Markets Entrepreneur's Network Assistance of New Technology Team Dynamics Competition Knowledge Market Knowledge Customer Knowledge Creativity/ Innovation Mean of importance (1 = least important, 5 = most important) Male Female Figure 1. Importance of business creation attributes 162 YKTT2020 As shown in Figure 1, there are some differences between genders, however these are not statistically significant. Nevertheless, this is presented in the study as part of the results. The students were asked to assess the importance of various attributes of business creation on a scale from least important (1) to most important (5). The most important attributes were ‘creativity/innovation’ (4.15) and ‘knowledge of the customers’ (4.00) and of the ‘market’ (3.88). The least important attributes were ‘knowledge of the trade regulations’ (2.94), the ability to ‘forecast future markets’ (3.24) and the ‘entrepreneur’s network’ (3.33). (Figure 2.) 2,96 3,24 3,33 3,48 3,57 3,61 3,88 4,00 4,15 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00 Trade Regulation Knowledge Forecasting Future Markets Entrepreneur's Network Assistance of New Technology Team Dynamics Competition Knowledge Market Knowledge Customer Knowledge Creativity/Innovation Mean of importance (1= least important, 5 = most important) Figure 2. Importance of business creation attributes Students without any entrepreneurial education or experience assessed the importance of ‘market knowledge’ significantly higher compared to students with entrepreneurial education and/or experience (p = 0.010, Table 1). Table 1. Kruskal-Wallis test statistics Kruskal-Wallis H 9,281a df 2 Asymp. Sig. 0,010 aGrouping variable: Educational education and experience Further pairwise comparisons with Dunn’s post hoc test indicate that students with no entrepreneurial education or experience assessed the importance of ‘market knowledge’ clearly higher than students that had entrepreneurial education (p = 0.010, adjusted with Bonferroni correction) (Figure 3). YKTT2020 163 2,33 5,00 3,27 3,69 3,82 3,95 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00 Entrepreneur's Network Market Knowledge Mean of importance (1= least important, 5 = most important) Education and experience Education but no experience No education or experience Figure 3. Assessment of importance based on entrepreneurial education or experience In the overall assessment, the ‘entrepreneur’s network’ was assessed among the three least important attributes. However, student’s entrepreneurial education and experience affected the assessment of this attribute’s importance. (p = 0.035, Table 2.) Table 2. Kruskal-Wallis test statistics Kruskal-Wallis H 6,2732 df 2 Asymp. Sig. 0,035 aGrouping variable: Educational education and experience Pairwise comparisons with Dunn’s post hoc test indicated that students with both entrepreneurial education and experience assessed ‘entrepreneur’s network’ as important, which is statistically significantly higher than students with no entrepreneurial education or experience (p = 0.037, adjusted with Bonferroni correction) (Figure 3).
During the hackathon, students were asked to answer three open-ended questions about their own perception of traits and skills important for new business creation, skills that students think they need to create new start-ups and support students need to create and run their start-ups. Out of 69 students, 59 answered the open-ended questions. Table 3. Student’s perception of the top entrepreneurial traits and skills for new business creation All respondents ► Male students Female students Creativity/Innovation (1st) Communication skills (1st) Creativity/Innovation (1st) Determination/Hard work (1st) Creativity/Innovation (2nd) Communication skills (2nd) Communication skills (2nd) Determination/Hard work (3rd) Determination/Hard work (3rd) Problem-solving skills (3rd) Self-Confidence (3rd) Problem-solving skills (3rd) Leadership skills (3rd) Problem-solving skills (4th) Leadership skills (3rd) Self-Confidence (4th) Leadership skills (4th) Self-Confidence (4th) 164 YKTT2020 In general perception about entrepreneurial traits and skills, 206 terms were mentioned by 59 students. The terms were analysed then grouped under certain themes. As shown in Table 3, ‘creativity/innovation’ and ‘determination/hard work’ were the most commonly written terms by all the students, following by ‘communication skills’ as the second most cited term. Skills like ‘problem-solving’ and ‘leadership’ were equally cited as the third most important s. Finally, nascent entrepreneur’s ‘self-confidence’ was cited as the fourth most important trait. Comparing the overall data from the students, 22 male students wrote ‘communication skills’ as the most important one and considered ‘self-confidence’ as the third most important trait. On the other hand, 35 female students considered skills like ‘communication’ and ‘problem-solving’ and ‘determination/hard work’ as equally important for new business creation. Table 4. Skills needed by students to create new start-ups All respondents ► Male students Female students Financial/Accounting (1st) Financial/Accounting (1st) Financial/Accounting (1st) Opportunity recognition (2nd) Marketing skills (1st) Opportunity recognition (2nd) Attracting external funding (2nd) Networking skills (1st) Attracting external funding (2nd) Marketing skills (3rd) IT skills (2nd) Marketing skills (3rd) IT skills (4th) Legal & Taxation (2nd) IT skills (4th) Legal & Taxation (5th) Legal & Taxation (5th) In the second open-ended question, 135 terms were mentioned across all the students. While analysing the terms, it was found that students need ‘financial/accounting’ skills more than any other mentioned. As shown in Table 4, this was valid for both male and female students.
All the students mentioned ‘recognition of opportunities’ and ‘attracting external funding’ as the second most needed skill. This was valid for female students however, male students considered ‘marketing skills’ and networking skills’ more important. Finally, all male and female students ranked ‘IT skills’ and ‘legal/taxation skills’ as the next important skill that they need to create new business. Table 5. Support needed by the students to create start-ups All respondents ► Male students Female students Finding external funding (1st) Finding external funding (1st) Finding external funding (1st) Finding team (2nd) Creating network (2nd) Finding team (2nd) Legal & taxation (2nd) Finding team (3rd) Legal & taxation (3rd) Creating network (4th) Advisors (5th) YKTT2020 165 Finally, in the third open-ended question about the support that students need, 147 terms were mentioned. As shown in Table 5, by far all male and female students consider ‘finding external funding’ as the most needed support to create start-ups. In general, all respondents mentioned ‘finding team’ and ‘legal & taxation’ as the second most important areas where they required support. This was valid for female students, however, the male students needed support in ‘creating network’. All the students also mentioned having ‘advisors’ who could provide guidance on the process of new business creation. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION This study investigates students’ approach to new business creation by analysing their choices of factors that influence it. It also explores the skills and support required by students to materialise the novel ideas created in an entrepreneurial hackathon. We present the findings generated from an entrepreneurial hackathon, where the students from a Finnish higher educational institution engaged in the business idea generation process and created novel business ideas. Having applied the Kruskal-Wallis test and pairwise comparisons with Dunn’s post hoc test, our analysis revealed that among the various attributes of business creation, students ranked ‘creativity/innovation’ as the most important, followed by ‘knowledge of the customers and ‘knowledge of the market’.
The least important attributes were ‘trade regulation knowledge’, ‘the ability to forecast future markets’ and the ‘entrepreneur’s networks’. This study found t that students with entrepreneurial education and experience had different views about certain attributes compared to those without any entrepreneurial education and experience. For instance, the attribute of ‘market knowledge’ was assessed significantly higher by those students who did not have any entrepreneurial education or experience compared to those with entrepreneurial education and/or experience. Indeed, students with a lack of entrepreneurial education and experience are expected to have different responses compared to those who have participated in entrepreneurial courses or otherwise have entrepreneurial experience. However, it was interesting to note that the students with entrepreneurial education and/or experience ranked ‘market knowledge’ lower than those students who lacked this. In contrast, as expected, the ‘entrepreneur’s network’ attribute was considered more important by students with entrepreneurial education and experience compared to those who lacked this. In the next part of the study that deals with the qualitative empirical data, the results show that there is a noticeable difference between male and female participants’ approach in terms of skills and traits for new business creation. As described in the earlier section, the GEM research project uses gender as one of the main factors that influence new business creation. Although ‘creativity/innovation’ was the first choice of both genders, nevertheless, there was difference in the priority of factors between male and female participants. Similarly, both genders consider ‘financial/accounting’ skills along with ‘opportunity recognition’ and ‘attracting external funding’ needed to create and operate start-ups, however the male 166 YKTT2020 sample suggest that male students consider ‘marketing’ and ‘networking’ skills equally important. Finally, male and female students’ data revealed that ‘finding external funding’ is by far the most sought-after support by the students. The next areas where students need support were ‘finding team’ and dealing with ‘legal & taxation’ matters. The results connect this study to the mainstream research on new business creation in terms of self-efficacy, human capital and financial capital.
The empirical data show that students’ approach to new business creation can be related to these three aspects of creating start-ups. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors would like to express their gratitude to the EU Interreg Central Baltic funded project NOCCA – Novel Opportunities for New Company Creation and Accelerated Growth for providing the valuable research material and opportunity to conduct the research.
YKTT2020 167 REFERENCES Ahlstrom, D. 2010. Innovation and growth: How business contributes to society. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(3), 11–24. Alsos, G.A., Isaksen, E.J., & Ljunggren, E. 2006. New venture financing and subsequent business growth in men–and women–led businesses. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(5), 667–686. Anderson, A., & Jack, S. 2002. The articulation of entrepreneurial social capital: Content and process. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 14(3), 193–210. Anderson, M.H. 2008. Social networks and the cognitive motivation to realize network opportunities: A study of managers’ information gathering behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(1), 51–78. Audretsch, D.B. 2007. Entrepreneurship capital and economic growth. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(1), 63-78. Brijlal, P. 2008. The state of entrepreneurship education at tertiary institutions in the Western Cape. 5. (2), 25–36. Burgelman, R.A., & Välikangas, L. 2005. Managing internal corporate venturing cycles. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46(4), 26. Burns, A.C., Bush, R.F., & Sinha, N. 2014. Marketing Research. 7th ed. Harlow: Pearson Education. Carayannis, E.G., Evans, D., & Hanson, M. 2003. A cross-cultural learning strategy for entrepreneurship education: Outline of key concepts and lessons learned from a comparative study of entrepreneurship students in France and the US. Technovation, 23(9), 757–771. Cooper, A.C., & Gimeno-Gascon, F.J. 1992. Entrepreneurs, process of founding, and new firm performance. In D.L. Sexton & J.D. Kasarda (Eds.), The State of the Art of Entrepreneurship (pp. 301-340). Boston: PSW-Kent. Cooper, A. 2003. Entrepreneurship: The past, the present, the future. In Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research (pp. 21–34). Boston, MA: Springer. Cope, J., Jack, S., & Rose, M. 2007. Social capital and entrepreneurship: An introduction. International Small Business Journal 25(3), 213–20. 168 YKTT2020 Dau, L.A. & Cuervo-Cazurra, A. 2014. To formalize or not to formalize: Entrepreneurship and pro-market institutions. Journal of Business Venturing, 29, 668–86. De Faoite, D., Henry, C., Johnston, K., & Van der Sijde, P. 2003. Education and training for entrepreneurs: A consideration of initiatives in Ireland and The Netherlands. Education & Training, 45(8/9), 430–438. Dhliwayo, S. 2008. Experiential learning in entrepreneurship education: A prospective model for South African tertiary institutions. Education & Training, 50(4), 329–340. Etro, F. 2009. The economic impact of cloud computing on business creation, employment and output in Europe. Review of Business and Economics, 54(2), 179–208. Fraser, S. 2004. Finance for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises: A Report of the 2004 UK survey of SME Finances. Coventry: Warwick University. Galloway, L., & Brown, W. 2002. Entrepreneurship education at university: A driver in the creation of high growth firms. Education and Training, 44(8/9), 398–405. Gartner, W.B. 1989a. ‘‘Who is an entrepreneur?’’ is the wrong question. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 12(2), 47–68. Gartner, W.B. 1989b. Some suggestions for research on entrepreneurial traits and characteristics. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14(1), 27–38. He’bert, R.F., & Link, A.N. 1982. The Entrepreneur: Mainstream Views and Radical Critiques. New York, NY: Praeger. Hoselitz, B.F. 1960. The Early History of Entrepreneurial Theory. Essays in Economic Thought: Aristotle to Marshall. JJ Spengler and WR Allen. Chicago: Rand McNally. Jayawarna, D., Jones, O., & Macpherson, A. 2011. New business creation and regional development: Enhancing resource acquisition in areas of social deprivation. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 23(9-10), 735–761. Keat, Y., & Ahmad, O.S. 2012. A study among university students in business start-ups in Malaysia: Motivations and obstacles to become entrepreneurs. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(19), 181–192. Lam, W. 2010. Funding gap, what funding gap? Financial bootstrapping: Supply, demand and creation of entrepreneurial finance. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 16(4), 268–95. YKTT2020 169 Lee, D.Y., & Tsang, E.W.K. 2001. The effects of entrepreneurial personality, background and network activities on venture growth. Journal of Management Studies, 38(4), 583–602. Levenson, A.R., & Willard, K.L. 2000. Do firms get the financing they want? Measuring credit rationing experienced by small businesses in the U.S. Small Business Economics 14(2), 83–94. Louw, L., Van Eeden, S.M., Bosch, J.K., & Venter, D.J.L. 2003. Entrepreneurial traits of undergraduate students at selected South African tertiary institutions. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 9(1), 5–26. Luger, M.I., & Koo, J. 2005. Defining and tracking business start-ups. Small Business Economics, 24(1), 17–28. Matsheke, O., & Dhurup, M. 2017. Entrepreneurial-related programmes and students’ intentions to venture into new business creation: finding synergy of constructs in a University of Technology. Science, Technology and Society, 22(2), 259–283. Menzies, T.V., Diochon, M., Gasse, Y., & Elgie, S. 2006. A longitudinal study of the characteristics, business creation process and outcome differences of Canadian female vs. male nascent entrepreneurs. The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 2(4), 441–453. Montgomery, M., Johnson, T., & Faisal, S. 2005. What kind of capital do you need to start a business: Finance or human? The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 45, 103–22. Moore, E.M., Dau, L.A., & Doh, J. 2020. Does monetary aid catalyse new business creation? Analyzing the impact of global aid flows on formal and informal entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Studies, 57(3), 438–469. Nga, J.K.H., & Shamuganathan, G. 2010. The influence of personality traits and demographic factors on social entrepreneurship start up intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(2), 259–282. Rasmussen, E.A., & Sørheim, R. 2006. Action-based entrepreneurship education. Technovation, 26(2), 185–194. Rauch, A., & Frese, M. 2007. Let’s put the person back into entrepreneurship research: A meta-analysis on the relationship between business owners’ personality traits, business creation, and success. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16(4), 353–385. 170 YKTT2020 Ravina-Ripoll, R., Núñez-Barriopedro, E., Galiano-Coronil, A., & Tobar-Pesántez, L.B. 2019. Towards a happy, creative and social higher education institution: the case of non-profit marketing and business creation subjects at the University of Cadiz. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 22(1), 1–8. Reynolds, P.D. 2011. Informal and early formal financial support in the business creation process: Exploration with PSED II data set. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 27–54. Reynolds, P.D., & Curtin, R.T. (Eds.). 2011. New Business Creation: An International Overview. Springer Science & Business Media Ruef, M., Aldrich, H.E., & Carter, N.M. 2003. The structure of founding teams: Homophily, strong ties, and isolation among US entrepreneurs. American Sociological Review, 68, 195–222. San Tan, S., & Ng, C.F. 2006. A problem‐based learning approach to entrepreneurship education. Education & Training, 48(6), 416–428. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. 2000. The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Journal, 25(1), 217–226. Sternberg, R., & Wennekers, S. 2005. Determinants and effects of new business creation using global entrepreneurship monitor data. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 193–203. Stewart, W.H., & Roth, P.L. 2001. Risk propensity differences between entrepreneurs and managers: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 145–153. Taatila, V.P. 2010. Learning entrepreneurship in higher education. Education and Training, 52(1), 48–61. Thai, M.T.T. & Turkina, E. 2014. Macro-level determinants of formal entrepreneurship versus informal entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 29, 490–510. Tomizawa, A., Zhao, L., Bassellier, G., & Ahlstrom, D. 2019. Economic growth, innovation, institutions, and the Great Enrichment. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, https://doi. org/10.1007/s10490-019-09648-2. Urbano, D., Aparicio, S., & Audretsch, D. 2019. Twenty-five years of research on institutions, entrepreneurship and economic growth: What has been learned?’ Small Business Economics, 53, 21–49. YKTT2020 171 Veciana, J., Aponte, M., & Urbano, D. 2005. University students’ attitudes towards entrepreneurship: A two countries comparison. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 1(2), 165–182. Vesper, K. H. 1988. Entrepreneurial academics: How can we tell when the field is getting somewhere? Journal of Business Venturing, 3(1), 1–10. Wetter, E., & Wennberg, K. 2009. Improving business failure prediction for new firms: Benchmarking financial models with human and social capital. Journal of Private Equity, 12(2), 30–7. Yang, J.Y., & Li, J.T. 2008. The development of entrepreneurship in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 25, 335–359.