The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0040-0912.htm

Impact of entrepreneurship Impact of

entrepreneurship
programmes on programmes
university students
Patricia P. Iglesias-Snchez 209
Department of Economics and Business Organisation, Received 10 January 2015
Marketing Research Area, Malaga University, Malaga, Spain Revised 9 May 2015
19 September 2015
Carmen Jambrino-Maldonado 15 November 2015
Department of Economics and Business Organisation, Accepted 16 November 2015
Malaga University, Malaga, Spain
Antonio Peafiel Velasco
Department of Cooperation with Companies and Employee Promotion,
Malaga University, Malaga, Spain, and
Husam Kokash
College of Business, Prince Sultan University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate entrepreneurship in Malaga University based on
the Theory of Planned Behaviour model. There are two objectives: to analyse the influence of the main
elements of orientation to entrepreneurship and to evaluate the efficiency of education programmes in
the university system.
Design/methodology/approach The authors have chosen Ajzens influential model (1991)
for analysing entrepreneurial intention as the basis for the analysis of a sample of 392 students at
Malaga University.
Findings The results suggest that the students predisposition to entrepreneurship is moderate
because perceived risk and ideas about their own abilities hinder their decision to start up a business.
Practical implications This research has practical implications for universities involved in
designing programmes aimed at business creation.
Social implications This research provides interesting insights which could help new companies
to be created, thus alleviating the unemployment resulting from the economic crisis.
Originality/value With the help of this widely used theoretical model to study, the authors analyse
the impact of Entrepreneurship Education Programmes in higher education. It is only a starting point
from which to evaluate which elements should be reinforced in entrepreneurship programmes if they
are to achieve effective results.
Keywords Entrepreneurial intention, Entrepreneurship, Higher education,
Entrepreneurship education programmes, Social environment, Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
In recent times entrepreneurship has been considered a key element of development, and
even part of the solution to the current economic situation (White and Reynolds, 1996;
Storey, 1999; Audretsch and Thurik, 2001; Reynolds et al., 2002). Entrepreneurship has
become a driving force behind economic and social development, as well as productivity,
and, in certain environments, innovation. Given this scenario, international policy Education + Training
concentrates some of its efforts on promoting entrepreneurship, but particular Vol. 58 No. 2, 2016
pp. 209-228
importance is placed on preparing entrepreneurs, whose activity will support economic Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0040-0912
sustainability (Porter, 1990; Wennekers et al., 2005). DOI 10.1108/ET-01-2015-0004
ET Universities all over the world, for their part, have been taking on their third role,
58,2 that of the Entrepreneurial University, adding this to their role as a centre of education
and as an environment for research (Commission of the European Communities, 2007;
Iglesias-Snchez et al., 2014). Additionally, the new models of higher education,
particularly the European higher education area at a European level, have contributed
to the incorporation of entrepreneurship as an unavoidable part of academic
210 programmes. Gradually, more and more qualifications specifically include a course on
setting up a business, with this kind of knowledge being imparted across the
curriculum in other subjects, and in supplementary programmes aimed at fostering
the entrepreneurial spirit throughout university studies.
Education plays a prominent role in entrepreneurs perception, confidence, ability and
level of conviction and it is for this reason that this research paper focuses on analysing
the cognitive factors that affect entrepreneurial intention (EI). The basis of the analysis
is the model put forward by Azjen (1991), Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB). Many
studies have drawn on this theoretical framework to approach EI (Fayolle et al., 2006;
Postigo et al., 2006; Gasse and Tremblay, 2006, 2011; Bakotic and Kruzic, 2010; Iqbal et al.,
2014). Although this research paper focuses on these elements, it is undeniable that
attitudes are not just a product of cognitive factors. The decision to set up a business in
any situation is also affected by other important external factors (Daz Casero et al., 2012).
Through the analysis of intention and perceptions of entrepreneurship among
students at Malaga University it is possible to both investigate the effectiveness of new
models of education and to find out more about university students general perception
of entrepreneurship as a possible career direction. The results demonstrate the positive
development of entrepreneurship. They also reflect the need to continue reinforcing
training programmes which emphasise practice over theory, thereby allowing
university students to develop their entrepreneurial competence. This will enable them
to run their own businesses or to apply this knowledge in a company if they choose to
develop their professional career within one.
This research paper is divided into three main sections. The first section reviews the
existing literature on EI and behaviour, placing particular emphasis on the model put
forward by Azjen (1991) as well as studies which have used this model in a university
context. The next section explains the methodology followed, the sample and the
instruments used, etc. The last part contrasts the hypotheses, combining descriptive and
a multivariate statistical analysis. This will allow us to draw conclusions and look into
the practical implications for decision making regarding the design of university
programmes which incorporate entrepreneurship. The paper ends by identifying the
main limitations and proposing future lines of investigation. This study is innovative in
that it employs TPB to call into question the Entrepreneurship Education Programmes
(EEPs) offered by the University of Malaga, in this case. Only understanding perception
and attitudes of students about the entrepreneurship and how their visions can change
with a EEPs is possible the development and designing a more effective methodology,
mechanism and complete system to support the entrepreneurship in higher education.

Literature review
Entrepreneurship can be considered a driving force for the competitiveness of the
economy, as is confirmed by the various government decision-making bodies and their
strategies, plans and programmes aimed at supporting and encouraging the
entrepreneurial spirit at an international level. The European Commission, and, in
recent years, institutions of higher education, take a clear stance on this, thus creating a
favourable environment for entrepreneurs. Many studies have demonstrated the Impact of
relationship between the economic development of a country and its capacity to create entrepreneurship
new companies and jobs (Holgrem and From, 2005; Wennekers et al., 2005; Van Praag,
2007; Amors and Bosma, 2014). Given the general agreement on the matter, it is
programmes
necessary to define the concept of entrepreneurial initiative more clearly. Taking a
comprehensive approach, it refers to the capacity to discover new opportunities in the
market (Kirzner, 1979), the creation of new companies (Gartner, 1985) or new and 211
innovative projects (Casson, 1995). By extension, entrepreneurs will always be involved in
the creation of businesses; taking on responsibilities, exploiting opportunities present in
their environment, dealing with risk, and making their projects successful, demonstrating
a level of novelty and innovation that allows them to survive and remain in the market
( Johnson, 2001). Nevertheless, entrepreneurship is a process that happens over a period of
time, and its first phase is an entrepreneurial attitude (Asenjo and Barber, 2013).
This attitude is the result of a way of thinking and behaving (personality), together with
external variables (situational and social) and these form the basis of models to predict
entrepreneurial behaviour (Krueger et al., 2000). The aforementioned study is based on the
belief that EEP foster, to a certain extent, an inclination towards entrepreneurship.
In recent years, curiosity on the subject has given rise to a rapid growth in research on
the introduction of business creation as a specific area of studies, as well as concern that
entrepreneurial competence be taught systematically on degree courses, influencing
the entrepreneurial attitude of university students (Matlay, 2005; Fayolle et al., 2006, 2008;
Wu and Wu, 2008; Snchez, 2011; Fenton and Barry, 2014; Hattab, 2014).

Approach to the analysis of entrepreneurial attitude

Different models have been put forward to study entrepreneurial attitude, all of which
identify the competences which move someone to set up a business: initiative,
creativity, independence, amount of risk accepted, etc. (Turker and Selcuck, 2009;
Urban, 2012). Although by now everyone agrees that certain personality traits better
equip someone to become an entrepreneur, there is also an acknowledgement of the
direct influence of learning and developing other characteristics necessary to set up
and develop a business, such as negotiation, communication skills, leadership, the
ability to work in a team, etc. These are precisely the characteristics which have given
rise to university-level programmes or subjects seeking to prepare the student both for
work in a company and self-employment. As a consequence, a part of the research on
entrepreneurship behaviour and orientation concentrates on measuring the
characteristics of entrepreneurs (Yniz and Villardn, 2006; Zhao et al., 2010).
It seems more appropriate to use scales conforming to the TPB, in which case the
reference model in the literature is the one put forward by Azjen (1991) which analyses
personal attitudes (PA), social norms (SN) and perceived behavioural control (PBC), in other
words, the perception of ones own ability to be an entrepreneur and be able to control the
action of setting up a business. These three factors which condition the intention to become
an entrepreneur are modulated by others which can have a direct impact on them, for
example education (Basu and Virick, 2010; Darmanto and Wahyudi, 2014).
Other authors attempt to combine the features-based approach and the TPB in their
work (Fayolle et al., 2006, 2008; Bakotic and Kruzic, 2010; Dewi Astuti and Martdianty,
2012; Asenjo and Barber, 2013; Iqbal et al., 2013; Malebana, 2014).
Finally, there is a body of work which draws on the Institutional Economic Theory
that suggests that the institutional context (cultural, social, political and economic)
determines entrepreneurship in a region (Carree et al., 2002; Shaw and Urban, 2011;
ET Lian et al., 2011; Imram et al., 2011) and therefore the differences between zones in
58,2 terms of the ability to set up businesses.
The aforementioned ideas all constitute the main lines of development in this area of
study, and scientific debate continues to revolve around them. The field
of entrepreneurship extends to many disciplines, and its scholars approach it from
many different perspectives, including economics, socioeconomic development,
212 strategic management, psychology and marketing ( Jones et al., 2014). The basis of
our research work is the TPB, since the combination of demographic factors and the
personality of the individual, contrasted with the social environment, information
available and the possible effects of this on individual behaviour (Azjen, 2005), offers a
more holistic view of the analysis of EI.

Entrepreneurial attitude target group

Investigations on EI and behaviour have mainly focused on MBA students (Zao et al.,
2005; Barbosa et al., 2007) and entrepreneurs (McGee et al., 2009). However, there have also
been numerous investigations which have analysed the phenomenon using university
graduates and undergraduates, given that this collective is facing immediate dilemmas on
how to navigate their personal and professional lives, and the decision of whether to set up
a business is likely to be relevant. It is precisely at this stage, prior to the decision to start a
business, in which it makes sense to apply the TPB and verify which factors are most
likely to point the student in the direction of entrepreneurship (Scott and Twomey, 1998;
Carree et al., 2002; Pruett et al., 2009; Sesen, 2013). Having said this, some studies have
focused on other collectives, such as secondary school students (Finisterra Do Paco et al.,
2011). Our study concentrates on university students from various different courses, and
recent graduates of the University of Malaga, some of whom have participated in EEPs,
Those who had not already participated in EEPs constitute the control group. It seeks to
find out more about EI in general terms and with the influence of these programmes.

Review of the application of Azjens TPB

The TPB put forward by Azjen (1991) has given rise to the development of numerous
investigations in different contexts, given that, applied together; attitudes, SN and
perceived control are good indicators of behaviour in the future. Various studies have
used this model to analyse EI, in various different ways. Some have applied the theory
to the reality of specific universities, including Wu and Wu (2008) focusing on students
of a university in Shanghai; Basu and Virick (2010), in the university of San Jos in the
USA; Bakoti et al. (2010), for a Croatian university; Hattab (2014); in an Eygptian
university or Malebana (2014) for 234 students in a university in South Africa.
Other studies have compared different universities or countries to test the theory
and verify the weight of each of the indicators of EI. We can cite studies by Gasse and
Tremblay (2001) who included seven countries, or Pruett et al. (2009) who compared over
1,000 university students from China, the USA and Spain. Both studies show that
cultural differences have a considerable effect on ones predisposition to start a business.
Other research of this type includes a study by Lin et al. (2011), which compares the
EI of 594 university students in the regions of Catalonia and Andalusia in Spain or by
Dewi Astuti and Martdianty (2012) who compare different universities in Indonesia.
A more innovative approach is taken in studies by Fayolle et al. (2006), Sanchez
(2011) and Asenjo et al. (2013) which focus on analysing the impact of entrepreneurship
programmes supported by Azjens theory (1991) in higher education. The first study
mentioned focuses on French university students of engineering, the second looks at Impact of
students of business studies in the University of Castile and Leon, and the last one entrepreneurship
includes law students at the Catholic University (Universidad Catlica) of Murcia.
Our study is formulated on this last line of development.
programmes

Azjens theoretical framework

Azjens TPB from 1991 is considered the most solid model for explaining predisposition 213
and intention to set up a business, especially if we focus on pedagogical processes and
learning contexts (Fayolle et al., 2006; Krueger et al., 2000). TPB must be considered a
predictor of behaviour as well as a perfectly valid indicator in EEPs (Fayolle and Gailly,
2015). The theory is based on three issues which the individual internalises as a result
of the social environment they find themselves in. EI is a result of the interaction
between PA; SN; and PBC. In this sense, a person becomes an entrepreneur because of
his or her personality, a positive image of entrepreneurship projected by society and
support from the most influential groups of people in his or her life. The perception of
ones own ability is also key here, as well as ones confidence in the business project
being successful (Figure 1).
Attitudes towards EIs. The first set of variables that determine EI are what is known
as PA towards entrepreneurship; peoples positive or negative opinion of
entrepreneurship. The more favourable this opinion, the greater likelihood of the
individual demonstrating the potential for entrepreneurial behaviour in the future.
SN. The term SN refers to perceived support from the groups of people closest to the
person: family, friends, fellow students or work colleagues, etc. The model establishes a
link between the intention to start a business and the expectations, pressure and
approval of ones behaviour by ones closest community.
PBC. The third issue influencing EI is the degree of PBC. This means whether the
person perceives being an entrepreneur as easy or difficult, as well as their opinion of
their own ability to overcome problems and achieve an acceptable degree of success if
they accept the risk associated with setting up a business.

Influence of EEPs
At this stage, the main debate revolves around how EEPs influence the variables
defined in models such as Azjens (1991) TPB model. It is imperative to find out the
extent to which these programmes are implemented in the university in order to
expand the future prospects of recent graduates. Also pending is a detailed account of
the extent to which these contents and approaches affect the personal development
of the students ( Jones et al., 2014). At present, EEPs are designed to work on three
dimensions: knowledge, competences and abilities (Matlay, 2005) and, in some measure,
this structure coincides with that proposed by the TPB model. Most studies focus on

Personal Attitudes

Entrepreneur
Social Norms
Intention
Figure 1.
Model TPB of
Perceived Behavioral Control Azjen (1991)
ET demonstrating the relationship between participation in these programmes and EI, but
58,2 few studies go on to make specific proposals as to how these programmes can
guarantee the ideal standards (Matlay, 2005; Fayolle et al., 2006; Jones et al., 2014).
We will go on to list some of the most significant proposals. Bae et al. (2014) uses 73
studies with a sample size of 37,285 to highlight the correlation between
entrepreneurship education and EIs. This study stands out, not only because of its
214 scope and comparability, but also because of the direction of its analysis of EI,
identifying the following groups of potential moderators: first, the attributes of the
education itself (duration and specificity of entrepreneurship education), second, an
individuals background (socio-demographic profile), third, contextual factors (family
background, culture, collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, etc.), and fourth,
operationalization of entrepreneurship education (self-report evaluations of EEP and
EI from participants in entrepreneurship education. Fayolle and Gailly (2015), for their
part, also conclude that EEPs have a positive effect on EI, but they choose to focus on
answering questions about for their part, also conclude that EEPs have a positive effect
on EI, but they choose to focus on answering questions about which factors (the profile
of the participants, the methodology, the duration, etc.) are the most influential. In this
way they analyse the phenomenon from the perspective of PA and characteristics, the
social setting and the operationalization of programmes.
Other studies, such as the one undertaken by Varela and Jimnez (2001), compare
the result for EI in different EEP in Colombia, and establish that those programmes
that dedicate more resources to support and training make a greater impact.
In conclusion, most of the studies confirm, at some level, the influence of EEPs on EI
(Varela and Jimnez, 2001; Matlay, 2005; Bae, 2014; Fayolle et al., 2006; Jones et al., 2014;
Fayolle and Gailly, 2015). Having said this, the challenge is not only to know if current
EEPs are influencing EI (Zhao et al., 2010), but second, to analyse their elements and find
out how changes to their design and structure can bring about a growth in EI in the
university community. It would also be advisable to identify solid control variables in order
to make international comparisons, and propose structured models for the design and
implementation of EEPs. This study aims to address these issues, and the reflections found
in the study are the main innovation from which further advances in this field can be made.
This research paper poses key questions on entrepreneurship, focussing on students
attending Malaga University whose academic programmes included the subject
of entrepreneurship:
What is the EI of this group of students?
Which factors influence EI the most?
How can EEP increase EI in universities? The authors of this study have used this
question as a base from which to determine which methodology, teaching instruments,
approaches and duration can give the best results in terms of entrepreneurship.
To answer these questions we have formulated a series of working hypotheses:
H1. There is a crucial relationship between PA, SN and PBC and EI.
H2. The following factors have a positive impact on each other:
H2.1. PA and SN.
H2.2. SN and PBC.
H2.3. PA and PBC.
H3. In the case of students at Malaga University, EI depends on the following factors:
 H3.1. PA. Impact of
H3.2. SN. entrepreneurship
H3.3. PBC. programmes
H4. Participation in EEP increases the EI of university students because the
dimensions of Azjens model improve both individually and as a whole.
215
Methodology
Measures and instrument
The design of the questionnaire was modelled on the aforementioned TPB (Azjen, 1991),
due to its strength as a framework in the development of investigations in this field as well
as its explanatory capacity according to the literature reviewed. The study by Iqbal et al.
(2013) was another source of support because of its similarity to our investigation in terms
of its approach and objectives. The questionnaire was divided into four blocks: PA
consisting of five items; SN consisting of three; PBC with six; and EI, measured with
another five items. To analyse each one of them we used a scale of seven points (Likert
scale) with 1 expressing the strongest disagreement and 7 the highest level of agreement.
Data collection
The field work took place in the second four months of the academic year 2013/2014 at
Malaga University, and gave priority to qualifications which included specific courses on
business creation or, failing that, had some kind of programme designed to foster the
entrepreneurial spirit. The University of Malaga has started to incorporate courses
designed to foster entrepreneurship into the final years of some of its degree programmes.
These courses are almost always compulsory, highly practical, and very much focussed on
the business model and developing a business plan. In other cases, more cross-curricular
courses about economics or business deal with the subject of business
creation specifically. The university offers supplementary activities designed to increase
awareness of entrepreneurship, which are not compulsory. Nevertheless, we tried to
achieve a fair distribution between students at lower levels who had not taken the specific
courses on entrepreneurship yet (control group) and those higher level students who had
done so; or had participated in supplementary entrepreneurship programmes. The sample
consisted of 382 students in order to maintain levels of statistical confidence (95 per cent)
and margin of error (5 per cent) statistically recommended. We opted for a questionnaire
accompanied by a letter summarising the objective of the study, which was distributed by
the participating professors during term-time both in class and on the virtual campus.
The universitys careers guidance service was also involved. This was an especially
attractive option, given that its users are facing decisions on their professional development
in the near future, leaning towards either entrepreneurship or employment in a company.
The involvement of the careers guidance service goes some way to dealing with a
limitation frequently shown in previous studies. EI is measured at a specific moment in
time but it is difficult to monitor whether it results in new businesses being set up in the
end. Our study does not give any definitive answers, but it does allow us to observer recent
graduates who use the universitys careers guidance service and the path they take:
working for a company or self-employment.

Validity and reliability

The literature reviewed already guaranteed the validity of the questionnaire, but in
addition we validated the internal consistency of the questionnaire as an instrument of
ET investigation by applying Cronbachs for all the factors that formed each of the four
58,2 blocks: PA, SN, PBC, and EI, exceeding the reference values with 0.93. In addition we
checked the confidence coefficient for the four dimensions on which the questionnaire is
structured and obtained results in the range of over 0.8. EI is the variable which
depends on the three other dimensions (PA, SN, PBC). These three are independent and
have a direct influence on the levels of orientation to entrepreneurship among the
216 students at Malaga University.

Multivariate analysis
The object of this study is to test the influence and the relationships existing between the
orientation to entrepreneurship of university students with a series of internal factors as
defined in Azjens (1991) model. For this reason we have chosen a multivariate analysis
technique: linear regression. This type of analysis is suitable for explaining the point to
which the TPB affects EI as well as its predictive ability. Since we are most interested in
the impact of EEPs on EI, the control variables we are using are those related to
socio-demographic factors, paying particular attention to studies (degree), and personal/
academic/professional experience. The elements of the reference model: PA, SN and PBC;
are considered as independent variables, with EI as the principal dependent variable.

Results and analysis

Descriptive analysis: general demographic
Being going into detail on the relationships between variables and their significance for
the population, we will carry out a descriptive analysis of the sample, consisting of 382
students at Malaga University, in order to present a general view of its make up (Table I).
As shown in the table, both genders are well represented in the study (44.5 per cent men
and 55.5 per cent women) which is in line with the gender balance at Malaga University.
Research was aimed predominantly at students on degree courses which included
specific input on business creation or similar, although some students preparing for other
qualifications were also included. This was done with the aim of making comparisons
between the design of the qualification as a whole and the entrepreneurship training added
to courses. Most of the students participating studied in the business and management
faculty and the economic and business sciences faculty, totalling 55.5 per cent. Other
qualifications accounted for 4-7 per cent each, as shown in the pie chart (Figure 2).
As we can see in the table, 45 per cent of the students were undergraduates in their
final year at university, students taking postgraduate or masters courses before
entering the job market, and students who had finished their studies within the
previous two years. We wanted to give more weight to the last stages of university life,
since this is naturally the time when people consider their future options: employment
in a company or setting up their own business.
All the qualifications selected contained material on business creation as part of the study
programme. Entrepreneurship usually forms a compulsory part of final year studies, but
we took into account that some students may have taken an optional subject on
entrepreneurship, or supplementary activities which foster the entrepreneurial spirit
organised by the university, in which case a pre-existing inclination towards
entrepreneurship is assumed. In consistency with this, 46 per cent were students who
still had not been involved in EEP, while 54 per cent had. Of this group, 45 per cent were
taking or had taken a specific course on business creation and entrepreneurship, while 9
per cent had already participated in some kind of supplementary programmes on business
creation offered by the university, despite not yet having reached the moment in the study
 Frecuency %
Impact of
entrepreneurship
Gender Male 170 44.5 programmes
Female 212 55.5
University Telecommunications/Computer Sciences 16 4.2
qualification Industrial Engineering 19 5
Sciences 14 3.7
Economic and Business Sciences and Business and 217
Management 212 55.5
Social Studies and Labour Sciences 28 7.3
Law 26 6.8
Communications Sciences 22 5.8
Tourism 20 5.2
Other 25 6.5
Year 1 87 22.8
2 54 14,1
3 68 17.8
4 109 28.5
Master/Doctorate 25 6.5
Recently graduateda 39 10.2
Participants in EEP Non-participants in EEP 176 45
Participants in EEP 216 55
Nationality Spanish 340 89
Non-Spanish 44 11 Table I.
Note: aLess than two years since the finalisation of degree Demographic factors

Telecommunications / Computer Sciences Industrial Engineering

Sciences Economical Sciences and Business Administration
Social Studies and Labour Sciences Law
Communications Sciences Tourism
Other
5% 7% 4% 5%
6% 4%
7%
Figure 2.
7%
55% Distribution
of degrees

plan where this subject appears. This decision does mean there are certain limitations,
which we will discuss in the relevant section, but which basically affect the possibility of
measuring the predisposition and attitude towards entrepreneurship of the same students
before and after participating in the EEP. Also affected is the identification of the students
real motivation to participate in these programmes, especially the non-compulsory
electives, given that although they are not a core part of the course they do count as course
credits. In any case, previous studies like the one by Kolvereid and Moen (1997) or Lin
(2004) establish that people who choose to take supplementary programmes on their own
initiative have higher levels of EI.
Initially, we thought of incorporating the variable of nationality, but non-Spanish
citizens were not very well represented in the sample (89 per cent Spanish nationality
and 11 per cent other nationalities). However, these proportions are similar to the
percentage of non-Spanish students attending Malaga University as a whole.
ET Descriptive analyses of main variables
58,2 We will now analyse the blocks of the questionnaire which represent each of the
determining elements of the TPB: PA, SN, PBC and EI.
The test of validity and reliability for each indicator of the model was not carried
out, given that this had already been done by Azjen (1991) both for the factors and the
scales of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) including a mid-point of 4
218 (moderately agree).
As we can see from the data in Table II, the total of averages for PA is slightly over 5.
Statements with a higher average include /If I had the opportunity and the resources I
would like to start my own businessS (5.41) and /Becoming an entrepreneur would
bring me great satisfactionS. However, the items with a lower average reflect the
existence of certain doubts as to the positive outcomes of being an entrepreneur (PA1, 4.68)
and the assessment of being an entrepreneur as one of the options that university students
consider (PA5, 4.96). The analysis shows an interesting point of intersection between the
value of PA3 and PA1. It appears that if the perception of risk is lower because resources
are available and there appears to be a clear opportunity, university students would be
more predisposed to start a business. In contrast, when they think of entrepreneurship in a
general sense, they perceive more disadvantages than advantages to it.
The SN indicators detect the sources of influence on the entrepreneurship
demonstrated by university students within their immediate circle of family and
friends, and the somewhat more distant circle of colleagues. The average of the three
items (5.42) reflects the perception of an acceptable degree of support if they were to
choose to set up a business. Parents and immediate family provide the highest value
(5.51), closely followed by 5.47 for friends (Table III). Other studies relate parental
influence to the initial need for support and the consent expected for starting a business
(Iqbal et al., 2013), although in the case of Spain, potential financial support appears to
play a bigger role than consent at a socio-cultural level.
This indicator as a whole is the only one which does not achieve the optimal values
of reliability. If we apply Cronbachs to this case, we obtain just below the required
value of 0.8, whereas the items in the rest of the blocks are above it. In any case the

Id. Item Mean SD Cronbachs

PA1 Being an entrepreneur implies more advantages than

disadvantages to me 4.68 1,341 0.096
PA2 A career as entrepreneur is attractive for me 5.07 1,547 0.096
PA3 If I had the opportunity and resources, Id like to start a firm 5.41 1,561 0.096
PA4 Being an entrepreneur would entail great satisfactions for me 5.35 1,590 0.096
Table II. PA5 Among various options, I would rather be an entrepreneur 4.96 1,585 0.096
Personal attitudes Note: Total average means 5.09

Id. Item Mean SD Cronbachs

SN1 Your close family 5.51 1,461 0.78

SN2 Your friends 5.47 1,327 0.78
Table III. SN3 Your colleagues 5.29 1,376 0.78
Social norms Note: Total average means 5.42
literature reviewed supports this result, since the values are higher in groups in which Impact of
there is more experience and involvement with self-employed people in their immediate entrepreneurship
environment (Fayolle and Gailly, 2015). In the case of Spain, however, this type of
background and familiarity with entrepreneurship in general is not especially apparent
programmes
in any of the groups studied: family, friends and colleagues.
In the TPB model, PBC is a key element which is measured using six items, and in
the case of this sample it is the element that obtained the lowest average of all the 219
indicators (3.72). All the values are above 3.50 but they do not reach the value of 4
which reflects moderate agreement. The results are set out in detail in Table IV.
In general terms, students at Malaga University do not consider themselves ready to
become entrepreneurs and undertake the relevant preparation: draw up a business
plan, define their project, find out about the steps to take when creating a company, etc.
Nor do they have a clear vision of the decision of set up a business leading to success.
A possible explanation could be the risk aversion and the fear of failure (Hofstede, 1980)
present in Spain as well as the fact that material on business creation is still not taught
across the curriculum, but is gradually being incorporated into university education
programmes as a specific subject reserved for the last years of degree courses.
The items which obtained the lowest averages care: Knowledge of the practical
details necessary to start a business (3.51), Knowledge of how to draw up a business
plan (3.63) and Sufficient knowledge of the process of creating a new business (3.64).
In contrast, the items which achieved the highest average scores demonstrate that
the students are confident in their own abilities and have a certain amount of
self-esteem or achievement orientation. In descending order, the group placed a value of
3.91 on having a high probability of success if they started a business (PBC6). This
value is almost the same as the one obtained for the perception that it would be easy for
them to establish a business and work on their chosen project (PBC1).
The variables that make up PBC and the values obtained in the sample seem to be
the ones that universities have the most possibilities of adapting when designing EEPs
to provide their students with a solid practical and theoretical framework. In this way
students could feel prepared to set up a business in the short term, whether or not they
eventually take this step (Fayolle and Gailly, 2015).
The EI indicator, consisting of six items, reached an average of 4.23, making it the
second lowest of the blocks in the PBC. This means that the Malaga University students
intention to start a business is moderate, as we can see in Table V. However, it is worth
noting that the item referring to the desire to start a business one day (EI6) reached
almost 5, which could mean that setting up ones own business is attractive but that this
group sees it as a medium to long-term option in general. This could be supported by the

Id. Item Mean SD Cronbachs

PBC1 To start a firm and keep it working would be easy for me 3.90 1,520 0.096
PBC2 I am prepared to start a viable firm 3.77 1,568 0.096
PBC3 I can control the creation process of a new firm 3.64 1,578 0.096
PBC4 I know the necessary practical details to start a firm 3.51 1,545 0.096
PBC5 I know how to develop an entrepreneurial project 3.63 1,628 0.096
PBC6 If I tried to start a firm, I would have a high probability of Table IV.
succeeding 3.91 1,487 0.096 Perceived
Note: Total average means 3.72 behavioural control
ET item which achieved a lower average I am ready to become an entrepreneur (3.76).
58,2 Certainty about being an entrepreneur is moderate and although it could be a potential
option for the distant future, the typical university student does not appear to be
especially predisposed towards entrepreneurship. The previous indicator, PBC, which
also obtained a low average, could have something to do with the values obtained in this
last block (EI). Thus the dependence between the two seems to be evident, but the most
220 important thing, as stated before, is that the university can have a positive influence on
EI via its EEPs. In order to achieve this, it is necessary to seek a closer understanding of
which elements of these programmes are really effective and why.
The aim of the study is to find out the extent to which EEP affect university students
EI, so we separated the results for students who were participating in this type
of programmes or had done so in the past and students who had not received this type of
training and knowledge yet. The differences are significant, as we can see in Table VI.
EI is almost one point higher for students who have participated in entrepreneurship-
specific programmes than for students who have not. This behaviour is repeated in the
PA and PBC indicators, but SN appears to be unaffected. An explanation for this could
be that the SN understood in Azjens model as the support received by the student from
the most influential groups in his or her life (family, friends and colleagues) do not
experience any substantial changes. This is because they are external, and not affected
by the contents or motivation present in the EEP, our object of analysis.
Statistical analysis: regression analysis
We will now present the data analysis with the aim of testing the working hypotheses
representing the relationships in the TPB model. The objective is to promote discussion on
the EI of Malaga Universitys students using the correlations with a multivariate analysis
technique of linear regression.
The first hypothesis related the three indicators from Azjens model (1991): PA, SN
and PBC with EI demonstrated by students at Malaga University. In Table VI the part
the three elements (AP, SN, PBC) play in EI can be seen clearly.

Id. Item Mean SD Cronbachs

EI1 I am ready to do anything to be an entrepreneur 3.76 1,572 0.095

EI2 My professional goal is to become an entrepreneur 4.34 1,831 0.095
EI3 I will make every effort to start and run my own firm 4.43 1,761 0.095
EI4 I am determined to create a firm in the future 4.16 1,731 0.095
Table V. EI5 I have very seriously thought of starting a firm 4.03 1,758 0.095
Entrepreneurial EI6 I have the firm intention to start a firm some day 4.68 1,811 0.095
intention Note: Total average means 4.23

Media Non-EEP EEP

PA 5.09 4.80 5.5

Table VI. SN 5.4 5.3 5.6
Comparison of TPB PBC 3.7 2.8 3.6
for participating and EI 4.2 3.8 4.7
non-participating Note: Comparison between elements of TPB for participating and non-participating students in
students in EEPs Entrepreneurship Education Programmes
In Table VII the regression demonstrates the significant relationship between the variables Impact of
in Ajzens model (PA, SN and PBC) having an impact of 74 per cent on EI. entrepreneurship
The table allows us to go into greater depth on the weight of each variable separately, and
we can observe that PA and PBC have the greatest significance. The variable of SN on its
programmes
own does not have a significant bearing on EI since it is 0.44 above the acceptable value. In
any case, the three dimensions added together have enough power to support the proposed
model and therefore we can confirm H1 for the sample group at Malaga University. 221
Table VIII includes the positive correlations between the dimensions of Ajzens
model when applied to Malaga Universitys community. All the variables show
significant relationships, the lowest value corresponding to SN with 0.28 and the
highest score to PA at 0.81.
The results of the correlations support the previously mentioned regression analysis
because, in a similar way, PA and PBC are the variables which have the strongest
significant relationship with EI (0.81 and 0.55, respectively). Consequently, H2 and its
sub-hypotheses can be confirmed.
We now turn to H3, which seeks to strengthen Ajzens model in the case of Malaga
University. In line with results of other studies mentioned in the literature review, it can
only be confirmed categorically if we look at the three dimensions together (PA, SN and
PBC); but when separate, the direct influence and significant predictive power of SN on EI
is refuted. This dimension, therefore, only exercises a positive impact if found in a suitable
combination with the other two, while these two can achieve sufficient significance on
their own. In any case, a historical perspective of the phenomenon is necessary, given that
a progressive consolidation of entrepreneurship in the education system seems likely in
the future. This means changes to future generations and people in their immediate
environment (family, friends and colleagues), who would become more familiar with this
field. This assertion is supported by studies that introduce international comparisons and
that confirm the weight carried by SN in families involved in business (Hout and Rosen,
1999; Fayolle and Gailly, 2015) and societies that are more entrepreneurial in general
terms (Krueger et al., 2000; Lin and Chen, 2009; Bae et al., 2014).

Sig.

Model Personal attitudes (PA) 0.16 0.00

Social norms (SN) 0.00 0.44 Table VII.
Perceived behavioural control (PBC) 0.050 0.033 Regression of EI
Notes: Dependent variable: entrepreneurial intention (EI), Adjusted R2 0,74; F 82.033; p o0,05 and its antecedents

Entrepreneurial Personal Social Perceived behavioural

intention attitudes norms control

Entrepreneurial
intention 1
Personal attitudes 0.816**
Social norms 0.283** 0.302**
Perceived behavioural Table VIII.
control 0.551** 0.433** 0.319** 1 Correlation
Note: **Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (two-tailed) between variables
ET In conclusion, the EI of students at Malaga University is determined by a mixture of
58,2 PA, SN and PBC, with the first and the last of these dimensions having a larger
influence on decisions leading to entrepreneurship. In other words, individual influence
is a determining factor when it comes to deciding to start a business, while perceived
social support can encourage this but is not a necessary condition for becoming an
entrepreneur in the medium term.
222 For the purposes of this particular study, the most important finding is the empirical
demonstration that EEP have an overall positive impact on EI. With the aid of Azjens
model (1991) we can measure significant differences in each of the three dimensions
between university students who have taken a course on business creation or
entrepreneurship and/or a supplementary programme in their institution aimed at
fostering the entrepreneurial spirit (4,7), and those students who have not (3,8).

Discussion and conclusions

The study has concentrated on investigating the perception of entrepreneurship in the
eyes of students at Malaga University and, consequently, their orientation towards
entrepreneurship in the medium term. The perception of risk, of knowing the steps,
procedures, and the reality of being a business owner with all its pros and cons are
some of the issues we have analysed using a well founded and often used model,
Azjens (1991) TPB. The model is based on three dimensions: PA, SN and PBC and
these are the elements which explain the EI of this group. Although the correlations
and regression analysis support the hypotheses, in the case of the university students,
not all the dimensions play the same part in the intention to start ones own business.
While PA and PBC have great influence, on closer analysis SN appeared to contribute
to decision making but not as a determining factor. These results are very much in line
with results obtained in other studies which used the same model (Gasse and
Tremblay, 2011; Dewi Astuti and Martdianty, 2012; Iqbal et al., 2013).
The influence of PA leads us to recommend that entrepreneurship should be a
cross-curricular competence of any university qualification and it should be
accompanied with more specific training on business creation. This would allow us
to provide not just motivation and a way of changing thought patterns and actions to
take on risks, identify and assess opportunities, have self-confidence and be
success-oriented, etc., but also to offer the appropriate theoretical and practical support.
There is an evident need to design EEPs that really in still confidence in the students
regarding their own knowledge and abilities as entrepreneurs. In this sense, the
variables that make up the PBC indicator must be the basis on which to modulate
the direction, approach and strategic elements of this type of programmes.
Similarly, the findings for PBC mean that any university system which aims to take
on the role of Entrepreneurial University must concentrate its efforts on providing
sufficient business creation ability and tools to both students and professors. This would
allow teaching staff to facilitate orientation to entrepreneurship among university
students as a whole.
As for SN, while they do not have a direct influence on their own, they do have an
influence when taken in conjunction with the other two dimensions, explaining more than
70 per cent of the model. It is worth reflecting on the support that friends, relatives and
colleagues can provide during the last phase of the decision, not in terms of inhibiting
entrepreneurship, but in terms of providing positive motivation.A complementary line of
analysis could therefore look at the effectiveness of the implementation of EEP that allow
agents close to the student to participate in some way too; reducing any resistence or
(negative) conditioning towards EI the student happens to have. Based on all we have Impact of
said regarding the three dimensions of the model, we recommend that EEP are not entrepreneurship
limited to a final-year course or optional supplementary activities. It would, in fact, be
advisable to incorporate them right from the beginning of university education both as
programmes
specific courses such as business creation or entrepreneurship and across the
curriculum throughout ones academic life.
All of the above highlights the role of the education system in entrepreneurship. It is 223
necessary to find effective ways, based on Azjens model, for suggestions and actions
by the University to really contribute to EI and foster this attitude as a valuable
competence for everyone, whether self-employed or working for a company.

Implications for universities

This paper highlights, on one hand, the need for rigorous further research of this kind to
allow us to better understand the phenomenon of entrepreneurship in universities, using
the findings to create an ecosystem which supports entrepreneurship by university
graduates. On the other hand this study provides useful information for designing the
academic syllabuses of different university degrees which have to contain
entrepreneurship as a cross-curricular competence regardless of the subject being
studied. This does not exclude the development of supplementary subjects on business
creation or aimed at fostering the entrepreneurial spirit thereby improving PBC and
confidence in the potential success of a new business. This study has demonstrated the
influence of university encouragement of an entrepreneurial spirit on the intention to set
up a business project in the future. However, the real challenge will be to know what
types of EEP have the greatest impact on EI, thereby raising the levels we have observed.
As we have already mentioned, another relevant issue is the institution giving
professors the tools they need to motivate students to improve the rates of orientation
to entrepreneurship. To achieve this, it would be advisable to set up specific training
programmes on business creation for the teaching staff, with a particular emphasis on
entrepreneurship as a competence, allowing them to transmit their theoretical and,
especially, practical knowledge to students more effectively. Nevertheless, this requires
a closer look at how EEPs are organised in the university system, and the guidance and
approach which teaching and investigative staff are to receive in order to carry out
their work and contribute to the entrepreneurship objectives set by the institution.
These are precisely the issues that would enable us to advance in this line of
investigation and incorporate real innovation from both a scientific and a practical
point of view; given that the advances introduced could fuel the existing debate with
respect to EI in the university context, and be taken into account, as previously
discussed, for the design of more effective EPPs.

Limitations
This research paper is an exploratory study, focussing on the intention to start a
business in the present. It is therefore not possible to measure, in the medium term,
whether the level of orientation to entrepreneurship has resulted in self-employment,
and this is the main limitation of the study.
It is also important to mention the weakness of the study regarding the 9 per cent of
the sample formed by students who chose voluntarily to take part in activities to
promote entrepreneurship in the university. In the case of this group we cannot
determine exactly what motivated them to do it: the chance to gain course credits or a
pre-existing curiosity about business creation.
ET An additional limitation, identified in other reference works (Fayolle et al., 2006), is
58,2 that the results measure EI but it would be difficult to monitor what proportion of the
students who were oriented to business creation and up starting their own business in
the short and medium term. Therefore, the university departments that observe the
entry of graduates into the labour market could assume this responsibility with the aim
of following the evolution of the phenomenon and gathering information for the
224 continued improvement of the performance of EEPs.
Additional analysis is also necessary in order to identify which elements of the EEP
have more impact, on each dimension and as a whole,on the EI of university students.
For all the above reasons, we intend to continue the investigation by performing a meta
analysis of EEP taught in different countries. This will enable us to classify these
programmes according to their impact on EI and determine which approach,
methodology, instruments or tools are most effective.

Future research directions

The limitations of this paper are also future lines of research in order to keep advancing in
the study of this field (at a higher level). First, in the case of Malaga University, we consider
it opportune to repeat the investigation periodically and especially shortly after a key
subject on entrepreneurship and business creation is incorporated into degree courses in
order to see if there are any differences to the picture we have of predisposition to
entrepreneurship at present. It is also important to verify whether students predisposition
and intention towards entrepreneurship already existed, or, as this study proposes, is a
direct result of their participation in the programme. Therefore the establishment of a
double control on the groups who have participated in an EPP would be an important
aspect to introduce in order to improve future research work in this field. Additionally, it
would be interesting to carry out a comparative analysis at an international level to find
out, beyond cultural factors, how the approach of each university in this field can raise the
levels of entrepreneurship in the university community and determine the differences in
students EI according to the type of EEP. Finally, the universities which carry out an
analysis of Ajzensmodel could keep a record to allow results to be contrasted, following
their evolution together with the new programmes supporting entrepreneurship in the
academic syllabuses of different qualifications.

References
Amors, J.E. and Bosma, N. (2014), Global entrepreneruship monitor: 2013 global report, Global
Entrepreneurship Research Association (GERA), Universidad del Desarrollo, London
Business School, London, available at: www.gemconsortium.org/docs/download/3106
(accessed 9 September 2014).
Asenjo, M.P. and Barber, J.P. (2013), Evaluacin del impacto de la educacin superior
en la iniciativa emprendedora, Historia y Comunicacin Social, Vol. 18 No. Esp,
pp. 377-386.
Audretsch, A. and Thurik, R. (2001), Linking Entrepreneurship to growth, OECD science,
technology and industry, Working Paper No. 2001/2, OECD, Paris.
Azjen, I. (1991), The theory of planned behavior, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Process, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.
Azjen, I. (2005), Attitudes, Personality and Behavior, 2nd ed., Open University Press-McGraw Hill
Education, Berkshire.
Bae, T.J., Qian, S., Miao, C. and Fiet, J.O. (2014), The relationship between entrepreneurship Impact of
education and entrepreneurial intentions: a meta-analytic review, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 217-254.
entrepreneurship
programmes
Bakotic, D. and Kruzic, D. (2010), Students perceptions and intentions towards
entrepreneurship: the empirical finding from Croatia, The Business Review, Vol. 14 No. 2,
pp. 209-215.
Barbosa, S.D., Gerhard, M.W. and Kickul, J.R. (2007), The role of cognitive style and risk 225
preference on entrepreneurial self efficacy and entrepreneurial intentions, Journal of
Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 86-104.
Basu, A. and Virick, M. (2010), Assesing entrepreneurial intention amogst students: a comparative
study, available at: http://niciia.org/conf08/assets/pub/basu2.pdf (accessed 5 July 2014).
Carree, M., Stel, A., Thurik, R. and Wennekers, S. (2002), Economic development and business
ownership: an analysis using data of 23 OECD countries in the period 1976-1996, Small
Business Economics, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 271-297.
Casson, M. (1995), Entrepreneurship and Business Culture (Studies in the Economics of Trust),
Vol. 1, Edward Elgar, Aldershot.
Commission of the European Communities (2007), Improving knowledge transfer between
research institutions and industry across Europe: embracing open innovation
Implementing the Lisbon agenda, communication from the Commission to the Council
the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Region. COM 182, Brussels, 4 April, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/
LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uriCOM:2007:0182:FIN:EN:PDF (accessed 13 July 2014).
Darmanto, S. and Wahyudi, S. (2014), Developing Intention and entrepreneurial behavior.
Through the mediating role of entrepreneurial self efficacy maturity (an empirical study on
University Students in Semarang), SSRN Working Paper Series No. 2, Semarang,
pp. 39-50, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2395090 (accessed 3 January 2015).
Dewi Astuti, R. and Martdianty, F. (2012), Students perception and intention toward
entrepreneurship: development of planned behaviour entrepreneurial model on six state
universities in Indonesia, 2nd Annual International Conference on Enterprises Marketing
and Globalization (EMG), pp. 131-136.
Daz-Casero, J.C., Ferreira, J.J.M., Hernndez Mogolln, R. and Barata Raposo, M.L. (2012),
Influence of institutional environment on entrepreneurial intention: a comparative study
of two countries university students, International Entrepreneurship Management
Journal, No. 8, pp. 55-74.
Fayolle, A. and Gailly, B. (2015), The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial
attitudes and intentions: hysteresis and persistence, Journal of Small Business
Management, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 75-93.
Fayolle, A., Gailly, B. and Lassas-Clerc, N. (2006), Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship
education programs: a new methodology, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 39
No. 9, pp. 701-720.
Fenton, M. and Barry, A. (2014), Breathing space graduate entrepreneurs perspectives of
entrepreneurship education in higher education, Education+Training, Vol. 56 Nos 8/9,
pp. 733-744.
Finisterra Do Paco, A.M., Matos Ferreira, J., Raposo, M., GouveiaRodrigues, R. and Dinis, A.
(2011), Behaviours and entrepreneurial intention: empirical findings about secondary
students, Journal International of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 9, pp. 20-38.
Gartner, W.B. (1985), A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture
creation, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 696-706.
ET Gasse, Y. and Tremblay, M. (2006), Entrepreneurship education among students at a Canadian
university: an extensive empirical study of students entrepreneurial preferences and
58,2 intentions, International Entrepreneurship Education Issues and Newness, Edward Elgar,
Cheltenham, pp. 241-262, available at: www.craig.csufresno.edu/ijb/IJB-1Frame2Source1.
htm#Editor
Gasse, Y. and Tremblay, M. (2011), Entrepreneurial beliefs and intentions: a cross-cultural study
226 of university students in seven countries, International Journal of Business, Vol. 16 No. 4,
pp. 303-314.
Hattab, H.W. (2014), Impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intentions of
university students in Egypt, Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Hofstede, G. (1980), Cultures Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values,
Sage, London.
Holgrem, C. and From, J. (2005), Taylorism of the mind: entrepreneurship education from a perspective
of educational research, European Educational Research Journal, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 382-390.
Hout, M. and Rosen, H.S. (1999), Self-Employement, Family Background and Race, National
Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
Iglesias Snchez, P.P., Jambrino Maldonado, C. and Peafiel Velasco, A. (2014), Comparacin de
la Actividad de I+D de Spin-off Universitarias y otro tipo de organizaciones
empresariales, Economa Industrial, No. 392, pp. 155-166.
Iqbal, A., Melhem, Y. and Kokash, H. (2013), Readiness of the university students towards
entrepreneurship in Saudi private university: an exploratory study, European Scientific
Journal, Vol. 8 No. 15, pp. 109-131.
Johnson, J. (2001), What is innovation and entrepreneurship? Lessons for larger organizations,
Industrial and Commercial Trainning, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 135-140.
Jones, C., Matlay, H., Penaluna, K. and Penaluana, A. (2014), Claiming the future of enterprise
education, Education+Training, Vol. 56 Nos 8/9, pp. 764-775.
Kirzner, I.M. (1979), Perception, Opportunity and Profit: Studies in the theory of Entrepreneurship,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Kolvereid, L. and Moen, . (1997), Entrepreneurship among business graduates: does a major in
entrepreneurship make a difference?, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 21
No. 4, pp. 154-160.
Krueger, N., Reilly, M.D. and Carsrud, A.L. (2000), Competing models of entrepreneurial
intentions, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 15, pp. 411-432.
Lin, F. (2004), Intention-based models of entrepreneurship education, Piccola Empresa/Small
Business, Vol. 3, pp. 11-35.
Lian, F. and Chen, Y.W. (2009), Development and cross-cultural application of specific
instrument to measure entrepreneurial intentions, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice,
Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 593-617.
Lin, F., Urbano, D. and Guerrero, M. (2011), Regional variations in entrepreneurial cognitions:
start-up intentions of university students in Spain, Entrepreneurship & Regional
Development: An International Journal, Vol. 3 No. 23, pp. 187-215.
Mcgee, J.E., Peterson, M., Mueller, S.L. and Sequeira, J.M. (2009), Entrepreneurial self-efficacy:
refining the measure, Entrepreneruship Theory and Practice, Vol. 7, pp. 965-968.
Malebana, J. (2014), Entrepreneurial intentions of South African rural university students: a test
of the Theory of Planned Behaviour, Journal of Economics and BehavioralStudies, Vol. 6
No. 2, pp. 130-143.
Matlay, H. (2005), Entrepreneurship education in UK business schools: conceptual, contextual Impact of
and policy considerations, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 12
No. 4, pp. 627-643.
entrepreneurship
programmes
Porter, M.E. (1990), The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Free Press, New York, NY.
Postigo, S., Lacobuco, D. and Tambones, M.F. (2006), Undergraduate students as a source of
potential entrepreneurs: a comparative study between Italy and Argentina, International
Entrepreneurship Education Issues and Newness, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 218-240. 227
doi: 10.4337/9781847201652.
Pruett, M., Shinnar, R., Toney, B., Llopis, F. and Fox, J. (2009), Explaining entrepreneurial
intentions of university students: a cross-cultural study, International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 571-594.
Reynolds, P., Hay, M. and Camp, R.M. (2002), Global entrepreneurship monitor, executive
report, Babson College, Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership and London
School Business (Eds), London.
Snchez, J.C. (2011), University training for entrepreneurial competencies: its impact on intention
of venture creation, International Entrepreneurship Management, No. 7, pp. 239-254.
Sesen, H. (2013), Personality or environment? A comprehensive study on entrepreneurial
intentions of university students, Education+Training, Vol. 55 No. 7, pp. 624-640.
Shaw, G. and Urban, B. (2011), The influence of the institutional environment on entrepreneurial
intentions in an emerging economy, International Council for Small business, ICSB World
Conference Proceedings, pp. 1-36.
Storey, D. (1999), Six steps to heaven: evaluating the impact of public policies to support small
business in developed economies, in Sexton, D.L. and Landstrm, H. (Eds), Handbook of
Entrepreneurship, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 176-194.
Turker, D. and Selcuck, S.S. (2009), Which factors affect entrepreneurial intention of university
students, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 142-159.
Urban, B. (2012), A metacognitive approach to explaining entrepreneurial intentions,
Management Dynamics, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 16-33.
Van Praag, M.C. (2007), What is the value of entrepreneurship? A review of recent research,
Small Business Economics, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 351-382.
Varela, R. and Jimenez, J.E. (2001), The effect of entrepreneurship education in the universities of
Cali, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson Conference Proceedings, Jnkping
University, Jnkping International Business School and Swedish Foundation for Small
Business Research, available at: www.babson.edu/entrep/fer
Wennekers, S., Van Stel, A., Thurik, R. and Reynolds, P. (2005), Nascent entrepreneurship and
the level of economic development, Small Business Economics, Vol. 24, pp. 293-309.
White, S.B. and Reynolds, P. (1996), Government Programs and High Growth New Firm, Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship Research, Center for Entrepreneurial Studies Babson College, Wellesley, MA.
Wu, S. and Wu, L. (2008), The impact of higher education on entrepreneurial intentions of
university students in China, Journal of Small Business and Entreprise Development,
Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 752-774.
Yniz, C. and Villardn, L. (2006), Cuadernos Monogrficos del ICE: Planificar desde competencias
para promover el aprendizaje. El reto de la sociedad del conocimiento para el profesorado
universitario, Vol. 12, Publicaciones de la Universidad de Deusto, Bilbao.
Zhao, H., Seibert, S.E. and Hills, G.E. (2010), The relationship of personality to entrepreneurial
intentions and performance: a meta-analitic review, Journal of Management, Vol. 36 No. 2,
pp. 381-401.
ET Further Reading
58,2 Fayolle, A. and Gailly, B. (2008), From craft to science. Teaching models and learning processes in
entrepreneurship education, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 32 No. 7, pp. 569-593.
Imram, A., Kayhan, T., Kashif, R., Jawaria, F.A. and Ishfaq, A. (2010), University students inclination
of governance and its effects on entrepreneurial intentions: an empirical analysis, International
Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 36-39.
228 Scott, M.G. and Twomey, D.F. (1988), The long-term supply of entrepreneurs: students career
aspirations in relation to entrepreneurship, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 26
No. 4, pp. 5-13.

About the authors

Dr Patricia P. Iglesias-Snchez, PhD, an Assistant Lecturer. She holds a Doctorate in Economics with
a specialisation in Marketing Research (2010) and lectures at Malaga University. She combines her
research and teaching activities with her professional development as a Project Manager in a
business organisation (Confederacin de Empresarios de Mlaga), and thanks to this experience she
has in-depth expertise and knowledge about companies and their management. Additionally, she is
an External Advisor for several companies. Her main lines of research are: University spin-offs,
Open Innovation in new product development, innovation for SMEs and entrepreneurship. She has
attended international and national conferences and her work has been published in different
indexed journals. Assistant Lecturer Patricia P. Iglesias-Snchez is the corresponding author and
can be contacted at: patricia.iglesias@uma.es
Dr Carmen Jambrino-Maldonado, PhD, an Associate Professor of Marketing. She holds a Degree
in Economics and Business Administration and Marketing (PhD). She is the Managing Director of
the research team Marketing for SMEs of Malaga University. It receives a grant from the
Andalusian Regional Government. Carmen is the coordinator of Postgraduate studies. Carmen has
attended various international conferences and her work has been published in different journals:
Revista Europea de Economa y Direccin de Empresas and Tourism Management. Her research
interests include: strategies of fundraising, spin-offs and collaborative learning.
Dr Antonio Peafiel-Velasco, PhD, the Director in the Department of Cooperation with
Companies and Employee Promotion. He has a PhD in Biology Sciences and a Masters in
Management of Science and Technology Parks. Currently he holds the position of a Coordinator of
the Employment and Entrepreneurship programmes in Malaga University. He has written several
papers about university technology companies and technology transfer and has directed a doctoral
thesis on this subject. He teaches about new technology-based firms on several Masters courses at
Malaga University and other Andalusian universities. He also coordinates the Spin-offs project team
for the Red OTRI (network of offices set up as a link between investigation and industry) at
a national level. The Entrepreneur Support Office at the University of Malaga, which he manages,
has received two awards for best practice in promoting entrepreneurial culture.
Dr Husam Kokash, PhD, an Assistant Professor of Marketing and the Coordinator of the
Marketing Programme at PSU. He holds a PhD in Marketing and Market Research from
the University of Malaga. Kokashs work has been published in many international journals and
his research interests include: online marketing, integrated marketing communication, marketing
applied to the service industry (tourism marketing and financial Marketing).

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.