research study about entrepreneurship

• Browse All Articles
• Newsletter Sign-Up

Entrepreneurship →

• 03 Sep 2024
• Cold Call Podcast

How the US Government Is Innovating in Its Efforts to Fund Semiconductor Manufacturing

In February 2023, US Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo was deciding whether or not to sign off on a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for $39 billion in direct semiconductor manufacturing incentives. But this NOFO had several unconventional provisions: a pre-application (pre-app) to the actual application, upside sharing provisions to align incentives, and funding milestones so that only awardees making progress would receive additional funds. The funding had been made available through the US Department of Commerce by the CHIPS (Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors) and Science Act passed a few months earlier. Raimondo’s team had proposed additional measures that would help the US regain technological leadership while protecting taxpayer funds. Should Raimondo move forward with the “innovative” NOFO, despite the risks? Harvard Business School professor Mitch Weiss explores the issue of risk-taking and innovation in government in his case, “The CHIPs Program Office.”

• 20 Aug 2024

Angel City Football Club: A New Business Model for Women’s Sports

Angel City Football Club (ACFC) was founded in 2020 by venture capitalist Kara Nortman, entrepreneur Julie Uhrman, and actor and activist Natalie Portman. As outsiders to professional sports, the all-female founding team had rewritten the playbook for how to build a sports franchise by applying lessons from the tech and entertainment industries. Unlike typical sports franchises that built their teams and track records over many years before extending their brand beyond a local base, ACFC had inverted the model, generating both global and local interest in the club during its first three years. The club’s early success was reflected in its market valuation of $250 million as of its sale in July 2024 — the highest in the National Women’s Soccer League. Equally important, ACFC had started to bend the curve toward greater pay equity in women’s sports — the club’s ultimate goal. But the founders knew there was much more to do to capitalize on the club’s momentum. As they developed ACFC’s first three-year strategic plan in 2024, they weighed the most effective ways to build value for the franchise. Was it better to allocate the incremental budget to investments in digital brand building or to investments in the on-field product? Senior Lecturer Jeffrey Rayport is joined by case co-author Nicole Keller and club co-founder Kara Nortman to discuss the case, “Angel City Football Club: Scoring a New Model.”

• 02 Aug 2024

How a Mission to Cut Food Waste Launched a Multimillion-Dollar Venture

Josh Domingues put purpose before profit when he created the Flashfood app to sell less-than-perfect groceries at discounted prices. A case study by Reza Satchu explores Domingues' successes and failures, and what other social entrepreneurs can learn.

• 26 Jul 2024
• Research & Ideas

Why Great Ideas Get Stuck in Universities

Academic institutions incubate novel ideas and are important innovation partners for companies, but getting products out of universities and onto the market can be challenging. A study by Maria Roche illustrates how researchers might be getting in their own way.

• 23 Jul 2024

Transforming the Workplace for People with Disabilities

In 2019, Nadine Vogel, founder and CEO of Springboard Consulting, needed to decide the best path forward to grow her small consulting firm. Springboard works with Fortune 500 companies on issues related to disability and the workforce. Should Vogel expand the topics she works on with her current clients, or should she explore the possibility of moving into a new market of smaller businesses? Vogel joins Harvard Business School professor Lakshmi Ramarajan and Harvard Kennedy School professor Hannah Riley Bowles to discuss her experience starting and scaling her firm, while also being a caregiver to two children with disabilities, in the case, “Nadine Vogel: Transforming the Marketplace, Workplace, and Workforce for People with Disabilities.”

• 09 Jul 2024

Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) and Brand Building

Non-fungible tokens (NFTs), which allow individuals to own their digital assets and move them from place to place, are changing the interaction between consumers and digital goods, brands, and platforms. Professor Scott Duke Kominers and tech entrepreneur Steve Kaczynski discuss the case, “Bored Ape Yacht Club: Navigating the NFT World,” and the related book they co-authored, The Everything Token: How NFTs and Web3 Will Transform The Way We Buy, Sell, And Create. They focus on the rise and popularity of the Bored Ape Yacht Club NFTs and the new model of brand building created by owning those tokens.

• 02 Jul 2024

Five Essential Elements to Build the Capital You Need to Lead

The path to leadership can seem unclear in competitive organizations. In the book The Treasure You Seek, Archie L. Jones offers a roadmap to help aspiring leaders discover their strengths, communicate effectively, and build meaningful connections.

• 09 Apr 2024

Sustaining a Legacy of Giving in Turkey

Özyeğin Social Investments was founded by Hüsnü Özyeğin, one of Turkey's most successful entrepreneurs, with a focus on education, health, gender equality, rural development, and disaster relief in Turkey. The company and the Özyeğin family have spent decades serving and improving communities in need. Their efforts led to the creation of one of Turkey’s top universities, the establishment of schools and rehabilitation centers, post 2023 earthquake humanitarian shelter and facilities, nationwide campaigns, and an internationally recognized educational training initiative for young children, among other achievements. Harvard Business School senior lecturer Christina Wing and Murat Özyeğin discuss how the company is a model for making a significant impact across multiple sectors of society through giving and how that legacy can be sustained in the future, in the case, “Özyeğin Social Investments: A Legacy of Giving."

• 22 Mar 2024

Open Source Software: The $9 Trillion Resource Companies Take for Granted

Many companies build their businesses on open source software, code that would cost firms $8.8 trillion to create from scratch if it weren't freely available. Research by Frank Nagle and colleagues puts a value on an economic necessity that will require investment to meet demand.

• 12 Mar 2024

How to Bring Good Ideas to Life: The Paul English Story

Paul English is one of the most imaginative and successful innovators of his generation. He cofounded several companies, including Kayak, before starting Boston Venture Studio, where he is currently a partner. This multimedia case, “Bringing Ideas to Life: The Story of Paul English,” explores his process of creative idea generation, examining how he was able to bring so many ideas to market. In this episode, Harvard Business School professor Frances Frei and English discuss how to tell the difference between a good idea and a bad one, the importance of iteration, and taking a systematic (but fast) approach to developing new ideas. They also explore how his process dovetails with Frei’s “move fast and fix things,” strategy from her recent book.

• 05 Dec 2023

What Founders Get Wrong about Sales and Marketing

Which sales candidate is a startup’s ideal first hire? What marketing channels are best to invest in? How aggressively should an executive team align sales with customer success? Senior Lecturer Mark Roberge discusses how early-stage founders, sales leaders, and marketing executives can address these challenges as they grow their ventures in the case, “Entrepreneurial Sales and Marketing Vignettes.”

• 10 Oct 2023

Scaling Two Businesses Against the Odds: Wendy Estrella’s Founder’s Journey

Entrepreneur Wendy Estrella is attempting to simultaneously scale her law practice, as well as her property management and development company. What strategy will benefit both businesses, and is there a downside to scaling them together, rather than focusing on each one separately? Harvard Business School senior lecturer Jeffrey Bussgang and Estrella discuss her unique founder’s journey – from immigrating to the U.S. to building both of her businesses in Lawrence, Massachusetts despite the specific challenges she faced as a minority entrepreneur. The related case is “Wendy Estrella: Scaling Multiple Businesses.”

• 01 Aug 2023

Can Business Transform Primary Health Care Across Africa?

mPharma, headquartered in Ghana, is trying to create the largest pan-African health care company. Their mission is to provide primary care and a reliable and fairly priced supply of drugs in the nine African countries where they operate. Co-founder and CEO Gregory Rockson needs to decide which component of strategy to prioritize in the next three years. His options include launching a telemedicine program, expanding his pharmacies across the continent, and creating a new payment program to cover the cost of common medications. Rockson cares deeply about health equity, but his venture capital-financed company also must be profitable. Which option should he focus on expanding? Harvard Business School Professor Regina Herzlinger and case protagonist Gregory Rockson discuss the important role business plays in improving health care in the case, “mPharma: Scaling Access to Affordable Primary Care in Africa.”

• 05 Jul 2023

How Unilever Is Preparing for the Future of Work

Launched in 2016, Unilever’s Future of Work initiative aimed to accelerate the speed of change throughout the organization and prepare its workforce for a digitalized and highly automated era. But despite its success over the last three years, the program still faces significant challenges in its implementation. How should Unilever, one of the world's largest consumer goods companies, best prepare and upscale its workforce for the future? How should Unilever adapt and accelerate the speed of change throughout the organization? Is it even possible to lead a systematic, agile workforce transformation across several geographies while accounting for local context? Harvard Business School professor and faculty co-chair of the Managing the Future of Work Project William Kerr and Patrick Hull, Unilever’s vice president of global learning and future of work, discuss how rapid advances in artificial intelligence, machine learning, and automation are changing the nature of work in the case, “Unilever's Response to the Future of Work.”

• 16 May 2023
• In Practice

After Silicon Valley Bank's Flameout, What's Next for Entrepreneurs?

Silicon Valley Bank's failure in the face of rising interest rates shook founders and funders across the country. Julia Austin, Jeffrey Bussgang, and Rembrand Koning share key insights for rattled entrepreneurs trying to make sense of the financing landscape.

• 14 Mar 2023

Can AI and Machine Learning Help Park Rangers Prevent Poaching?

Globally there are too few park rangers to prevent the illegal trade of wildlife across borders, or poaching. In response, Spatial Monitoring and Reporting Tool (SMART) was created by a coalition of conservation organizations to take historical data and create geospatial mapping tools that enable more efficient deployment of rangers. SMART had demonstrated significant improvements in patrol coverage, with some observed reductions in poaching. Then a new predictive analytic tool, the Protection Assistant for Wildlife Security (PAWS), was created to use artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) to try to predict where poachers would be likely to strike. Jonathan Palmer, Executive Director of Conservation Technology for the Wildlife Conservation Society, already had a good data analytics tool to help park rangers manage their patrols. Would adding an AI- and ML-based tool improve outcomes or introduce new problems? Harvard Business School senior lecturer Brian Trelstad discusses the importance of focusing on the use case when determining the value of adding a complex technology solution in his case, “SMART: AI and Machine Learning for Wildlife Conservation.”

• 17 Jan 2023

8 Trends to Watch in 2023

Quiet quitting. Inflation. The economy. This year could bring challenges for executives and entrepreneurs, but there might also be opportunities for focused leaders to gain advantage, say Harvard Business School faculty members.

• 10 Jan 2023

Time to Move On? Career Advice for Entrepreneurs Preparing for the Next Stage

So many people shift from one job to the next, with little time to consider how the experience changed them and what they want out of future ventures. Julia Austin recommends that entrepreneurs look within and reflect on these questions before they jump into a new opportunity.

• 03 Jan 2023

Wordle: Can a Pandemic Phenomenon Sustain in the Long Term?

Wordle went from a personal game, created by a developer for his girlfriend, to a global phenomenon with two million users in just a few months. Then The New York Times made an unexpected bid to acquire it. But will Wordle outlast other pandemic pastimes? Harvard Business School senior lecturer Christina Wallace discusses the journey of software engineer and accidental entrepreneur Josh Wardle in the case, “Wordle.”

• 26 Oct 2022

How Paid Promos Take the Shine Off YouTube Stars (and Tips for Better Influencer Marketing)

Influencers aspire to turn "likes" into dollars through brand sponsorships, but these deals can erode their reputations, says research by Shunyuan Zhang. Marketers should seek out authentic voices on YouTube, not necessarily those with the most followers.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Factors affecting students’ entrepreneurial intentions: a systematic review (2005–2022) for future directions in theory and practice

Greeni maheshwari.

1 Economics and Finance Department, RMIT University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Khanh Linh Kha

Anantha raj a. arokiasamy.

2 School of Economics and Management, Xiamen University, Sepang, Selangor Malaysia

Associated Data

Data sharing is not applicable as no datasets are generated in this current study. All the articles used for the analysis are already provided in the article (in Table ​ Table2 2 and Appendix table).

Entrepreneurship has been viewed as a critical contributor and an economic engine in a country for creating new jobs and it is crucial for graduates to alter their mindset to become self-employed. Thus, it is necessary to synthesize the factors that impact the entrepreneurial intentions (EI) of students at tertiary level. The aim of this research is twofold; first to identify the factors which have been most studied in the literature and second, to determine which factors are less explored to measure the EI of students. This research adopts the systematic review approach to identify various studies conducted between 2005 to June 2022. The paper further adopted citation analysis and identified the 36 most impactful studies in this area of research. Next, the thematic analysis was conducted and seven main themes (factors) (cognitive, personality, environmental, social, educational, contextual and demographic) of EI determinants were identified. The analysis of the papers clearly demonstrated that the TPB model and cognitive factors dominate this area of research. Furthermore, over half of the studies are conducted in Asia, hence it is important to explore other regions such as Africa, America and Europe and other comparative studies between various regions. The study offers avenues for future research and practical implications of the study for the practitioners.

Introduction

Entrepreneurship has been viewed as a critical contributor and an economic engine of every country as it helps in creating new jobs, and increases innovation and competitiveness in the labor market (Barba-Sánchez et al. 2022 ). Entrepreneurship activities have been given importance in many Western countries and are also gaining more attention in developing countries. Many studies have identified entrepreneurial intention (EI) as one of the most significant predictors of entrepreneurial activities and behaviors (Krueger et al. 2000 ; Autio et al. 2001 ; Arasti et al. 2012 ). Hence, the focus of various contemporary research has shifted from entrepreneurship to EI (Yu et al. 2021 ). Indeed, the number of studies using EI as a research framework has increased since the early 90s, confirming the importance of EI aspect in several settings (Liñán and Fayolle 2015 ). In addition, it is crucial for graduates to eventually alter their mindset from searching for jobs to creating jobs as a country’s government will not be able to ensure sufficient job provision for all tertiary-level graduates in the future (Reuel Johnmark et al. 2016 ). University students should shift their focus towards entrepreneurial revolution (Nuan and Xin 2012 ; Jiang and Sun 2015 ). Considering this, it is important to understand the factors that affect the EI of students in order to nurture their future entrepreneurialism in their respective countries.

There have been several studies conducted by scholars to examine the factors that impact EI of higher education students. Cognitive and personality factors, such as self-efficacy, individual attitudes, desire for achievement and behavioral control, have significant influence on students’ intentions towards entrepreneurship (Nasip et al. 2017 ; Shah and Soomro 2017 ; Biswas and Verma 2021 ). Social and environmental researchers have identified elements such as prior experience, family background, regional culture and government support as critical factors that affect EI of students (Ahamed and Rokhman 2015 ; Ali et al. 2019 ; Tiwari et al. 2020 ). Another fundamental factor contributing to the formation of students’ EI is entrepreneurial education. Entrepreneurial education in higher education plays an important role in enhancing foundational entrepreneurial knowledge and various cognitive and non-cognitive skills by stimulating students’ entrepreneurial activities (Walter and Block 2016 ; Brüne and Lutz 2020 ). This will further motivate students towards entrepreneurship, help improve entrepreneurship quality, and lead to entrepreneurial success (Galloway and Brown 2002 ). Many entrepreneurship models and theories have been developed to investigate the impact of factors on EI of an individual. Among those proposed models, most of the papers in this research area used theory of planned behaviour (TPB) model (as highlighted by analysis from this review discussed next in the paper) to study the EI of the students. The EI of students is not only affected by factors from TPB model, but there are various other models affecting the EI of students as discussed later in the paper.

Based on the different models developed on entrepreneurship (as discussed further in the paper), there are various factors that affect the entrepreneurial intentions of university students, such as educational factors, contextual factors, environmental factors, psychological factors, and personality factors but little work is done to understand which factors scholars considered the most in measuring the entrepreneurial intentions of the university students. This review of literature is based on the synthesis of papers and will provide an overview of (1) which factors the scholars have paid the most attention to measure EI of the students and (2) what factors are understudied in the literature to determine the factors affecting EI of students.

This study will contribute to the growing body of literature on the factors affecting entrepreneurial intentions of university students by providing theoretical and practical contributions. The study will be particularly beneficial to researchers working in this research area as this paper also provides gaps for future research. The study results would also help educational institutions to support and encourage students towards their entrepreneurial intentions and policy makers who will be able to understand how they can support the development of entrepreneurship activities that in turn, enhance the economic growth of the country.

Despite entrepreneurship being considered a key contributor for sustained growth and development of countries, and EI being regarded as the dominant influence of an individual’s entrepreneurship, the non-quantitative studies pertaining to determine the factors affecting EI have not been paid much attention. There are some scholars who have conducted systematic reviews of study in this area; for example, Pittaway and Cope ( 2007 ) examined the interface between higher education institutions and business sector. The study by Bae et al. ( 2014 ) was regarding a systematic review of literature in order to find the correlation between entrepreneurial education and EI of students. Nabi et al. ( 2017 ) provided a systematic review of literature to study the impact on the EI of students considering entrepreneurial education. Wu and Wu ( 2017 ) systematically reviewed the effect of entrepreneurial education on the EI of students, particularly in the Asia–Pacific region. It is important to synthesize the literature to get the holistic picture and contribute towards this research field (Kuckertz and Block 2021 ). Hence, in this paper, the synthesis of factors that impact the EI of students is carried out and further analyze the extent they have been used by various scholars in this field.

This research adopts the systematic review approach, which is important for synthesizing knowledge to identify numerous studies conducted between 2005 and June 2022. The studies on the EI of students have been receiving a lot of attention since 2016 (as determined by the analysis in this paper) and hence it is clearly visible that this area triggered the researchers’ interest and therefore is important to understand which factors are considered by different scholars to measure the EI of university students in the studies conducted so far. The aim of this research is twofold; first to identify the factors affecting the EI of students which have been studied the most in literature in previous years (from 2005) across the world. Second, to determine which factors are less explored in measuring the entrepreneurial intentions of students and thus can be explored more in future studies. A clearer perspective regarding various factors affecting EI of university students used by various scholars are analyzed in this paper. The findings from this paper can support practitioners to implement policies and take action to promote entrepreneurship in higher education students, as well as provide insights for further research in the future.

Following this brief introduction, the rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section  2 displays the review of literature on the development of various entrepreneurial models, Sect.  3 explains the research methodology, while Sect.  4 provides the results of the review, the next section corresponds to the discussion of the paper and the concluding remarks are provided in the last section of the paper.

Review of development of entrepreneurial models

There are various models developed and used by various scholars to determine the entrepreneurial intentions of an individual.

The entrepreneurial event model (EEM)

The entrepreneurial event model (EEM) proposed by Shapero and Sokol ( 1982 ) is the first model to shed light on entrepreneurial intention theory. According to the model, the three main determinants that affect an individual’s intention in entrepreneurship are perceived desirability, perceived feasibility and propensity to act. The perception of desirability towards entrepreneurship implies the engagingness of entrepreneurial conduct that a person can perceive. Perceived feasibility signifies the extent that an individual believes they can perform entrepreneurial behavior; and propensity to act indicates the possibility to become an entrepreneur. The proposed model also highlights that the “entrepreneurial event” acts as a trigger to determine behavior towards entrepreneurship of an individual, which can help them to make the best decision among a range of choices.

The expectancy theory

Expectancy Theory (known as Theory of Motivation or the Rational Intention Theory) developed by (Vroom ( 1964 ) states that conscious choice of an individual to maximize satisfaction and minimize adversity will lead to a person’s behavior. In the theory, motivation is defined as a result of an expectancy that greater effort will foster greater performance, instrumentality refers to the expectation of an individual to receive a certain outcome when they make the effort, and valence implies the degree to which the person values the outcome. The Expectancy Theory has been used as a framework in many studies to explore people’s motivation for becoming entrepreneurs (Locke and Baum 2007 ). The three variables: expectancy, instrumentality, and valence, were confirmed to increase entrepreneurship motivation, further concluding that apart from ability and aptitude, motivation could enhance the entrepreneurial intentions of an individual (Barba-Sánchez and Atienza-Sahuquillo 2017 , 2018 ).

The theory of planned behavior model (TPB)

The theory of planned behavior (TPB) is advanced from the theory of reasoned action (TRA) by Ajzen and Fishbein ( 1980 ). TRA implies that intentions, which are shaped by personal attitudes and subjective norms, will govern the actions of an individual. Regarding the TPB model by Ajzen ( 1991 ), the behavior of a person is based on voluntary control and specific planning. TPB defines the three antecedents that shape an individual's intention, namely attitudes towards behavior (ATB), social norms (SN), and perceived behavioral control (PBC). ATB implies the positive or negative perceptions of individuals regarding behavior. SN refers to how social pressures can influence the performance of a certain behavior. PBC represents the person’s aspects towards difficulty level of conducting the behavior. Similar to TRA model, TPB also emphasizes that intention is the direct antecedent of behavior, and the greater intention will more likely cause behavior to be performed (Ajzen 1991 ). The study by Barba-Sánchez et al. ( 2022 ), considered TPB components in their study and found that PA and PBC have a direct influence on the EI of students, while SN does not influence the EI of students directly, but mediate the relationship between environmental awareness and PA; Environmental awareness and EI.

The theory of planned behavior entrepreneurial model (TPBEM)

Based on TPB, the theory of planned behavior entrepreneurial model (TPBEM) by Krueger and Carsrud ( 1993 ) explains the three factors that impact individuals’ intentions to start a business: attitude towards venture creation, subjective norms and perceived control for entrepreneurial demeanor.

The entrepreneurial intention model (EIM)

The entrepreneurial intention model (EIM) by Boyd and Vozikis ( 1994 ) is further developed from Bird’s ( 1988 ) original model of entrepreneurial intentionality. According to Bird’s model (1988), a person establishes intentions towards entrepreneurship based on both contextual and personal characteristics. Specifically, the contextual factors include political, social and economic elements that can shape an individual’s rational thinking. While personality, ability and background can affect one’s intuitiveness about starting a business. Based on the original model, EIM of Boyd and Vozikis ( 1994 ) added the self-efficacy factor as an application from social cognitive theory (Bandura 1977a , b , 1986 ) to demonstrate its importance in impacting entrepreneurial intentions and behaviors of individuals as well as being intermediary between one’s thoughts regarding entrepreneurship and intentions towards venture creation.

The social cognitive career theory model (SCCT)

Social learning theory (SLT) was first introduced through the Bobo Doll Experiment in the 1960s by Bandura et al. ( 1961 , 1963 ), indicating that learning can happen by observing, imitating, practicing behaviors and encountering consequences of behaviors in a social context (Bandura 1977a ). The learning procedure is determined by the association between individuals and the degree of elevating emotional and practical expertise, defining self-perception and others’ perceptions (Bandura 1977a ). Bandura ( 1977b ) adopted the concept of self-efficacy to SLT to demonstrate the correlation between perceived self-efficacy and changes in behavior. Self-efficacy refers to a person’s belief in successfully performing a task in a certain situation. The proposed model presents four primary antecedents that develop the personal efficacy expectations, including performance achievements, vicarious experience, social persuasion, and physiological conditions, such as anxiety and arousal.

Social cognitive theory (SCT) is further developed from the SLT of Bandura, strengthening the vital role of cognitive components in the social learning process. The self-efficacy factor from his previous studies is also included in SCT as one of an individual’s behavioral determinants. Moreover, the model presents that human behavior is shaped by the reciprocal causation among environmental, behavioral, and cognitive attributes (Bandura 1986 ).

Lent et al. ( 1994 ) expanded the social cognitive career theory (SCCT) from the original SCT of Bandura, studying the decision-making demeanor that involves career matters. It is denoted by SCCT that career success is affected by cognitive-related elements, which consists of self-efficacy, expectancy of outcomes and intentions; and a career decision-making procedure is regulated by both personal and contextual factors.

Lüthje and Franke model (LFM)

Lüthje and Franke Model (LFM) developed by Lüthje and Franke ( 2003 ) indicates the crucial significance of personality traits in explaining self-employment attitudes and entrepreneurial behaviors besides personal attitudes, social norms, contextual and economic determinants. Specifically, in the study concerning university's influence on the entrepreneurial intentions of students, Lüthje and Franke indicated that the components of personality traits, including risk-taking propensity and internal locus of control, have a significant influence on attitude towards entrepreneurship, hence indirectly impacting the intention to establish a new business. The model also incorporates perceived support and perceived barriers as contextual factors to determine the importance in reinforcing an individual’s intentions towards entrepreneurship (Lüthje and Franke 2003 ). By integrating personal and environmental factors, this model presents an extended approach to investigate the broad range of antecedents that affect entrepreneurial intentions (Nabi et al. 2010 ).

Research methodology

A systematic review has been conducted for this study and the papers which measured the entrepreneurial intentions of the university students published from 2005 until June 2022 were analyzed. A four-step review was adopted for this study (Maheshwari et al. 2021 ). The first step focused on reviewing articles measuring the entrepreneurial intentions (EI) of students (from 2005 to June 2022). During the next step, the data extraction was conducted using various databases such as Scopus, Emerald, Springer, Taylor and Francis, ProQuest and JSTOR as many highly ranked journals of educational studies are indexed in these prominent databases and aligned with publication standards. An additional search was conducted on Google Scholar to include relevant articles. The search began using the key words such as “Entrepreneurial Intention” AND “determinants” OR “factors” AND “university students”, which resulted in 387 results (including articles, books, conference papers) in which 342 articles were in English. The third step focused on extracting the articles of our interest based on the research objective regarding factors influencing EI of students. After reading the abstract of 342 articles, 52 articles did not match our research objective and hence those were discarded leaving us with 290 final articles relevant to this study, most of which were found from the Scopus database (Table ​ (Table1). 1 ). During the last step, the articles were analyzed using the average citations received per year to identify the most influential papers based on the average citation per year of 10 or above. This resulted in 36 papers (Table ​ (Table2) 2 ) and the thematic analysis was conducted to identify the various themes from these papers regarding factors affecting EI of students. The rest of the papers (n = 254) (Table in Appendix) were analyzed further based on the identified themes. The research methodology for this paper is shown in Fig.  1 .

Sources of database for all 290 papers (including influential and non-influential papers)

List of most influential papers (n = 36)

Research Methodology (adapted from Maheshwari et al. ( 2021 ))

Region of research

The first criteria to analyze the paper was based on the region of research and is presented in Fig.  2 . The analysis of the articles showed that most of the studies were conducted in Asia (52%), followed by 19% of studies conducted in Europe/UK region, 12% studies in both America and Africa region and the remaining 6% of the studies were multi-country studies.

Year of research

Next, the articles were analyzed to determine the number of studies conducted in different years. It was found that very few studies had been conducted until 2016 (n = 50). Most of the studies were conducted after 2016 (n = 240). This indicates the growing interest of scholars in this area since 2017 (as in Fig.  3 ).

Year of study

Research methods used in the studies

Out of the 290 studies conducted between 2005 and June 2022, most of the studies (n = 285) used quantitative research methodology as seen in Table ​ Table3 3 and three studies used qualitative methodology. One study used mixed methodology while another study was a synthesis of literature. This clearly indicates that quantitative research methodology dominates this field of research and there is a need to use qualitative or mixed methodology approaches in this research field (Table  3 ).

Citation analysis

The next stage of the analysis included the citation analysis to identify the most influential papers from the total 290 papers identified in the study. The authors analyzed all 290 final articles and calculated the average citations received per year for each paper and identified a total of 36 articles as the most influential paper based on the average citation of 10 or above received per year. These 36 most cited papers were further analyzed to identify the themes based on content similarities regarding the factors affecting the entrepreneurial intentions of university students. After reading 36 papers, the authors identified seven main themes (factors) which affect the EI of the students. The seven themes of this paper were identified based on our holistic understanding of two criteria (1) the core factors (variables) considered in all the influential papers (2) the common core factors used by these influential papers to measure the EI of students. These seven factors are cognitive factors, personality factors, environmental factors, social factors, educational factors, contextual (situational) factors and demographic factors. These factors are classified from the 36 papers identified and Table ​ Table4 4 shows these seven themes (factors).

Themes from influential papers

The Education and Training Journal has published the highest number of papers (five) identified in this study, followed by four published in International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, three in International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, two each respectively in Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business and the Studies in Higher Education. There was one article each in the rest of the journals. There are 15 studies from Asia, 10 studies conducted in Europe, six were a collaboration between multiple countries, four in America and one from Africa. 19 out of 36 studies have used the TPB model whereas seven studies have combined the TPB model with other models (as per Table ​ Table2 2 ).

Themes (categories) identification from influential papers

The 36 most cited papers were further analyzed to identify the themes used in these papers following Fitz-Koch et al. ( 2018 ) research and it was found that most of these studies revolved around seven categories (themes). The summary of the factors under each category (theme) are summarized in Table ​ Table4. 4 . These seven identified categories (themes) used in various influential papers are discussed next in detail.

Cognitive factors

Tpb factors.

The effect of TPB antecedents—attitudes, social norms and perceived behavioral control—on entrepreneurial intentions is discussed in many studies, including Solesvik ( 2013 ), Zhang et al. ( 2015 ), Iglesias-Sánchez et al. ( 2016 ), Karimi et al. ( 2017 ), Mirjana et al. ( 2018 ), Al-Jubari et al. ( 2019 ). In research by Wu and Wu ( 2008 ), personal attitude is the critical influence of entrepreneurial intentions, regardless of the educational backgrounds of students. The three antecedents were proven to have a direct and significant impact on entrepreneurial intentions in the study of Solesvik ( 2013 ) and Utami ( 2017 ). Furthermore, perceived entrepreneurial motivation, which was enhanced among students who joined an enterprise education program, stimulated entrepreneurial intentions through the mediating effect of the three TPB factors (Solesvik, 2013 ).

Zhang et al. ( 2015 ) proved that social norms and perceived behavior control relate significantly to entrepreneurial intentions of students, and controlled behavior generates greater impact on the intentions than social norms do. However, no relationship is found between attitudes and the desire to start a business, considering the lack of experience towards entrepreneurship among undergraduate students. In the research of Iglesias-Sánchez et al. ( 2016 ), PA and PBC have a significant impact on students’ intentions to start ventures, while SN is not a determining component but only demonstrates a decision-making role. In line with other studies, Karimi et al. ( 2017 ) confirmed the significant impact of TPB antecedents on Iranian students’ EI. Among the three predictors, PBC shows the strongest relationship with intentions to start a business while SN demonstrates the weakest. Maresch et al. ( 2016 ) highlighted a negative relationship between subjective norms and entrepreneurial intentions for science and engineering students. By applying TPB to investigate entrepreneurial intentions of students between developing and developed countries, Iakovleva et al. ( 2011 ) showed stronger entrepreneurial intentions with higher attitudes, SN and PBC in developing countries. The result of the study indicated that SN significantly impacted entrepreneurial intentions of students, which is different from some past papers that found no significance in the relationship between SN and intentions towards entrepreneurship (Chen et al. 1998 ; Wu and Wu 2008 ).

Other factors

The study of Zhang et al. ( 2014 ) identified that entrepreneurial intentions are significantly influenced by perceived desirability, but not by perceived feasibility. This is explainable by negative environmental elements of perceived behavioral control, uncertain locus of control and environmental controls due to lack of prior experiences. Solesvik et al. ( 2014 ) stated that in a transitional economy context, students that have perceived desirability and perceived feasibility have greater entrepreneurial intentions. Moreover, the study found that students who take initiative have greater intentions to start a business, while students with low capability beliefs yield lower entrepreneurial intentions. The research of Mirjana et al. ( 2018 ) also highlighted the crucial relationship between innovative cognitive style and students’ intentions to become entrepreneurs. However, innovative cognitive style inconsiderably influences entrepreneurial intentions when the factor is considered as a solely explanatory component.

Personality factors

According to Zhao et al. ( 2005 ), people having higher risk propensity will be more confident confronting risky situations and viewing uncertain circumstances as less risky than other individuals. Considering that, they might feel less anxious to take on entrepreneurial occupation, fulfill the position and complete the tasks more comfortably, thus having higher entrepreneurial self-efficacy. This impact is also justified by the findings of the study, stating that self-efficacy plays a mediating role in the relationship between risk propensity and intentions towards entrepreneurship of students.

Many studies found that self-efficacy and intentions towards entrepreneurship of students have a positively significant relationship, such as Guzmán-Alfonso and Guzmán-Cuevas ( 2012 ), Sesen ( 2013 ), Utami ( 2017 ), Zhang and Cain ( 2017 ). The research of Gurel et al. ( 2010 ) indicates that innovativeness and risk-taking propensity play a significant role as a predictor for entrepreneurial intentions of tourism students in the UK and Turkey, while tolerance of ambiguity and locus of control do not relate to the intentions towards entrepreneurship. Additionally, education does not demonstrate the moderating impact in the relationship between those entrepreneurial traits and intentions of tourism students. On the other hand, locus of control shows significant influence on entrepreneurial intentions in the study of Sesen ( 2013 ). The study also indicates that personality factors are more significant towards the entrepreneurial intentions of students than environmental predictors such as access to capital and social networks.

Zhang et al. ( 2015 ) also stated that short-term risk-taking preference and factors of psychological well-being positively influence the intentions towards entrepreneurship of an individual with the existence of TPB antecedents, namely personal attitudes, social norms and perceived behavioral control. The study of Zhang and Cain ( 2017 ) pointed out that there is an absence of a direct effect of risk aversion on intentions to start a business in dental school students. Risk aversion only diminishes entrepreneurial intentions indirectly via antecedents of TPB. The impact stated that risk aversion might not be a fixed dispositional factor, but an adjustable trait that can be altered over time. The study of Mustafa et al. ( 2016 ) found that entrepreneurial intentions are positively impacted by a proactive personality and the perceived university support of Malaysian students. Among the two drivers, proactive personalities have a stronger influence on intentions towards self-employment than from the perceived concept of student development support from students. Karimi et al. ( 2017 ) stated that personality factors, including the need for achievement, risk taking and locus of control, indirectly affect the intentions towards entrepreneurship of Iranian students through the entrepreneurial attitudes and PBC.

In the paper of Al-Jubari et al. ( 2019 ), intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, which are generated from psychological needs of autonomy, relatedness and competence, are indicated to have a positive indirect effect on entrepreneurial intentions in Malaysian students via the three components of TPB. More importantly, the motivation types play important roles in the entrepreneurial process, in which each kind yields different impacts. Entrepreneurs with intrinsic motivations will demonstrate more effective performances, more persistence and greater autonomy, leading to dynamic entrepreneurs. Meanwhile, individuals with extrinsic motivations will be less persistent when confronting challenges, more likely to discontinue nascent behaviors, and concentrate on external achievements. In addition, the need for satisfaction and the need for frustration are also proven to be negatively correlated.

Environmental factors

In the study, Pruett et al. ( 2009 ) indicated that the participants’ country and cultures, exposure to acquaintance entrepreneurs in family, family support, and the strength of beliefs towards motives for entrepreneurship positively impact entrepreneurial intentions. However, the significance of those variables is smaller than the effect of entrepreneurial disposition, implying that factors related to personal characteristics are more influential on the intentions towards self-employment. In addition, entrepreneurial intentions are negatively affected by social barriers, which involve operating risks, or lack of knowledge and capital. But the impact is also relatively small as compared to the disposition factor.

According to Turker and Selcuk ( 2009 ), structural support shows significant impact on entrepreneurial intentions, stating that a greater comprehensive support from all social sectors is required to stimulate entrepreneurship in young people. In addition, the effect of self-confidence as a moderating component is more considerable in the connection between structural support and entrepreneurial intentions. However, the study demonstrates that perceived relational support, such as monetary and sentimental assistance from family and friends, does not influence the intention to establish a business for students. Access capital is proven to have a negative and significant correlation to entrepreneurial intentions of students in the study of Sesen ( 2013 ).

Social factors

Prior entrepreneurial experience, which provides students a role model and enactive proficiency from empirical exposure, is proven to be strongly mediated by self-efficacy, thus further affecting entrepreneurial intentions (Zhao et al. 2005 ). However, prior entrepreneurial exposure shows a notable negative impact on intentions towards entrepreneurship in the research of Zhang et al. ( 2014 ). The reason for this unexpected result is that the participants in the study mostly underwent negative entrepreneurial experiences, thus raising the fears and insecurities towards self-employment. The proposed model of Kuckertz and Wagner ( 2010 ) indicated the orientation of an individuals' sustainability is meaningful in the relationship with their entrepreneurial intentions. Nevertheless, while significant potential is found among students for entrepreneurship opportunities with sustainable orientation, it declines as business experience is achieved.

Gurel et al. ( 2010 ) included social factors into the research model to explain the effect on entrepreneurial intentions of tourism students. Among those elements, students with entrepreneurial families tend to have higher intentions towards entrepreneurship. Conversely, cultural factors are considered when there is concern in the probability of self-employment, instead of entrepreneurial intention. The findings of Hockerts ( 2017 ) showed that prior experience with social organizations can increase social entrepreneurial intentions of an individual. The relationship is mediated by factors including empathy, self-efficacy, moral obligation, and perceived social support. The self-efficacy variable holds the greatest effect. Furthermore, the study provided compelling evidence that the number of social entrepreneurship electives by students is predicted by entrepreneurial intentions.

Educational factors

The perceptions of formal learning from students does not directly influence entrepreneurial intentions but demonstrates a strong indirect impact on the decision of an individual to start a business via a mediating factor—self-efficacy. Supporting the idea that students’ intentions towards entrepreneurial venture creation can be shaped by formal academic courses. The study of Zhao et al. ( 2005 ) suggests educational institutions integrate distinct types of learning ways to improve entrepreneurial self-efficacy in students. Entrepreneurial intentions of students are proven to be impacted at educational level through personal attitude effects and academic majors through both attitudes and the PBC of individuals. However, no relationship is found between academic accomplishment and PBC; and entrepreneurship education curriculums have little to no impact on the entrepreneurial desires of students (Wu and Wu 2008 ). One highly influential paper by Walter and Block ( 2016 ) identified the effects of entrepreneurship education is higher on the EI of students in entrepreneurship-hostile institutional environments than in entrepreneurship-friendly institutional environments. Although the paper was highly cited, we could not include it in this list because it was based on macrolevel educational factors, whereas this study is based on microlevel educational factors.

The result from the study of Turker and Selcuk ( 2009 ) indicates that educational support significantly impacts the entrepreneurial intentions of students in Turkey. As specified by the paper, an educational institution delivering sufficient knowledge and motivation towards entrepreneurship to students will enhance the likelihood of young people being involved in venture creation, thus suggesting universities to develop educational policies and structures to effectively inspire entrepreneurs. Nevertheless, self-confidence, which is a moderator in the model, was proven to not strengthen the relationship between educational support and intentions towards entrepreneurship. Moreover, according to the article, the educational factor has greater beta co-efficiency than structural support factor, the former variable is a more influential predictor to entrepreneurial intentions than the latter. This can be explained that students might perceive educational support as an immediate factor, thus having more awareness towards this support (Turker and Selcuk 2009 ).

According to the study of Arranz et al. ( 2017 ), although curricular and extracurricular activities have a positive impact on attitudes towards entrepreneurship, they might reduce capacity and intention to engage in the start-up activities of students. Moreover, the research demonstrates different influences of curricular activities on the entrepreneurial competences of students in two institutions, suggesting the development in educational methodology and strategies to enhance their competences. There are a substantial number of studies indicating the positive connection between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intention of students (Hattab 2014 ; Zhang et al. 2014 ; Maresch et al. 2016 ; Nowiński et al. 2019 ). Research from Zhang et al. ( 2014 ) shows a direct relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions. Also, gender, study majors and university types have considerable positive interactive impacts on the correlation between entrepreneurship education and intentions to run a business in the context of Chinese university students. The findings of Hattab ( 2014 ) and Maresch et al. ( 2016 ) are also in line regarding the positive impact of entrepreneurship education towards entrepreneurial intentions of students. It is noteworthy that students in business majors may benefit more from entrepreneurship education than those in science and engineering programs. In the study of Hattab ( 2014 ), education is indicated to positively influence perceived desirability towards entrepreneurship of students, while the effect is less significant on perceived feasibility and inconsiderable on students’ self-efficacy. The positive significant relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions, mediated by self-efficacy, is also confirmed in the study of Nowiński et al. ( 2019 ). Among Visegrad countries, the correlation is considerable only in Poland where entrepreneurship education is introduced in high school. Another important finding is that despite lower levels of self-efficacy and intentions towards entrepreneurship in female students, they may benefit more from entrepreneurship education than males do. However, some studies found no relationship between university environment and entrepreneurial intentions of students, including the work of Sesen ( 2013 ), Chen et al. ( 2015 ).

According to Chen et al. ( 2015 ), entrepreneurship courses increase learning efficacy and satisfaction of technical undergraduate students, but do not enhance the intentions of students to start a business. The study implies that entrepreneurship courses provided by universities would help students to recognize that entrepreneurial occupations might not be suitable for them and rather to implement what they learned to future jobs rather than pursue entrepreneurship. Solesvik et al. ( 2014 ) proved that although the relationship between students joining in entrepreneurship-specific education and high intensity of entrepreneurial intentions is positive, the interactions of entrepreneurship-specific education with perceived desirability, perceived feasibility, and perceived cultural elements are not related to greater entrepreneurial intentions.

Contextual (situational) factors

According to Guzmán-Alfonso and Guzmán-Cuevas ( 2012 ) perceived social value and entrepreneurial intentions have a significantly negative relationship for people aged 18–64 in Latin America, which is not in line with Ajzen's model. The study of Karimi et al. ( 2017 ) indicated that perceived contextual support and barriers have an indirect impact on entrepreneurial intentions of students via PBC; and perceived barriers are also found to have a direct, negative association with the intentions towards start-up. The entrepreneurial intentions were found to be positively related to perception of motives such as creativity and desire for independence while perceptions of barriers were negatively impacting the entrepreneurial intentions of the students as mentioned by Pruett et al. ( 2009 ) in their study.

Demographic factors

Gender differences.

Gender was proven to have a direct relationship with entrepreneurial intentions in the study of Zhao et al. ( 2005 ), in which females show lower intentions to start a business than males. However, the research indicates that there is no difference between the two genders regarding entrepreneurial self-efficacy, suggesting that the connection between sexuality and entrepreneurial intentions is shaped by theoretical mechanisms such as perceived social supports and barriers, and outcome expectations, rather than self-efficacy. Empirical results from Zhang et al. ( 2014 ) state that women and people from universities and backgrounds, other than technology, have lower entrepreneurial intentions than men and people from technological ones, suggesting eliminating the traditional entrepreneurial stereotypes among females and increase the need for additional women role models. Furthermore, the research of Maes et al. ( 2014 ) investigated the differences between females and males in the elements that predict entrepreneurial intentions of graduate students in Belgium. Females tend to be driven to self-employment by the motivation of getting organized and in consideration of their own personal abilities, while males will base their entrepreneurial intentions on financial restraints and creativity while perceiving entrepreneurship as a means of getting ahead. In addition, females prefer to comply with normative role models than males; however, the gender impact on entrepreneurial intentions is not mediated by social norms.

Nationality differences

The study of Giacomin et al. ( 2011 ) determined the national differences in entrepreneurial intentions, motivations, and perceived barriers towards venture creation dispositions of students in American, Asian, and European countries. Specifically, the strongest entrepreneurial intentions are found in Spanish students, while interests towards public administration occupations are identified in Chinese students. Furthermore, despite similarly perceived motivations and barriers to self-employment, students in those countries show different sensitivity levels and significant extents to each motivator and barrier, which can be explained by the socio-economic factors of each nation.

Regarding students in Beira Interior region (Portugal) and Extremadura region (Spain), there is evidence that some differences exist in perceived desirability, perceived feasibility, and entrepreneurial intentions among the countries according to the study of Díaz-Casero et al. ( 2012 ). University students in the two nations have positive perceptions towards the desirability of entrepreneurship. Concerning perceived feasibility, Spanish students found it easier to start a business in the present than in the past, while this was not true for Portuguese students. Moreover, students in the Extremadura region have higher intentions to start a business than those in the Beira Interior region; nevertheless, the seriousness of entrepreneurial intentions is higher in Portuguese students compared to individuals in Spain. Additionally, the influences of gender and entrepreneurial family members on the perceptions of students in the two countries are also investigated, in which sexuality impacts the perceived intentions of students. Yet no influence is found between gender, family backgrounds and perceived feasibility in both groups.

Further analysis of themes from influential papers

To visually present the themes clearly, the mind map has been used (as in Fig.  4 ) to summarize as what factors are most commonly considered in these 36 most influential papers and the analysis suggests that cognitive factors are most commonly used (three studies used them as only factors affecting entrepreneurial intentions) or cognitive factors used with personality factors (in three studies) or cognitive factors with educational factors (used in five studies) or cognitive factors used with environmental factors, demographic factors and contextual factors respectively in one, one and two studies. This shows that most of the papers (15 out of 36) have used cognitive factors as only factors or combined with other factors affecting EI of students. Personality factors, environmental factors or social factors are never considered alone in these most cited papers but used in combination with other factors and that too are not very widely used. Other factors, such as social factors, educational factors, contextual factors, and environmental factors, are rarely used as single factors to measure the EI of students.

Mind map showing most common factors in (n = 36) most influential papers. Note : Mind map reading; for example: EI affected by cognitive factors (3 studies) (on left of EI box); EI affected by cognitive factors and personality factors (3 studies) (on left of EI box); EI affected by cognitive, personality and environmental factors (1 study) (on left of EI box); EI affected by cognitive factors, environmental factors, demographic factors (1 study) (on left of EI box); EI affected by only education factors and contextual factors (1 study) (on right of EI box); EI affected by personality factors and educational factor (1 study) (on right of EI box)

Based on these identified seven-factors themes, the rest of the 254 papers were also grouped in similar way as seen in Fig.  5 . This analysis also indicates that the cognitive factors are used as a single factor in 61 studies, followed by a combination of cognitive and personality factors by 20 studies, cognitive and educational factors by 22 studies, cognitive and contextual factors by 11 studies and cognitive factors with social, environmental, demographic factors considered by respectively seven, three and two studies. Overall, 161 studies used cognitive factors (single or in combination with other six factors), followed by 43 studies which used personality factors alone or in combination with the rest of the five factors. The pattern found in the rest of the papers are like the ones used by most cited papers except that in these papers, the personality factors are explored in more detail.

Mind map showing most common factors in n = 254 papers (non-influential papers)

Conceptual model

Based on the synthesis of literature, we propose the integrated conceptual model of the variables that affects the entrepreneurial intentions of the students according to the extensive coding of 290 papers. The first important finding is that the independent variables used to measure the entrepreneurial intentions of university students are captured in the literature at seven levels: cognitive factors, personality factors, environmental factors, social factors, educational factors, contextual factors and demographic factors. Most of the papers have used cognitive factors (TPB model, EEM, EIM) as an independent variable and TPB components are used as mediators/moderators to measure the EI of students.

The second important finding that the model depicts is that there are a wide range of mediators and moderators used to measure the EI of students. The mediators and moderators are also measured at the same seven levels as mentioned for independent variables. In total, 130 studies used mediators and 61 scholars used moderators in their study. Most of the studies have used TPB components as mediator, while moderators used are mostly related to demographic factors, contextual factors, and personality factors.

Other than TPB factors, examples of mediators used as cognitive factors from entrepreneurial event model are perceived desirability, perceived feasibility, and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Other mediators used are risk propensity, need for achievement, and locus of control which are derived from Bandura’s social cognitive theory and are related to personality factors. The next level of mediators used are at a social level such as the family influence, social exposure, country culture, and prior experience. The next majorly used mediators are related to situational factors as shown in conceptual model, followed by educational factors, and demographic factors. Only 21% of scholars in their studies have used moderators. The moderators also consist of seven identified factors (see Fig.  6 ). Some of the scholars have also used control variables in their study which are mostly demographic variables such as gender, university type, university locality, nationality, major, age, work experience, and exposure to entrepreneurial activities, family income, marital status, and entrepreneurial family background.

Conceptual model (Factors influencing EI)

Entrepreneurship studies have arisen rapidly since the published works of Shapero 40 years ago (Shapero and Sokol 1982 ; Shapero 1984 ), many research papers have focused on EI, which is considered to have the greatest influence on entrepreneurship activities. This paper systematically analyzed various publications regarding the EI of students during the period 2005 till June 2022 and discusses the most and common studied factors in past research and how future studies can further explore this research area.

The paper adopted citation analysis, which is a prominent method, that recognizes the 36 most impactful studies in this research area over the period considered in this study. From the analysis, seven main themes (categories) of EI determinants were identified and implemented further in the paper’s analysis framework to analyze the rest of the articles (n = 254) used in this study. The analysis on several factors from 254 studies is briefly included in this review paper and indicated similar results as found in most influential papers, which suggests that the cognitive factor is most used factor in many papers which influences the EI of students.

Theoretical implications and suggestions on future research

From a theoretical perspective, the literature review aims to identify the factors most studied by past scholars that have an impact on the EI of university students. The study contributes to the educational entrepreneurship research literature, which will help higher educational institutions to understand which significant factors stimulate students’ intentions to start a business. The analysis of the paper clearly demonstrated that TPB model and cognitive factors dominate this area of research, and most studies are found to be conducted in Asian countries. Hence, based on the analysis of papers, this study discusses further steps for entrepreneurship research to better understand EI of university students and offers the following suggestions as below and as summarized in the conceptual model for future research (Fig.  6 ).

It is clear that to improve the understanding of factors affecting entrepreneurial intentions, future research should consider moving from cognitive factors using the TPB model. It is important to access the role of social factors including the family background and culture, contextual (situational) factors as to what forces an individual to become an entrepreneur, and this may shed further light on the EI of students. These combined factors will help in bringing out a holistic overview of factors affecting students EI. Cognitive factors have been extensively used in literature and there is a need to identify other important factors which affect the EI of students. Next, the culture of the country can have a great influence on the intentions of the students which has been less explored in the studies and hence conducting research considering the socio-cultural factors in different countries might help in providing multi-faceted views in terms of entrepreneurial intentions. It can also be of interest for the scholars to further explore the demographic factors as very few studies have considered them to determine the EI of students. The outbreak of COVID-19 has affected entrepreneurship (Yu et al. 2021 ), and hence future research may consider the impact of the pandemic, such as online education, macroeconomic factors, etc., on EI of university students.

In the digital transformation economy, technological entrepreneurship started to grab the attention of many countries, especially developing countries (Nathani and Dwivedi 2019 ). The perception towards technology growth can influence students’ intentions to start new ventures. Future research can study the technological entrepreneurship by investigating how combined factors such as environmental factors (e.g., access to technology), contextual factors (e.g., perception of recent economy/market, perception of government support, opportunities), and social factors (e.g., prior experiences, role models) affect the EI of university students, from which many implications can be undertaken to benefit the young people’s entrepreneurial activities. Most of the studies provided comparisons on EI considering different nationalities or genders. Furthermore, to enhance understanding in the EI research area, comparison can be provided considering other demographic factors, for instance, online versus physical educational environment, individuals with disabilities versus the ones without disabilities. Most of the studies have focused on theory of the planned behaviour model and hence it might be important in the future to combine different EI models to explore and broaden the scope of literature which will further add value and contribute to the already existing literature.

More than half of the studies are conducted in Asia and hence it is important to explore other less explored regions such as Africa, America, and Europe to determine if there are any differences in factors affecting the EI of students in these developed and developing regions. As identified by the review, the entire literature in this field is dominated by quantitative studies and hence to provide more robust results, mixed studies using quantitative and qualitative should be conducted in the future. Future research may benefit from EI determinants in the context of higher education to conduct studies on different developmental phases, such as primary and secondary school. In the study of Brüne and Lutz ( 2020 ), entrepreneurship education had greater positive influence on the self-efficacy and entrepreneurial desirability of younger students than older ones. Scholars can examine the effect of early exposure to entrepreneurship on the development of factors that will further impact EI of students. The research of Barth and Muehlfeld ( 2021 ) found that the interventions in early entrepreneurship enhanced the entrepreneurial self-efficacy of university students.

Practical implications

There are some critical implications based on the analysis from this paper for various stakeholders. The systematic review can be useful for the scholars who aim to conduct research in EI of students in the future and this review will inspire and motivate the scholars to determine the novel research framework based on the insights provided from this systematic review which can help the community in general. Policy practitioners can implement relevant policies and provide appropriate support to enhance the EI of individuals and to provide an environment to build an entrepreneurship culture in their country. Educational institutions and teachers can find ways to inspire the entrepreneurial intentions in the students by enhancing course curriculums, developing applicable skills and knowledge, encouraging ideas, and boosting self-confidence in students and helping them to develop overall. Entrepreneurial intentions are often used as a proxy for behavior, but entrepreneurial intentions rarely convert into entrepreneurial action, particularly among students who have limited experience of entrepreneurship and lack experience of work altogether. Therefore, focusing on entrepreneurial intentions only, or using intentions as a proxy for action, represents a severe limitation to entrepreneurial action and future studies should focus on measuring the entrepreneurial actions with entrepreneurial intentions.

This paper has conducted the systematic review on more than 15 years of EI research studied in worldwide university students to provide an understanding of the most common factors that affect students’ intentions to become entrepreneurs used in the literature and suggest novel lines of research in the future. Various papers published between 2005 and June 2022 measuring the EI of the students were analyzed and the findings clearly suggest that there is an increasing trend of these studies from 2017 onwards. Most of the research focused on Asia with more than half of the studies conducted in this region. The results highlighted that the most scholars used TPB model to measure EI of students, and the factors used by most papers are related to cognitive factors. It is believed that using a range of factors can provide a better understanding to measure the EI of students. Hence, future research can be extended in various areas as identified by the gaps provided in the discussion section above. Based on the above findings, it is clear that cognitive factors should not only be accounted for to understand the intentions of students and more studies should focus on other factors which are equally important in their influence on the EI of the students.

Like every other study, this review also has some limitations that can be addressed in future research. First, although the authors tried their best to include the studies between 2005 and June 2022, some studies might have been overlooked due to the variety of databases available. Next, the comparative review between different regions might have helped to understand the region-specific factors affecting the EI of students which was not explored in this study. Next, specific review can be conducted in Africa to better understand the EI of students as there are fewer studies currently in this region and such review can motivate the scholars to explore this region further. Finally, the comparative review between Asia and Africa might provide valuable insight on the factors affecting the EI of students, as both the regions mostly consist of developing countries.

List of n = 254 papers (non-influential papers)

Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions. No funds, grants, or other support was received.

Data availability

Declarations.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Abdullahi MS, Khalid N, Ahmed U, et al. Effect of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intention among university students. J Tech Educ Train. 2021 doi: 10.30880/jtet.2021.13.03.005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Adeyonu AG, Balogun OL, Obaniyi KS (2019) Factors influencing entrepreneurial intentions of undergraduate agricultural students in Nigeria|Nijerya’da ziraat fakültesi öğrencilerinin girişimciliklerini etkileyen faktörler. Yuz Yil Univ J Agric Sci. 10.29133/yyutbd.623910
• Aggarwal V. A conceptual study on factors of entrepreneurial potentiality and their impact on entrepreneurial intention with the moderating role of entrepreneurship education. Prabandhan Indian J Manag. 2019 doi: 10.17010/pijom/2019/vl2i6/144932. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Agu AG, Kalu OO, Esi-Ubani CO, Agu PC. Drivers of sustainable entrepreneurial intentions among university students: an integrated model from a developing world context. Int J Sustain High Educ. 2021 doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-07-2020-0277. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ahamed F, Rokhman W (2015) The role of social and psychological factors on entrepreneurial intention among islamic college students in Indonesia. Entrep Bus Econ Rev 29–41. 10.15678/EBER.2015.030103
• Ahmed T, Klobas JE, Ramayah T. Personality traits, demographic factors and entrepreneurial intentions: improved understanding from a moderated mediation study. Entrep Res J. 2021 doi: 10.1515/erj-2017-0062. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991; 50 :179–211. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. Hoboken: Prentice-Hall; 1980. [ Google Scholar ]
• Akadiri S, Bekun FV, Rasul O, Victor Bekun F. The impact of self-efficacy on international student entrepreneur intention. Int Rev Manag Mark. 2017; 7 (1):169–174. [ Google Scholar ]
• Akhtar S, Albarrak MS, Ahmad A, et al. Drivers of student entrepreneurial intention and the moderating role of entrepreneurship education: evidence from an Indian university. Discrete Dyn Nat Soc. 2022 doi: 10.1155/2022/6767580. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Akhter A, Hossain MU, Al Asheq A. Influential factors of social entrepreneurial intention in Bangladesh. J Asian Financ Econ Bus. 2020 doi: 10.13106/JAFEB.2020.VOL7.NO8.645. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Al Bakri A, Mehrez A (2017) Factors influencing entrepreneurial intentions among arab students. Int J Entrep 21(3). http://hdl.handle.net/10576/15723
• Ali MSY, Abou EAEE. Determinants of entrepreneurial intention among Sudanese university students. Manag Sci Lett. 2020 doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2020.4.023. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ali YM, Negasi RD. The differential impact of the experiential-entrepreneurial learning method on the entrepreneurial intentions of higher education students. Int J Learn Teach Educ Res. 2021 doi: 10.26803/IJLTER.20.9.14. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ali J, Zakaria N, Jaganathan M, et al. Determinants of entrepreneurial intention: empirical insights from Malaysian undergraduate business students. Int J Econ Res. 2017; 14 (19):159–169. doi: 10.1080/10168737.2017.1314533. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ali I, Ali M, Badghish S. Symmetric and asymmetric modeling of entrepreneurial ecosystem in developing entrepreneurial intentions among female university students in Saudi Arabia. Int J Gend Entrep. 2019 doi: 10.1108/IJGE-02-2019-0039. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alin LD, Dil E. Determinants of somali student’s entrepreneurial intentions: the case study of university students in Mogadishu 1. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Sos Bilim Derg. 2022; 23 :130–142. doi: 10.17494/ogusbd.1092867. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Jubari I, Hassan A, Hashim J. The role of autonomy as a predictor of entrepreneurial intention among university students in Yemen. Int J Entrep Small Bus. 2017 doi: 10.1504/IJESB.2017.081950. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Jubari I, Hassan A, Liñán F. Entrepreneurial intention among University students in Malaysia: integrating self-determination theory and the theory of planned behavior. Int Entrep Manag J. 2019 doi: 10.1007/s11365-018-0529-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Jubari I, Mosbah A, Anor Salim FAB. Motivational and attitudinal determinants of entrepreneurial intention: hospitality and tourism students’ perspectives. J Hosp Tour Educ. 2021 doi: 10.1080/10963758.2021.1963747. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Mamary YHS, Abdulrab M, Alwaheeb MA, Alshammari NGM. Factors impacting entrepreneurial intentions among university students in Saudi Arabia: testing an integrated model of TPB and EO. Educ Train. 2020 doi: 10.1108/ET-04-2020-0096. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Shammari M, Waleed R. Entrepreneurial intentions of private university students in the kingdom of Bahrain. Int J Innov Sci. 2018 doi: 10.1108/IJIS-06-2017-0058. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alshebami AS, Seraj AHA. The Antecedents of saving behavior and entrepreneurial intention of Saudi Arabia University Students. Educ Sci Theory Pract. 2021 doi: 10.12738/jestp.2021.2.005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alzamel S, Nazri M, Omar S. Factors influencing e-entrepreneurial intention among female students in Saudi Arabia. Int J Criminol Sociol. 2020 doi: 10.6000/1929-4409.2020.09.234. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amanamah RB, Acheampong A, Owusu EK. An exploratory study of entrepreneurial intention among university students in Ghana. Int J Sci Technol Res. 2018; 7 (1):140–148. [ Google Scholar ]
• Amofah K, Saladrigues R. Impact of attitude towards entrepreneurship education and role models on entrepreneurial intention. J Innov Entrep. 2022 doi: 10.1186/s13731-022-00197-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anjum T, Farrukh M, Heidler P, Tautiva JAD. Entrepreneurial intention: creativity, entrepreneurship, and university support. J Open Innov Technol Mark Complex. 2021 doi: 10.3390/joitmc7010011. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anjum T, Heidler P, Amoozegar A, Anees RT. The impact of entrepreneurial passion on the entrepreneurial intention; moderating impact of perception of university support. Adm Sci. 2021 doi: 10.3390/admsci11020045. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anwar I, Saleem I, Islam KMB, et al. Entrepreneurial intention among female university students: examining the moderating role of entrepreneurial education. J Int Bus Entrep Dev. 2020 doi: 10.1504/JIBED.2020.110254. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anwar I, Thoudam P, Saleem I. Role of entrepreneurial education in shaping entrepreneurial intention among university students: testing the hypotheses using mediation and moderation approach. J Educ Bus. 2022 doi: 10.1080/08832323.2021.1883502. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ao J, Liu Z. What impact entrepreneurial intention? Cultural, environmental, and educational factors. J Manag Anal. 2014 doi: 10.1080/23270012.2014.994232. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arango-Botero D, Arias MLB, Montoya MH, Valencia-Arias A. Determinants of entrepreneurial intention among engineering students based on structural equation modeling. Pertanika J Soc Sci Humanit. 2020 doi: 10.47836/PJSSH.28.4.08. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arasti Z, Pasvishe FA, Motavaseli M. Normative institutional factors affecting entrepreneurial intention in iranian information technology sector. J Manag Strategy. 2012 doi: 10.5430/jms.v3n2p16. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arranz N, Ubierna F, Arroyabe MF, et al. The effect of curricular and extracurricular activities on university students’ entrepreneurial intention and competences. Stud High Educ. 2017 doi: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1130030. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arranz N, Arroyabe MF, Fdez. de Arroyabe JC. Entrepreneurial intention and obstacles of undergraduate students: the case of the universities of Andalusia. Stud High Educ. 2019 doi: 10.1080/03075079.2018.1486812. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arshad M, Farooq O, Sultana N, Farooq M. Determinants of individuals’ entrepreneurial intentions: a gender-comparative study. Career Dev Int. 2016 doi: 10.1108/CDI-10-2015-0135. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arshad M, Farooq O, Farooq M. The effect of intrinsic and extrinsic factors on entrepreneurial intentions: the moderating role of collectivist orientation. Manag Decis. 2019 doi: 10.1108/MD-04-2016-0248. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ashari H, Abbas I, Abdul-talib AN, Mohd Zamani SN. Entrepreneurship and sustainable development goals: a multigroup analysis of the moderating effects of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intention. Sustainability. 2022 doi: 10.3390/su14010431. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ashokan N, Priya K, Rajeswari PS. Determinants of personal attitudes dimensions on entrepreneurial intentions. Int J Eng Adv Technol. 2019; 8 (5):488–490. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ashraf MA. “Is Old Gold?” the role of prior experience in exploring the determinants of Islamic social entrepreneurial intentions: evidence from Bangladesh. J Soc Entrep. 2021 doi: 10.1080/19420676.2019.1702580. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Asma PX, Hassan S, et al. Determinants of social entrepreneurial intentions for educational programs. J Public Aff. 2019 doi: 10.1002/pa.1925. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Atitsogbe KA, Mama NP, Sovet L, et al. Perceived employability and entrepreneurial intentions across university students and job seekers in Togo: the effect of career adaptability and self-efficacy. Front Psychol. 2019 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00180. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Autio E, KeeleyKlofsten RHM, et al. Entrepreneurial intent among students in Scandinavia and in the USA. Enterp Innov Manag Stud. 2001 doi: 10.1080/14632440110094632. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ayodele TO, Ekemode BG, Kajimo-Shakantu K. Bridging the gap in real estate enterprise: the impact of mentoring on entrepreneurial intentions of real estate students in Nigeria. Prop Manag. 2021 doi: 10.1108/PM-02-2021-0015. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bae TJ, Qian S, Miao C, Fiet JO. The relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions: a meta-analytic review. Entrep Theory Pract. 2014 doi: 10.1111/etap.12095. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura A. Social learning theory. Hoboken: Prentice Hall; 1977. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev. 1977; 84 :191–215. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall; 1986. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura A, Ross D, Ross SA. Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. J Abnorm Soc Psychol. 1961 doi: 10.1037/h0045925. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura A, Ross D, Ross SA. Imitation of film-mediated aggressive models. J Abnorm Soc Psychol. 1963 doi: 10.1037/h0048687. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bapoo MA, Tehseen S, Haider SA, et al. Sustainability orientation and sustainable entrepreneurship intention: the mediating role of entrepreneurial opportunity recognition. Acad Entrep J. 2022; 28 :1–23. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barba-Sánchez V, Atienza-Sahuquillo C. Entrepreneurial motivation and self-employment: evidence from expectancy theory. Int Entrep Manag J. 2017 doi: 10.1007/s11365-017-0441-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barba-Sánchez V, Atienza-Sahuquillo C. Entrepreneurial intention among engineering students: the role of entrepreneurship education. Eur Res Manag Bus Econ. 2018 doi: 10.1016/j.iedeen.2017.04.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barba-Sánchez V, Mitre-Aranda M, del Brío-González J. The entrepreneurial intention of university students: an environmental perspective. Eur Res Manag Bus Econ. 2022 doi: 10.1016/j.iedeen.2021.100184. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barth J, Muehlfeld K. Thinking out of the box—by thinking in other boxes: a systematic review of interventions in early entrepreneurship vs. STEM education research. Manag Rev Q. 2021 doi: 10.1007/s11301-021-00248-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bazan C, Shaikh A, Frederick S, et al. Effect of memorial university’s environment & support system in shaping entrepreneurial intention of students. J Entrep Educ. 2019; 22 (1):1–35. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bazkiaei HA, Heng LH, Khan NU, et al. Do entrepreneurial education and big-five personality traits predict entrepreneurial intention among universities students? Cogent Bus Manag. 2020 doi: 10.1080/23311975.2020.1801217. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bazkiaei HA, Khan NU, Irshad A-R, Ahmed A. Pathways toward entrepreneurial intention among Malaysian universities’ students. Bus Process Manag J. 2021; 27 :1009–1032. doi: 10.1108/BPMJ-01-2021-0021. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Belas J, Gavurova B, Schonfeld J, et al. Social and economic factors affecting the entrepreneurial intention of university students. Transform Bus Econ. 2017; 16 (3):220–239. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bell R. Predicting entrepreneurial intention across the university. Educ Train. 2019 doi: 10.1108/ET-05-2018-0117. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bello MI, Danjuma IM. Relationship between psychological factors and entrepreneurial intentions of university undergraduates in north east, Nigeria. J Tech Educ Train. 2017; 9 (2):81–93. [ Google Scholar ]
• Benedictohanu I, Shodipe TO, Chukwu DU, Chukwuma JNW. Impact of behavioural factors as related to available resources on entrepreneurial intentions of electrical installation and maintenance works students. Int J Eng Educ. 2020; 36 (1):142–154. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bernhofer L, Han Z. Contextual factors and their effects on future entrepreneurs in China: a comparative study of entrepreneurial intentions. Int J Technol Manag. 2014 doi: 10.1504/IJTM.2014.060955. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bhat IH, Singh S. Analyzing the moderating effect of entrepreneurship education on the antecedents of entrepreneurial intention. J Entrep Educ. 2018; 21 (1):1–10. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bickenbach F, Dohse D, Liu WH. University students’ entrepreneurial intentions: a comparative analysis of Hong Kong and Guangzhou. China World Econ. 2017 doi: 10.1111/cwe.12194. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bird B. Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: the case for intention. Acad Manag Rev. 1988 doi: 10.5465/amr.1988.4306970. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Biswas A, Verma RK. Attitude and alertness in personality traits: a pathway to building entrepreneurial intentions among university students. J Entrep. 2021 doi: 10.1177/09713557211025656. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boyd NG, Vozikis GS. The influence of self-efficacy on the development of entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrep Theory Pract. 1994 doi: 10.1177/104225879401800404. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brüne N, Lutz E. The effect of entrepreneurship education in schools on entrepreneurial outcomes: a systematic review. Manag Rev Q. 2020 doi: 10.1007/s11301-019-00168-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bui THV, Nguyen TLT, Tran MD, Nguyen TAT. Determinants influencing entrepreneurial intention among undergraduates in universities of Vietnam. J Asian Financ Econ Bus. 2020 doi: 10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no7.369. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buli BM, Yesuf WM. Determinants of entrepreneurial intentions: technical-vocational education and training students in Ethiopia. Educ Train. 2015 doi: 10.1108/ET-10-2014-0129. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buschow C, Laugemann R. What makes a media entrepreneur? Factors influencing entrepreneurial intention of mass communication students. J Mass Commun Educ. 2020 doi: 10.1177/1077695820912146. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cai X, Hussain S, Zhang Y. Factors that can promote the green entrepreneurial intention of college students: a fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis. Front Psychol. 2022 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.776886. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Canever MD, Barral MRM, Ribeiro FG. How does the public and private university environment affect students’ entrepreneurial intention? Educ Train. 2017 doi: 10.1108/ET-12-2016-0187. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cano JA, Tabares A. Determinants of university students’ entrepreneurial intention: GUESSS Colombia study. Espacios. 2017; 38 (45):22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cao VQ, Ngo TTT. Linking entrepreneurial intentions and mindset models: a comparative study of public and private universities in Vietnam. Gadjah Mada Int J Bus. 2019; 21 (2):115–133. doi: 10.22146/gamaijb.34753. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carey TA, Flanagan DJ, Palmer TB. An examination of university student entrepreneurial intentions by type of venture. J Dev Entrep. 2010 doi: 10.1142/S1084946710001622. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Caro-González FJ, Romero-Benabent H, Sánchez-Torné I. The influence of gender on the entrepreneurial intentions of journalism students. Intang Cap. 2017 doi: 10.3926/ic.927. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Castelló-Sirvent F, Pinazo-Dallenbach P. Corruption shock in Mexico: FsQCA analysis of entrepreneurial intention in university students. Mathematics. 2021 doi: 10.3390/math9141702. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Çelik AK, Yıldız T, Aykanat Z, Kazemzadeh S. The impact of narrow personality traits on entrepreneurial intention in developing countries: a comparison of Turkish and Iranian undergraduate students using ordered discrete choice models. Eur Res Manag Bus Econ. 2021 doi: 10.1016/j.iedeen.2020.100138. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chang YY, Wannamakok W, Kao CP. Entrepreneurship education, academic major, and university students’ social entrepreneurial intention: the perspective of Planned Behavior Theory. Stud High Educ. 2021 doi: 10.1080/03075079.2021.2021875. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Che Nawi N, Al MA, Hassan AA, et al. Agro-entrepreneurial Intention among University Students: a study under the premises of theory of planned behavior. SAGE Open. 2022 doi: 10.1177/21582440211069144. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen CC, Greene PG, Crick A. Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? J Bus Ventur. 1998 doi: 10.1016/S0883-9026(97)00029-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen SC, Hsiao HC, Chang JC, et al. Can the entrepreneurship course improve the entrepreneurial intentions of students? Int Entrep Manag J. 2015 doi: 10.1007/s11365-013-0293-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chinaire TI, Chimucheka T, Khayundi HA. Factors influencing social entrepreneurial intentions of students at a University in South Africa. Acad Entrep J. 2021; 27 :1–16. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chukwuma-Nwuba EO. The influence of culture on entrepreneurial intentions: a Nigerian university graduates’ perspective. Transnatl Corp Rev. 2018 doi: 10.1080/19186444.2018.1507877. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Contreras-Barraza N, Espinosa-Cristia JF, Salazar-Sepulveda G, Vega-Muñoz A. Entrepreneurial intention: a gender study in business and economics students from Chile. Sustainability. 2021 doi: 10.3390/su13094693. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dao TK, Bui AT, Doan TTT, et al. Impact of academic majors on entrepreneurial intentions of Vietnamese students: an extension of the theory of planned behavior. Heliyon. 2021 doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06381. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Datta A, Bazan C, Arnold K. Effect of gender role identity on the entrepreneurial intention of university students. J Small Bus Entrep. 2021 doi: 10.1080/08276331.2021.1981729. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Díaz-Casero JC, Ferreira JJM, Mogollón RH, Raposo MLB. Influence of institutional environment on entrepreneurial intention: a comparative study of two countries university students. Int Entrep Manag J. 2012 doi: 10.1007/s11365-009-0134-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Diegoli RB, Gutierrez HSM, Los Salmones MDMG De (2018) Teachers as entrepreneurial role models: the impact of a teacher’s entrepreneurial experience and student learning styles in entrepreneurial intentions. J Entrep Educ 21(1)
• Díez-Echavarría L, Valencia-Arias A, Bermúdez-Hernández J. Tool for measuring the influence of the field of knowledge on entrepreneurial intention among university students. Period Polytech Soc Manag Sci. 2020 doi: 10.3311/PPso.12873. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Do BR, Dadvari A. The influence of the dark triad on the relationship between entrepreneurial attitude orientation and entrepreneurial intention: a study among students in Taiwan University. Asia Pacific Manag Rev. 2017 doi: 10.1016/j.apmrv.2017.07.011. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Doan XT, Phan TTH. The impact of entrepreneurial education on entrepreneurial intention: the case of Vietnamese. Manag Sci Lett. 2020 doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2019.12.040. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Doanh DC. The moderating role of self-efficacy on the cognitive process of entrepreneurship: an empirical study in Vietnam. J Entrep Manag Innov. 2021 doi: 10.7341/20211715. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Doanh DC. The role of contextual factors on predicting entrepreneurial intention among Vietnamese students. Entrep Bus Econ Rev. 2021 doi: 10.15678/EBER.2021b.090111. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Doanh DC, Bernat T. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intention among Vietnamese students: a meta-analytic path analysis based on the theory of planned behavior. Procedia Comput Sci. 2019; 159 :2447–2460. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2019.09.420. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dong Y, Pang L, Fu L. Research on the influencing factors of entrepreneurial intentions based on mediating effect of self-actualization. Int J Innov Sci. 2019 doi: 10.1108/IJIS-03-2018-0027. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dragin AS, Mijatov MB, Munitlak Ivanović O, et al. Entrepreneurial intention of students (managers in training): personal and family characteristics. Sustainability. 2022; 14 :7345. doi: 10.3390/su14127345. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Duong CD. Exploring the link between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions: the moderating role of educational fields. Educ Train. 2021 doi: 10.1108/ET-05-2021-0173. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Duong CD, Nguyen HX, Ngo TVN, et al. The impact of individual and environmental characteristics on students’ entrepreneurial intention. Manag Sci Lett. 2020 doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2019.9.020. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Duque Aldaz FJ, Pazan Gómez EG, Álvarez Vasco WA (2018) Factors affecting entrepreneurial intention of Senior University Students. Espacios 39(9)
• Dzomonda O, Fatoki O, Oni O. The effect of psychological and contextual factors on the entrepreneurial intention of university students in South Africa. Corp Ownersh Control. 2015 doi: 10.22495/cocv13i1c11p2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Echchabi A, Omar MMS, Ayedh AM. Entrepreneurial intention among female university students in Oman. J Int Bus Entrep Dev. 2020 doi: 10.1504/JIBED.2020.110251. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eid R, Badewi A, Selim H, El-Gohary H. Integrating and extending competing intention models to understand the entrepreneurial intention of senior university students. Educ Train. 2019 doi: 10.1108/ET-02-2018-0030. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elnadi M, Gheith MH. Entrepreneurial ecosystem, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial intention in higher education: evidence from Saudi Arabia. Int J Manag Educ. 2021 doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100458. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elnadi M, Gheith MH, Farag T (2020) How does the perception of entrepreneurial ecosystem affect entrepreneurial intention among university students in Saudi Arabia? Int J Entrep 24
• Entrialgo M, Iglesias V. Entrepreneurial intentions among university students: the moderating role of creativity. Eur Manag Rev. 2020 doi: 10.1111/emre.12386. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ezeh PC, Nkamnebe AD, Omodafe UP. Determinants of entrepreneurial intention among undergraduates in a Muslim community. Manag Res Rev. 2020 doi: 10.1108/MRR-09-2018-0348. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fanea-Ivanovici M, Baber H. Sustainability at universities as a determinant of entrepreneurship for sustainability. Sustainability. 2022 doi: 10.3390/su14010454. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fatoki O. Parental and gender effects on the entrepreneurial intention of university students in South Africa. Mediterr J Soc Sci. 2014 doi: 10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n7p157. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fatoki O. Sustainability orientation and sustainable entrepreneurial intentions of University students in South Africa. Entrep Sustain Issues. 2019 doi: 10.9770/jesi.2019.7.2(14). [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fernandes C, Ferreira JJ, Raposo M, et al. Determinants of entrepreneurial intentions: an international cross-border study. Int J Innov Sci. 2018 doi: 10.1108/IJIS-02-2017-0017. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ferreira ADSM, Loiola E, Gondim SMG, Pereira CR. Effects of entrepreneurial competence and planning guidance on the relation between university students’ attitude and entrepreneurial intention. J Entrep. 2022 doi: 10.1177/09713557211069261. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ferri L, Ginesti G, Spano R, Zampella A. Exploring factors motivating entrepreneurial intentions: the case of Italian university students. Int J Train Dev. 2019 doi: 10.1111/ijtd.12158. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fitz-Koch S, Nordqvist M, Carter S, Hunter E. Entrepreneurship in the agricultural sector: a literature review and future research opportunities. Entrep Theory Pract. 2018 doi: 10.1177/1042258717732958. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fragoso R, Rocha-Junior W, Xavier A. Determinant factors of entrepreneurial intention among university students in Brazil and Portugal. J Small Bus Entrep. 2020 doi: 10.1080/08276331.2018.1551459. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fukuda K. An empirical study on entrepreneurial intentions among Japanese university students. Int J Entrep Small Bus. 2014 doi: 10.1504/IJESB.2014.059474. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Galloway L, Brown W. Entrepreneurship education at university: a driver in the creation of high growth firms? Educ Train. 2002 doi: 10.1108/00400910210449231. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gangwani S, Ballout S. Factors influencing the entrepreneurial intention of business graduate students of Saudiarabia University. Acad Entrep J. 2020; 26 (4):1–7. [ Google Scholar ]
• Garcez A, Franco M. Effects of psychological and cognitive factors on the relation between entrepreneurial intention and academic hazing: case of the new students in the faculty of social and human sciences at the University of Beira - Portugal. Entrep Res J. 2021 doi: 10.1515/erj-2020-0351. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• García-Uceda E, Murillo-Luna JL, Lafuente JA. Determinant factors in entrepreneurial intention among social work degree students: the moderating effect of entrepreneurship education. Soc Enterp J. 2022 doi: 10.1108/SEJ-07-2021-0061. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ghazali Z, Ibrahim NA, Zainol FA. Factors affecting entrepreneurial intention among UniSZA students. Asian Soc Sci. 2012 doi: 10.5539/ass.v9n1p85. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Giacomin O, Janssen F, Pruett M, et al. Entrepreneurial intentions, motivations and barriers: differences among American, Asian and European students. Int Entrep Manag J. 2011 doi: 10.1007/s11365-010-0155-y. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gieure C, del Benavides-Espinosa M, M, Roig-Dobón S, Entrepreneurial intentions in an international university environment. Int J Entrep Behav Res. 2019 doi: 10.1108/IJEBR-12-2018-0810. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gismera Tierno L, Pérez-Macías N, Medina-Molina C. Visual thinking boosting Spanish higher education students’ entrepreneurial intentions. J Knowl Econ. 2021 doi: 10.1007/s13132-020-00700-x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Godswill Agu A, Okwara OO, Okocha ER, Madichie NO. COVID-19 pandemic and entrepreneurial intention among university students: a contextualisation of the Igbo Traditional Business School. Afr J Econ Manag Stud. 2022 doi: 10.1108/AJEMS-05-2021-0227. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• González-Serrano MH, Valantine I, Hervás JC, et al. Sports university education and entrepreneurial intentions: a comparison between Spain and Lithuania. Educ Train. 2018 doi: 10.1108/ET-12-2017-0205. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goyanes M. Factors affecting the entrepreneurial intention of students pursuing journalism and media studies: evidence from Spain. JMM Int J Media Manag. 2015 doi: 10.1080/14241277.2015.1055748. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gulzar F, Fayaz A. Youth entrepreneurial intentions: an integrated model of individual and contextual factors. Int J Organ Anal. 2021 doi: 10.1108/IJOA-08-2021-2928. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gurel E, Altinay L, Daniele R. Tourism students’ entrepreneurial intentions. Ann Tour Res. 2010 doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2009.12.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gurel E, Madanoglu M, Altinay L. Gender, risk-taking and entrepreneurial intentions: assessing the impact of higher education longitudinally. Educ Train. 2021 doi: 10.1108/ET-08-2019-0190. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guzmán-Alfonso C, Guzmán-Cuevas J. Entrepreneurial intention models as applied to Latin America. J Organ Chang Manag. 2012 doi: 10.1108/09534811211254608. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hassan A, Saleem I, Anwar I, Hussain SA. Entrepreneurial intention of Indian university students: the role of opportunity recognition and entrepreneurship education. Educ Train. 2020 doi: 10.1108/ET-02-2020-0033. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hattab HW. Impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intentions of university students in Egypt. J Entrep. 2014 doi: 10.1177/0971355713513346. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hendieh J, Aoun D, Osta A. Students’ attitudes toward entrepreneurship at the Arab Open University-Lebanon. J Entrep Educ. 2019; 22 (2):1–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Henley A, Contreras F, Espinosa JC, Barbosa D. Entrepreneurial intentions of Colombian business students: planned behaviour, leadership skills and social capital. Int J Entrep Behav Res. 2017 doi: 10.1108/IJEBR-01-2017-0031. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hien DTT, Cho SE. Relationship between entrepreneurship education and innovative start-up intentions among university students. Int J Entrep. 2018; 22 (3):1–16. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoang G, Le TTT, Tran AKT, Du T. Entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions of university students in Vietnam: the mediating roles of self-efficacy and learning orientation. Educ Train. 2021 doi: 10.1108/ET-05-2020-0142. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hockerts K. Determinants of social entrepreneurial intentions. Entrep Theory Pract. 2017 doi: 10.1111/etap.12171. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoda N, Ahmad N, Ahmad M, et al. Validating the entrepreneurial intention model on the University Students in Saudi Arabia. J Asian Financ Econ Bus. 2020 doi: 10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no11.469. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hossain MU, Al Asheq A, Arifuzzaman SM. Entrepreneurial intention of Bangladeshi students: impact of individual and contextual factors. Probl Perspect Manag. 2019 doi: 10.21511/ppm.17(4).2019.40. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hou F, Su Y, Lu M, Qi M. Model of the entrepreneurial intention of university students in the Pearl River Delta of China. Front Psychol. 2019 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00916. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hsu CY, Wang SM. Social entrepreneurial intentions and its influential factors: a comparison of students in Taiwan and Hong Kong. Innov Educ Teach Int. 2019 doi: 10.1080/14703297.2018.1427611. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hudea OS, Toma SG, Burcea M. A non-parametric analysis of the relationship between business experience and entrepreneurial intention of final-year university students. Mathematics. 2021 doi: 10.3390/math9161955. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huston SA. Factors associated with entrepreneurial intentions in doctor of pharmacy students. Am J Pharm Educ. 2018; 82 :6355. doi: 10.5688/ajpe6355. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Iakovleva T, Kolvereid L, Stephan U. Entrepreneurial intentions in developing and developed countries. Educ Train. 2011 doi: 10.1108/00400911111147686. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ibidunni AS, Mozie D, Ayeni AWAA. Entrepreneurial characteristics amongst university students: insights for understanding entrepreneurial intentions amongst youths in a developing economy. Educ Train. 2021 doi: 10.1108/ET-09-2019-0204. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Iglesias-Sánchez PP, Jambrino-Maldonado C, Velasco AP, Kokash H. Impact of entrepreneurship programmes on university students. Educ Train. 2016 doi: 10.1108/ET-01-2015-0004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• İlerisoy ZY, Aycı A, Aycı H, Kınacı EB. Impacts of architectural education on entrepreneurial intention: a case study of senior architects from six universities in Turkey. Archnet-IJAR. 2021 doi: 10.1108/ARCH-11-2020-0269. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ismail N, Jaffar N, Khan S, Leng TS. Tracking the cyber entrepreneurial intention of private universities students in Malaysia. Int J Entrep Small Bus. 2012 doi: 10.1504/IJESB.2012.050169. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jang Y, Hadley B, Son J, Song C. Determinants of students’ entrepreneurial intention to compete in a fast-pitch competition. J Educ Bus. 2019 doi: 10.1080/08832323.2018.1540389. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jiang X, Sun Y. Study on constructing an education platform for innovation and entrepreneurship of university student. Res J Appl Sci Eng Technol. 2015 doi: 10.19026/rjaset.9.2630. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jwara N, Hoque M. Entrepreneurial intentions among university students: a case study of Durban University of Technology. Acad Entrep J. 2018; 24 (3):1–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kalitanyi V, Bbenkele E. Assessing the role of socio-economic values on entrepreneurial intentions among university students in Cape Town. S Afr J Econ Manag Sci. 2017 doi: 10.4102/sajems.v20i1.1768. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kalitanyi V, Bbenkele E. Cultural values as determinants of entrepreneurial intentions among university students in Cape Town-South Africa. J Enterp Communities. 2018 doi: 10.1108/JEC-01-2017-0017. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kalitanyi V, Visser DJ. Social values as determinants of entrepreneurial intentions among university students in Cape Town-South Africa. Probl Perspect Manag. 2016 doi: 10.21511/ppm.14(3-1).2016.05. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Karimi S, Makreet AS. The role of personal values in forming students’ entrepreneurial intentions in developing countries. Front Psychol. 2020 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.525844. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Karimi S, Biemans HJA, Naderi Mahdei K, et al. Testing the relationship between personality characteristics, contextual factors and entrepreneurial intentions in a developing country. Int J Psychol. 2017 doi: 10.1002/ijop.12209. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kayed H, Al-Madadha A, Abualbasal A. The effect of entrepreneurial education and culture on entrepreneurial intention. Organizacija. 2022 doi: 10.2478/orga-2022-0002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kilonzo PM, Nyambegera SM. Determinants of entrepreneurial intention among university business students in Kenya: lessons from Kenyatta University. Int J Entrep Small Bus. 2014 doi: 10.1504/IJESB.2014.062503. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim J-R. People-centered entrepreneurship: the impact of empathy and social entrepreneurial self-efficacy for social entrepreneurial intention. Glob Bus Financ Rev. 2022; 27 :108–118. doi: 10.17549/gbfr.2022.27.1.108. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim CNT, Van HP, Van HT, Kim TP. The relationship between higher education and entrepreneurial intention among Vietnamese students. Manag Sci Lett. 2020 doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2020.1.009. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kobylińska U. Attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived control versus contextual factors influencing the entrepreneurial intentions of students from Poland. WSEAS Trans Bus Econ. 2022 doi: 10.37394/23207.2022.19.10. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kör B, Wakkee I, Mutlutürk M. An investigation of factors influencing entrepreneurial intention amongst university students. J High Educ Theory Pract. 2020 doi: 10.33423/jhetp.v20i1.2777. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kowang TO, Apandi SZBA, Hee OC, et al. Undergraduates entrepreneurial intention: holistic determinants matter. Int J Eval Res Educ. 2021 doi: 10.11591/ijere.v10i1.20733. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Krueger N. Understanding the entrepreneurial mind. Cham: Springer; 2009. Entrepreneurial intentions are dead: long live entrepreneurial intentions; pp. 13–34. [ Google Scholar ]
• Krueger NF, Carsrud AL. Entrepreneurial intentions: applying the theory of planned behaviour. Entrep Reg Dev. 1993 doi: 10.1080/08985629300000020. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Krueger NF, Reilly MD, Carsrud AL. Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. J Bus Ventur. 2000 doi: 10.1016/S0883-9026(98)00033-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuckertz A, Block J. Reviewing systematic literature reviews: ten key questions and criteria for reviewers. Manag Rev Q. 2021; 71 (3):519–524. doi: 10.1007/s11301-021-00228-7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuckertz A, Wagner M. The influence of sustainability orientation on entrepreneurial intentions—investigating the role of business experience. J Bus Ventur. 2010 doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.09.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kurniawan MEH, Yudoko G, Basri MH, Umbara AN. Do entrepreneurship students have an intention to become an entrepreneur? J Entrep Educ. 2019; 22 (2):1–14. [ Google Scholar ]
• Laguía A, Moriano JA, Gorgievski MJ. A psychosocial study of self-perceived creativity and entrepreneurial intentions in a sample of university students. Think Ski Creat. 2019 doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2018.11.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Law KMY, Jakubiak M. Determinants of students’ entrepreneurial intention: a comparative study in Poland and Hong Kong. Int J Innov Learn. 2020 doi: 10.1504/IJIL.2020.108459. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Le Trung T, Xuan HD, Ngoc HN, et al. A comparative analysis of entrepreneurial intention and migration attitudes of students in Vietnam and Poland. Manag Sci Lett. 2020 doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2019.8.022. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee-Ross D. An examination of the entrepreneurial intent of MBA students in Australia using the entrepreneurial intention questionnaire. J Manag Dev. 2017 doi: 10.1108/jmd-10-2016-0200. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leiva JC, Mora-Esquivel R, Krauss-Delorme C, et al. Entrepreneurial intention among Latin American university students [Intención emprendedora entre estudiantes universitarios en Latinoamérica] Acad Rev Latinoam Adm. 2021; 34 (3):399–418. doi: 10.1108/ARLA-05-2020-0106. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lent RW, Brown SD, Hackett G. Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. J Vocat Behav. 1994; 45 (1):79–122. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.1994. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lim WL, Yusof M, Nor LM. The impact of entrepreneurial alertness on entrepreneurial intention among university students in Malaysia: theory of planned behaviour. J Eng Appl Sci. 2017 doi: 10.3923/jeasci.2017.1409.1418. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lin S, De-Pablos-Heredero C, Montes Botella JL, Lin-Lian C. Entrepreneurial intention of Chinese students studying at universities in the community of Madrid. Sustainability. 2022; 14 :5475. doi: 10.3390/su14095475. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liñán F, Fayolle A. A systematic literature review on entrepreneurial intentions: citation, thematic analyses, and research agenda. Int Entrep Manag J. 2015 doi: 10.1007/s11365-015-0356-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lingappa AK, Shah A, Mathew AO. Academic, family, and peer influence on entrepreneurial intention of engineering students. SAGE Open. 2020 doi: 10.1177/2158244020933877. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu X, Zhao WGW. Family education? Unpacking parental factors for tourism and hospitality students’ entrepreneurial intention. J Hosp Leis Sport Tour Educ. 2021 doi: 10.1016/j.jhlste.2020.100284. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu X, Lin C, Zhao G, Zhao D. Research on the effects of entrepreneurial education and entrepreneurial self-efficacy on college students’ entrepreneurial intention. Front Psychol. 2019 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00869. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lo C, Sun H, Law K. Comparing the entrepreneurial intention between female and male engineering students. J Women’s Entrep Educ. 2017; 1–2 :28–51. [ Google Scholar ]
• Locke E, Baum R (2007) Entrepreneurial motivation. In: Baum JR, Frese M, Baron RA (eds) The psychology of entrepreneurship. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, pp 93–112
• Looi KH. Contextual motivations for undergraduates’ entrepreneurial intentions in emerging Asian economies. J Entrep. 2020 doi: 10.1177/0971355719893500. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lopes J, Teixeira SJ, Ferreira JJM, et al. University entrepreneurial intentions: mainland and insular regions—are they different? Educ Train. 2020 doi: 10.1108/ET-03-2019-0055. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lopez T, Alvarez C. Influence of university-related factors on students’ entrepreneurial intentions. Int J Entrep Ventur. 2019 doi: 10.1504/IJEV.2019.103751. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• López-Delgado P, Iglesias-Sánchez PP, Jambrino-Maldonado C. Gender and university degree: a new analysis of entrepreneurial intention. Educ Train. 2019 doi: 10.1108/ET-04-2018-0085. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lu G, Song Y, Pan B. How university entrepreneurship support affects college students’ entrepreneurial intentions: an empirical analysis from China. Sustainability. 2021 doi: 10.3390/su13063224. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Luc PT. The relationship between perceived access to finance and social entrepreneurship intentions among university students in Vietnam. J Asian Financ Econ Bus. 2018 doi: 10.13106/jafeb.2018.vol5.no1.63. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lüthje C, Franke N. The “making” of an entrepreneur: testing a model of entrepreneurial intent among engineering students at MIT. R D Manag. 2003 doi: 10.1111/1467-9310.00288. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maes J, Leroy H, Sels L. Gender differences in entrepreneurial intentions: a TPB multi-group analysis at factor and indicator level. Eur Manag J. 2014 doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2014.01.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Magasi C. The influence of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intentions. Int J Res Bus Soc Sci. 2022; 11 :371–380. doi: 10.20525/ijrbs.v11i2.1701. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maheshwari G. Factors influencing entrepreneurial intentions the most for university students in Vietnam: educational support, personality traits or TPB components? Educ Train. 2021 doi: 10.1108/ET-02-2021-0074. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maheshwari G, Kha KL. Investigating the relationship between educational support and entrepreneurial intention in Vietnam: the mediating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy in the theory of planned behavior. Int J Manag Educ. 2021 doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100553. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maheshwari G, Nayak R, Ngyyen T. Review of research for two decades for women leadership in higher education around the world and in Vietnam: a comparative analysis. Gend Manag Int J. 2021; 36 (5):640–658. doi: 10.1108/GM-04-2020-0137. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mahola S, Aderibigbe JK, Chimucheka T. South African university students’ entrepreneurial intention as a correlate of entrepreneurship risk perceptions and aversion. J Hum Ecol. 2019 doi: 10.31901/24566608.2019/67.1-3.3153. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maresch D, Harms R, Kailer N, Wimmer-Wurm B. The impact of entrepreneurship education on the entrepreneurial intention of students in science and engineering versus business studies university programs. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2016 doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2015.11.006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Margaça C, Hernández-Sánchez B, Sánchez-García JC, Cardella GM. The roles of psychological capital and gender in university students’ entrepreneurial intentions. Front Psychol. 2021 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.615910. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martins I, Perez JP. Testing mediating effects of individual entrepreneurial orientation on the relation between close environmental factors and entrepreneurial intention. Int J Entrep Behav Res. 2020 doi: 10.1108/IJEBR-08-2019-0505. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maslakçı A, Sürücü L, Şeşen H. Relationship between positive psychological capital and entrepreneurial intentions of university students: the mediating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. World J Entrep Manag Sustain Dev. 2022; 18 :305–319. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maslakçı A, Sürücü L, Şeşen H. Positive psychological capital and university students’ entrepreneurial intentions: does gender make a difference? Int J Educ Vocat Guid. 2022 doi: 10.1007/s10775-022-09545-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maziriri ET, Maramura TC, Nzewi OI. Determinants of entrepreneurial intention among generation y students within the Johannesburg Metropolitan Area of South Africa. African J Bus Econ Res. 2019 doi: 10.31920/1750-4562/2019/14n3a6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mirjana PB, Ana A, Marjana MS. Examining determinants of entrepreneurial intentions in Slovenia: applying the theory of planned behaviour and an innovative cognitive style. Econ Res Istraz. 2018 doi: 10.1080/1331677X.2018.1478321. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mohammadi P, Kamarudin S, Omar R. Do Islamic values impact social entrepreneurial intention of university students in Malaysia? An empirical investigation into the mediating role of empathy. Int J Econ Manag. 2020; 14 (3):365–378. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mónico L, Carvalho C, Nejati S, et al. Entrepreneurship education and its influence on higher education students’ entrepreneurial intentions and motivation in Portugal. BAR Braz Adm Rev. 2021 doi: 10.1590/1807-7692BAR2021190088. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morales-Alonso G, Pablo-LerchundiNúñez-Del-Río IMC. Entrepreneurial intention of engineering students and associated influence of contextual factors/Intención emprendedora de los estudiantes de ingeniería e influencia de factores contextuales. Rev Psicol Soc. 2016 doi: 10.1080/02134748.2015.1101314. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mustafa MJ, Hernandez E, Mahon C, Chee LK. Entrepreneurial intentions of university students in an emerging economy: the influence of university support and proactive personality on students’ entrepreneurial intention. J Entrep Emerg Econ. 2016 doi: 10.1108/JEEE-10-2015-0058. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mykolenko O, Ippolitova I, Doroshenko H, Strapchuk S. The impact of entrepreneurship education and cultural context on entrepreneurial intentions of Ukrainian students: the mediating role of attitudes and perceived control. High Educ Ski Work Learn. 2022 doi: 10.1108/HESWBL-08-2020-0190. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nabi G, Holden R, Walmsley A. Entrepreneurial intentions among students: towards a re-focused research agenda. J Small Bus Enterp Dev. 2010; 17 :537–551. doi: 10.1108/14626001011088714. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nabi G, LiñáN F, Fayolle A, et al. The impact of entrepreneurship education in higher education: a systematic review and research agenda. Acad Manag Learn Educ. 2017; 16 (2):277–299. doi: 10.5465/amle.2015.0026. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nasar A, Kamarudin S, Rizal AM, et al. Short-term and long-term entrepreneurial intention comparison between Pakistan and Vietnam. Sustainability. 2019 doi: 10.3390/su11236529. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nasip S, Amirul SR, Sondoh SL, Tanakinjal GH. Psychological characteristics and entrepreneurial intention: a study among university students in North Borneo, Malaysia. Educ Train. 2017 doi: 10.1108/ET-10-2015-0092. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nathani N, Dwivedi G. Influence of technology entrepreneurship on entrepreneurial intentions: a cross country analysis. SSRN Electron J. 2019 doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3319889. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Neneh BN. An assessment of entrepreneurial intention among university students in Cameroon. Mediterr J Soc Sci. 2014; 5 :542–552. doi: 10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n20p542. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nguyen C. Entrepreneurial intention of international business students in Viet Nam: a survey of the country joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership. J Innov Entrep. 2017 doi: 10.1186/s13731-017-0066-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nguyen TT. The impact of access to finance and environmental factors on entrepreneurial intention: the mediator role of entrepreneurial behavioural control. Entrep Bus Econ Rev. 2020 doi: 10.15678/EBER.2020.080207. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nguyen AT, Do THH, Vu TBT, et al. Factors affecting entrepreneurial intentions among youths in Vietnam. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2019 doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.01.039. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nguyen PM, Dinh VT, Luu TMN, Choo Y. Sociological and theory of planned behaviour approach to understanding entrepreneurship: comparison of Vietnam and South Korea. Cogent Bus Manag. 2020 doi: 10.1080/23311975.2020.1815288. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nowiński W, Haddoud MY, Lančarič D, et al. The impact of entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and gender on entrepreneurial intentions of university students in the Visegrad countries. Stud High Educ. 2019; 44 :361–379. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2017.1365359. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nsahlai VK, Zogli LJ, Lawa E, Dlamini BI (2020) Factors influencing entrepreneurial intention: a case of students in a South African University. Acad Entrep J 26(1)
• Nuan W, Xin G. Rational thinking upon entrepreneurship education of college students. High Educ Soc Sci. 2012; 3 :41–44. doi: 10.3968/j.hess.1927024020120303.1121. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nuringsih K, Puspitowati I. Determinants of eco entrepreneurial intention among students: study in the entrepreneurial education practices. Adv Sci Lett. 2017 doi: 10.1166/asl.2017.9351. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ohanu IB, Shodipe TO. Influence of the link between resources and behavioural factors on the entrepreneurial intentions of electrical installation and maintenance work students. J Innov Entrep. 2021 doi: 10.1186/s13731-021-00154-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ojewumi KA, Fagbenro DA, Babatunde SI. Psycho-demographic factors and entrepreneurial intention among university students. Open J Psychol Res. 2020 doi: 10.32591/coas.ojpr.0401.03031o. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ozcan NA, Sahin S, Cankir B. The validity and reliability of thriving scale in academic context: mindfulness, GPA, and entrepreneurial intention among university students. Curr Psychol. 2021 doi: 10.1007/s12144-021-01590-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paiva LEB, Sousa ES, Lima TCB, Da Silva D. Planned behavior and religious beliefs as antecedents to entrepreneurial intention: a study with university students. Rev Adm Mackenzie. 2020 doi: 10.1590/1678-6971/eRAMG200022. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Palalić R, Ramadani V, Ðilović A, et al. Entrepreneurial intentions of university students: a case-based study. J Enterp Communities. 2017 doi: 10.1108/JEC-12-2016-0046. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paul J, Hermel P, Srivatava A. Entrepreneurial intentions—theory and evidence from Asia, America, and Europe. J Int Entrep. 2017 doi: 10.1007/s10843-017-0208-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pérez-Macías N, Fernández-Fernández JL, Rúa Vieites A. The impact of network ties, shared languages and shared visions on entrepreneurial intentions of online university students. Stud High Educ. 2020 doi: 10.1080/03075079.2019.1619682. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pérez-Macías N, Fernández-Fernández JL, Rúa-Vieites A. Entrepreneurial intention among online and face-to-face university students: the influence of structural and cognitive social capital dimensions. J Int Entrep. 2021 doi: 10.1007/s10843-020-00280-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pérez-Pérez C, González-Torres T, Nájera-Sánchez JJ. Boosting entrepreneurial intention of university students: is a serious business game the key? Int J Manag Educ. 2021 doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100506. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Phuc PT, Vinh NQ, Do QH. Factors affecting entrepreneurial intention among tourism undergraduate students in Vietnam. Manag Sci Lett. 2020 doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2020.6.026. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Phuong NTM, Quoc TH, Van CL, Lien LTK. The students’ attitudes and entrepreneurial intention: evidence from Vietnam universities. Manag Sci Lett. 2021 doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2020.10.028. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pittaway L, Cope J. Entrepreneurship education: a systematic review of the evidence. Int Small Bus J. 2007; 25 (5):479–510. doi: 10.1177/0266242607080656. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Popescu CC, Bostan I, Robu IB, et al. An analysis of the determinants of entrepreneurial intentions among students: a Romanian case study. Sustainability. 2016 doi: 10.3390/su8080771. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pouratashi M. Entrepreneurial intentions of agricultural students: levels and determinants. J Agric Educ Ext. 2015 doi: 10.1080/1389224X.2014.960528. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Prabowo H, Ikhsan RB, Yuniarty Y. Drivers of green entrepreneurial intention: why does sustainability awareness matter among university students? Front Psychol. 2022 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.873140. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pradana M, Wardhana A, Wijayangka C, et al. Indonesian university students’ entrepreneurial intention: a conceptual study. J Crit Rev. 2020 doi: 10.31838/jcr.07.07.101. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pruett M, Shinnar R, Toney B, et al. Explaining entrepreneurial intentions of university students: a cross-cultural study. Int J Entrep Behav Res. 2009 doi: 10.1108/13552550910995443. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Qudus A, Mazhar M, Tabassum MF, Farhan M (2022) The role of psychological factors on entrepreneurial intentions among business students 32(1)
• Rahaman MA, Ali MJ, Mamoon ZR, Al Asheq A. Understanding the entrepreneurial intention in the light of contextual factors: gender analysis. J Asian Finance Econ Bus. 2020 doi: 10.13106/JAFEB.2020.VOL7.NO9.639. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rakib M, Tawe A, Azis M, et al. Determinants of entrepreneurial intention: empirical study of student entrepreneurs. Acad Entrep J. 2020; 26 (3):1–12. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ramayah T, Rahman SA, Taghizadeh SK. Modelling green entrepreneurial intention among university students using the entrepreneurial event and cultural values theory. Int J Entrep Ventur. 2019 doi: 10.1504/IJEV.2019.101629. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reuel Johnmark D, Munene JC, Balunywa W. Robustness of personal initiative in moderating entrepreneurial intentions and actions of disabled students. Cogent Bus Manag. 2016 doi: 10.1080/23311975.2016.1169575. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodriguez-Gutierrez P, Cabeza-Ramírez LJ, Muñoz-Fernández GA. University students’ behaviour towards entrepreneurial intention in Ecuador: testing for the influence of gender. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 doi: 10.3390/ijerph17228475. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Romero-Colmenares LM, Reyes-Rodríguez JF. Sustainable entrepreneurial intentions: exploration of a model based on the theory of planned behaviour among university students in north-east Colombia. Int J Manag Educ. 2022 doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100627. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roxas B. Effects of entrepreneurial knowledge on entrepreneurial intentions: a longitudinal study of selected South-east Asian business students. J Educ Work. 2014 doi: 10.1080/13639080.2012.760191. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roy R, Das N. A critical comparison of factors affecting science and technology students’ entrepreneurial intention: a tale of two genders. Int J Educ Vocat Guid. 2020 doi: 10.1007/s10775-019-09393-4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rueda Barrios GE, Rodriguez JFR, Plaza AV, et al. Entrepreneurial intentions of university students in Colombia: exploration based on the theory of planned behavior. J Educ Bus. 2022 doi: 10.1080/08832323.2021.1918615. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rungsrisawat S, Sutduean C. Entrepreneurial education and entrepreneurial intention: the mediating role of creativity disposition among University Students in Thailand. Int J Innov Creat Change. 2019; 6 (10):213–232. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rusu VD, Roman A, Tudose MB. Determinants of entrepreneurial intentions of youth: the role of access to finance. Eng Econ. 2022 doi: 10.5755/j01.ee.33.1.28716. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Salhieh SM, Al-Abdallat Y. Technopreneurial intentions: the effect of innate innovativeness and academic self-efficacy. Sustainability. 2022 doi: 10.3390/su14010238. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sánchez AC. Personal values as predictors of entrepreneurial intentions of university students. J Evol Stud Bus. 2021 doi: 10.1344/jesb2021.2.j096. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sankar P, Irin Sudha A. Determinants of entrepreneurial intention of pharmacy students in Chennai. Int J Pharm Sci Rev Res. 2016; 41 (1):150–154. [ Google Scholar ]
• Saptono A, Purwana D, Wibowo A, et al. Assessing the university students’ entrepreneurial intention: entrepreneurial education and creativity. Humanit Soc Sci Rev. 2019 doi: 10.18510/hssr.2019.7158. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schlaegel C, Engle RL, Richter NF, Taureck PC. Personal factors, entrepreneurial intention, and entrepreneurial status: a multinational study in three institutional environments. J Int Entrep. 2021 doi: 10.1007/s10843-021-00287-7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sesen H. Personality or environment? A comprehensive study on the entrepreneurial intentions of university students. Educ Train. 2013 doi: 10.1108/ET-05-2012-0059. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shah N, Soomro BA. Investigating entrepreneurial intention among public sector university students of Pakistan. Educ Train. 2017 doi: 10.1108/ET-11-2016-0168. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shahid MS, Ahsen SR. Linking entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions: an interactive effect of social and personal factors. Int J Learn Change. 2021 doi: 10.1504/IJLC.2021.111670. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shahid MS, Imran Y, Shehryar H. Determinants of entrepreneurial intentions: an institutional embeddedness perspective. J Small Bus Entrep. 2018 doi: 10.1080/08276331.2017.1389053. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shahneaz MA, Bin Amin M, Eni LN. The interplay between the psychological factors and entrepreneurial intention: an empirical investigation. J Asian Financ Econ Bus. 2020 doi: 10.13106/JAFEB.2020.VOL7.NO12.139. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shahzad MF, Khan KI, Saleem S, Rashid T. What factors affect the entrepreneurial intention to start-ups? The role of entrepreneurial skills, propensity to take risks, and innovativeness in open business models. J Open Innov Technol Mark Complex. 2021 doi: 10.3390/JOITMC7030173. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shamsudin SFFB, Al MA, Nawi NBC, et al. Factors influencing entrepreneurial intention and the moderating role of entrepreneurship education: a conceptual model. Adv Sci Lett. 2017 doi: 10.1166/asl.2017.7635. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shamsudin MF, Alias MN, Majid ZA, et al. Does the support system mediate the relationship between university roles and entrepreneurial intentions among university students? J Inf Technol Manag. 2021 doi: 10.22059/JITM.2021.83112. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shapero A. The entrepreneurial event. Columbus: College of Administrative Science, Ohio State University; 1984. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shapero A, Sokol L (1982) The social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In: The encyclopaedia of entrepreneurship. Prentice-Hall, pp 72–90
• Sharahiley SM. Examining entrepreneurial intention of the Saudi Arabia’s university students: analyzing alternative integrated research model of TPB and EEM. Glob J Flex Syst Manag. 2020 doi: 10.1007/s40171-019-00231-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sherkat A, Chenari A. Assessing the effectiveness of entrepreneurship education in the universities of Tehran province based on an entrepreneurial intention model. Stud High Educ. 2022 doi: 10.1080/03075079.2020.1732906. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shi L, Yao X, Wu W. Perceived university support, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, heterogeneous entrepreneurial intentions in entrepreneurship education: the moderating role of the Chinese sense of face. J Entrep Emerg Econ. 2020 doi: 10.1108/JEEE-04-2019-0040. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Silva N, Fernández-Robin C, Yáñez D, Romaní G. Influence of educational programs oriented toward entrepreneurship on the entrepreneurial intention of university students: the case of Chile. Acad Rev Latinoam Adm. 2021 doi: 10.1108/ARLA-06-2020-0146. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Solesvik MZ. Entrepreneurial motivations and intentions: investigating the role of education major. Educ Train. 2013 doi: 10.1108/00400911311309314. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Solesvik M, Westhead P, Matlay H. Cultural factors and entrepreneurial intention: The role of entrepreneurship education. Educ Train. 2014 doi: 10.1108/ET-07-2014-0075. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Soria K, Honores G, Gutiérrez J. Gender and social legitimacy of entrepreneurship: contribution to entrepreneurial intention in university students from Chile and Colombia. J Technol Manag Innov. 2016 doi: 10.4067/S0718-27242016000300008. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sriyakul T, Jermsittiparsert K. The mediating role of entrepreneurial passion in the relationship between entrepreneur education and entrepreneurial intention among university students in Thailand. Int J Innov Creat Chang. 2019; 6 (10):193–212. [ Google Scholar ]
• St-Jean É, Nafa A, Tremblay M, et al. Entrepreneurial intentions of university students: an international comparison between African, European and Canadian students. Int J Entrep Innov Manag. 2014 doi: 10.1504/IJEIM.2014.062878. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Su Y, Zhu Z, Chen J, et al. Factors influencing entrepreneurial intention of university students in China: integrating the perceived university support and theory of planned behavior. Sustainability. 2021 doi: 10.3390/su13084519. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sumathi P, Ahamed SBI, Karthikeyan M. Descriptive research study on factors influencing entrepreneurial intention among engineering students in Virudhunagar District. J Adv Res Dyn Control Syst. 2018; 10 (1):605–611. [ Google Scholar ]
• Suratno E, Kusmana A. The analysis of the effect of entrepreneurship education, perceived desirability, and entrepreneurial self-efficacy on university students’ entrepreneurial intention. Univers J Educ Res. 2019 doi: 10.13189/ujer.2019.071131. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tamprateep P, Tanaboriboon C, Rathprasert B. Factors affecting the entrepreneurial intentions among university students of Thailand. J Comput Theor Nanosci. 2019 doi: 10.1166/jctn.2019.8389. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tassawa C. A structural model for predicting entrepreneurial intention of university students. Humanit Arts Soc Sci Stud. 2019 doi: 10.14456/hasss.2019.11. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thanh LT, Hau DX, Huyen NN, et al. The effects of internal and external barriers on Vietnamese students’ entrepreneurial intention. Manag Sci Lett. 2020 doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2019.8.032. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tiwari P, Bhat AK, Tikoria J, Saha K. Exploring the factors responsible in predicting entrepreneurial intention among nascent entrepreneurs: a field research. South Asian J Bus Stud. 2020 doi: 10.1108/SAJBS-05-2018-0054. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tomal M, Szromnik A. Determinants of entrepreneurial intentions of university students in selected post-communist countries in Europe: investigating cross-cultural differences. J Bus Econ Manag. 2021 doi: 10.3846/jbem.2021.15546. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Torres FC, Méndez JCE, Barreto KS, et al. Exploring entrepreneurial intentions in Latin American university students. Int J Psychol Res. 2017 doi: 10.21500/20112084.2794. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tran TVH, Duong CD, Nguyen TH, et al. UPPS impulsivity, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intentions among university students: ADHD symptoms as a moderator. J Appl Res High Educ. 2022 doi: 10.1108/JARHE-12-2021-0464. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tung DT, Hung NT, Phuong NTC, et al. Enterprise development from students: the case of universities in Vietnam and the Philippines. Int J Manag Educ. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2019.100333. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Turker D, Selcuk SS. Which factors affect entrepreneurial intention of university students? J Eur Ind Train. 2009 doi: 10.1108/03090590910939049. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ubierna F, Arranz N, de Arroyabe JCF. Entrepreneurial intentions of university students: a study of design undergraduates in Spain. Ind High Educ. 2014 doi: 10.5367/ihe.2014.0191. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Uddin MA, Mohammad S, Hammami S. Influence of demographic factors on the entrepreneurial intentions of university students in Oman. Investig Manag Financ Innov. 2016 doi: 10.21511/imfi.13(1-1).2016.08. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Uike DD. Effect of demographic factors on entrepreneurial intention of management students in Nagpur university, India. Int J Sci Technol Res. 2019; 8 (11):3737–3743. [ Google Scholar ]
• Utami CW (2017) Attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavior, entrepreneurship education and self-efficacy toward entrepreneurial intention university student in Indonesia. Eur Res Stud J 20
• Valencia-Arias A, Rodríguez Correa PA, Cárdenas-Ruiz JA, Gómez-Molina S. Factors that influence the entrepreneurial intention of psychology students of the virtual modality [Factores que influyen en la intención emprendedora de estudiantes de psicología de la modalidad virtual] Retos. 2022; 12 :5–24. doi: 10.17163/ret.n23.2022.01. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Ewijk AR, Belghiti-Mahut S. Context, gender and entrepreneurial intentions: how entrepreneurship education changes the equation. Int J Gend Entrep. 2019 doi: 10.1108/IJGE-05-2018-0054. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Trang T, Doanh DC. The role of structural support in predicting entrepreneurial intention: insights from Vietnam. Manag Sci Lett. 2019 doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2019.6.012. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Trang T, Do QH, Loan NTB. Relationships between students’ work values and entrepreneurial intention among Vietnamese students. Acad Entrep J. 2020; 26 :1–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Velásquez JAT, Arias AV, Hernández JB, et al. Characterization of entrepreneurial intention in university students as from systemic entrepreneurship intention Model: a case study. Cuad Gest. 2018 doi: 10.5295/cdg.160670jt. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Virginia Guadalupe LT, Yesenia ST, Luis Ramón MM, Diego Alfredo PR. Determinantes de la intención emprendedora en estudiantes universitarios mexicanos. Rev Ciencias Soc. 2021 doi: 10.31876/rcs.v27i.36998. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vroom V. Work and motivation. New York: Wiley; 1964. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vuong BN, Phuong NND, Huan DD, Quan TN. A model of factors affecting entrepreneurial intention among information technology students in Vietnam. J Asian Financ Econ Bus. 2020 doi: 10.13106/JAFEB.2020.VOL7.NO8.461. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Walter SG, Block JH. Outcomes of entrepreneurship education: an institutional perspective. J Bus Ventur. 2016 doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2015.10.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang W, Tang Y, Liu Y, et al. Can sense of opportunity identification efficacy play a mediating role? Relationship between network embeddedness and social entrepreneurial intention of university students. Front Psychol. 2019 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01342. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang Q, Sun Z, Wu C. The impact of university innovation and entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intention from the perspective of educational psychology. Front Psychol. 2021 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.745976. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ward A, Hernández-Sánchez BR, Sánchez-García JC. Entrepreneurial potential and gender effects: the role of personality traits in university students’ entrepreneurial intentions. Front Psychol. 2019 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02700. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Waris I, Barkat W, Ahmed A, Hameed I. Fostering sustainable businesses: understanding sustainability-driven entrepreneurial intention among university students in Pakistan. Soc Responsib J. 2021 doi: 10.1108/SRJ-10-2020-0399. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wegner D, Thomas E, Teixeira EK, Maehler AE. University entrepreneurial push strategy and students’ entrepreneurial intention. Int J Entrep Behav Res. 2020 doi: 10.1108/IJEBR-10-2018-0648. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wibowo SF, Purwana D, Wibowo A, Saptono A. Determinants of entrepreneurial intention among millennial generation in emerging countries. Int J Entrep. 2019; 23 :1. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wiramihardja K, N’daryAl Mamun VA, et al. Sustainable economic development through entrepreneurship: a study on attitude, opportunity recognition, and entrepreneurial intention among university students in Malaysia. Front Psychol. 2022 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.866753. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wu J, Rudnák I. Exploring the impact of studying abroad in Hungary on entrepreneurial intention among international students. Sustainability. 2021 doi: 10.3390/su13179545. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wu S, Wu L. The impact of higher education on entrepreneurial intentions of university students in China. J Small Bus Enterp Dev. 2008 doi: 10.1108/14626000810917843. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wu YCJ, Wu T (2017) A decade of entrepreneurship education in the Asia Pacific for future directions in theory and practice. Manag Decis 55. 10.1108/MD-05-2017-0518
• Wu WH, Wei CW, Yu MC, Kao HY. Exploring factors surrounding students’ entrepreneurial intentions in medical informatics: the theory of planning behavior perspective. Front Psychol. 2020 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.544887. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wu J, Alshaabani A, Rudnák I. Testing the influence of self-efficacy and demographic characteristics among international students on entrepreneurial intention in the context of Hungary. Sustainability. 2022 doi: 10.3390/su14031069. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xuan HD, Le Trung T, Ngoc HN, et al. The effect of educational background on entrepreneurial intention. Manag Sci Lett. 2020 doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2019.8.013. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yaghmaei O, Ghasemi I, Assadian S. Relationship among influential factors of entrepreneurial intention in terms of gender: case of postgraduate students in Malaysia. Mediterr J Soc Sci. 2015 doi: 10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n3p195. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yasir N, Liren A, Mehmood N, Arfat Y. Impact of personality traits on entrepreneurial intention and demographic factors as moderator. Int J Entrep. 2019; 23 :1–20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yasir N, Xie R, Zhang J. The impact of personal values and attitude toward sustainable entrepreneurship on entrepreneurial intention to enhance sustainable development: empirical evidence from Pakistan. Sustainability. 2022; 14 :6792. doi: 10.3390/su14116792. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yu T, Khalid N, Ahmed U. Factors influencing entrepreneurial intention among foreigners in Kazakhstan. Sustainability. 2021 doi: 10.3390/su13137066. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang P, Cain KW. Reassessing the link between risk aversion and entrepreneurial intention: the mediating role of the determinants of planned behavior. Int J Entrep Behav Res. 2017 doi: 10.1108/IJEBR-08-2016-0248. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang J, Huang J. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy mediates the impact of the post-pandemic entrepreneurship environment on college students’ entrepreneurial intention. Front Psychol. 2021 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.643184. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang Y, Duysters G, Cloodt M. The role of entrepreneurship education as a predictor of university students’ entrepreneurial intention. Int Entrep Manag J. 2014 doi: 10.1007/s11365-012-0246-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang P, Wang DD, Owen CL. A study of entrepreneurial intention of university students. Entrep Res J. 2015 doi: 10.1515/erj-2014-0004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang SN, Li YQ, Liu CH, Ruan WQ. Critical factors identification and prediction of tourism and hospitality students’ entrepreneurial intention. J Hosp Leis Sport Tour Educ. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.jhlste.2019.100234. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhao H, Hills GE, Seibert SE. The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. J Appl Psychol. 2005 doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1265. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhao J, Wei G, Chen KH, Yien JM. Psychological capital and university students’ entrepreneurial intention in China: mediation effect of entrepreneurial capitals. Front Psychol. 2020 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02984. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhu R, Zhao G, Long Z, et al. Entrepreneurship or employment? A survey of college students’ sustainable entrepreneurial intentions. Sustainability. 2022; 14 :5466. doi: 10.3390/su14095466. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zovko L, Dulčić Ž, Bilić I. Determinants of students’ entrepreneurial intention: an empirical research. Management. 2020; 25 :25–44. doi: 10.30924/mjcmi.25.1.2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Author Biographies
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Building a resilient digital entrepreneurship landscape: the importance of ecosystems, decent work, and socioeconomic dynamics.

1. Introduction

General research objective, 2. literature review, 2.1. the relationship between entrepreneurship ecosystems and digital entrepreneurship, 2.2. the relationship between decent work and digital entrepreneurship, 2.3. role of economic growth, 2.4. role of the socioeconomic status, 3.1. sample and process, 3.2. variables measurement, 4. data analysis aggregation, 4.1. common method variance (cmv), 4.2. measurement model assessment, 4.3. hypothesis testing, 5. discussion and implications, 6. limitations and future work, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest, appendix a. questionnaire.

• Nguyen PN, D.; Nguyen, H.H. Unveiling the link between digital entrepreneurship education and intention among university students in an emerging economy. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2024 , 203 , 123330. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Paul, J.; Alhassan, I.; Binsaif, N.; Singh, P. Digital entrepreneurship research: A systematic review. J. Bus. Res. 2023 , 156 , 113507. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Al Halbusi, H.; AbdelFattah, F.; Ferasso, M.; Alshallaqi, M.; Hassani, A. Fear of failure for entrepreneurs in emerging economies: Stress, risk, finances, hard work, and social support. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 2024 , 31 , 95–125. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Upadhyay, N.; Upadhyay, S.; Al-Debei, M.M.; Baabdullah, A.M.; Dwivedi, Y.K. The influence of digital entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial orientation on the intention of family businesses to adopt artificial intelligence: Examining the mediating role of business innovativeness. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2023 , 29 , 80–115. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bachmann, N.; Rose, R.; Maul, V.; Hölzle, K. What makes for future entrepreneurs? The role of digital competencies for entrepreneurial intention. J. Bus. Res. 2024 , 174 , 114481. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhakupov, Y.K.; Berzhanova, A.M.; Mukhanova, G.K.; Baimbetova, A.B.; Mamutova, K.K. The impact of entrepreneurship on the socio-economic development of regions. Bus. Strategy Dev. 2023 , 6 , 13–19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yáñez-Valdés, C.; Guerrero, M. Determinants and impacts of digital entrepreneurship: A pre-and post-COVID-19 perspective. Technovation 2024 , 132 , 102983. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, W.; Liu, Y.; Zhu, X.; Nespoli, P.; Profita, F.; Huang, L.; Xu, Y. Digital entrepreneurship: Towards a knowledge management perspective. J. Knowl. Manag. 2024 , 28 , 341–354. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Niu, B.; Wang, L.; Yu, X.; Feng, B. Data-driven analysis of digital entrepreneurship in medical supply resilience confronting the COVID-19 epidemic. Inf. Process. Manag. 2024 , 61 , 103502. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• D’Angelo, S.; Cavallo, A.; Ghezzi, A.; Di Lorenzo, F. Understanding corporate entrepreneurship in the digital age: A review and research agenda. In Review of Managerial Science ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2024; pp. 1–56. [ Google Scholar ]
• Al Halbusi, H. Digital entrepreneurship and personal resilience on new business models in the 21st century. In Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurship and Organizational Resilience during Unprecedented Times ; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2023; pp. 331–351. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ghezzi, A.; Cavallo, A. Agile business model innovation in digital entrepreneurship: Lean startup approaches. J. Bus. Res. 2020 , 110 , 519–537. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bejjani, M.; Göcke, L.; Menter, M. Digital entrepreneurial ecosystems: A systematic literature review. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2023 , 189 , 122372. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fernandes, C.; Ferreira, J.J.; Veiga, P.M.; Kraus, S.; Dabić, M. Digital entrepreneurship platforms: Mapping the field and looking towards a holistic approach. Technol. Soc. 2022 , 70 , 101979. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gala, K.; Schwab, A.; Mueller, B.A. Star entrepreneurs on digital platforms: Heavy-tailed performance distributions and their generative mechanisms. J. Bus. Ventur. 2024 , 39 , 106347. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ukata, P.F.; Amini, M.C. Digital entrepreneurial skills acquired by business education undergraduates for decent works in tertiary institutions in Rivers State. Int. J. Innov. Educ. Res. 2022 , 10 , 99–108. [ Google Scholar ]
• Braganza, A.; Chen, W.; Canhoto, A.; Sap, S. Productive employment and decent work: The impact of AI adoption on psychological contracts, job engagement and employee trust. J. Bus. Res. 2021 , 131 , 485–494. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ukko, J.; Nasiri, M.; Saunila, M.; Rantala, T. Sustainability strategy as a moderator in the relationship between digital business strategy and financial performance. J. Clean. Prod. 2019 , 236 , 117626. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dittes, S.; Richter, S.; Richter, A.; Smolnik, S. Toward the workplace of the future: How organizations can facilitate digital work. Bus. Horiz. 2019 , 62 , 649–661. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yeh, Y.J.; Wang, I.Y. Exploring the development trajectory of decent work literature: An empowerment perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2024 , 201 , 123230. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Blustein, D.L.; Kenny, M.E.; Di Fabio, A.; Guichard, J. Expanding the impact of the psychology of working: Engaging psychology in the struggle for decent work and human rights. J. Career Assess. 2019 , 27 , 3–28. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Felicetti, A.M.; Corvello, V.; Ammirato, S. Digital innovation in entrepreneurial firms: A systematic literature review. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2024 , 18 , 315–362. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Elia, G.; Margherita, A.; Passiante, G. Digital entrepreneurship ecosystem: How digital technologies and collective intelligence are reshaping the entrepreneurial process. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2020 , 150 , 119791. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Roshan, R.; Balodi, K.C.; Datta, S.; Kumar, A.; Upadhyay, A. Circular economy startups and digital entrepreneurial ecosystems. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2024 , 33 , 4843–4860. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Joel, O.T.; Oguanobi, V.U. Entrepreneurial leadership in startups and SMEs: Critical lessons from building and sustaining growth. Int. J. Manag. Entrep. Res. 2024 , 6 , 1441–1456. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sitaridis, I.; Kitsios, F. Digital entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship education: A review of the literature. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2024 , 30 , 277–304. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Stam, E.; Spigel, B. Entrepreneurial ecosystems around the globe and early-stage company growth dynamics. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2016 , 40 , 49–69. [ Google Scholar ]
• Autio, E.; Nambisan, S.; Thomas, L.D.; Wright, M. Digital affordances, spatial affordances, and the genesis of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strateg. Entrep. J. 2018 , 12 , 72–95. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Audretsch, D.B.; Belitski, M. Entrepreneurial ecosystems in cities: Establishing the framework conditions. J. Technol. Transf. 2017 , 42 , 1030–1051. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, J.; van Gorp, D.; Kievit, H. Digital technology and national entrepreneurship: An ecosystem perspective. J. Technol. Transf. 2023 , 48 , 1077–1105. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hussain, A.B.; Endut, N. Do decent working conditions contribute to work–life balance: A study of small enterprises in Bangladesh. Asia Pac. J. Innov. Entrep. 2018 , 12 , 90–104. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Herman, E. The interplay between digital entrepreneurship and sustainable development in the context of the EU digital economy: A multivariate analysis. Mathematics 2022 , 10 , 1682. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Firlej, K.A.; Firlej, C.; Luty, L. Economic growth and decent work as a goal of sustainable development in the European Union in the pre-pandemic and pandemic period. Int. Entrep. Rev. 2023 , 9 , 61–76. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, X.W.; Umar, M.; Khaddage-Soboh, N.; Safi, A. From innovation to impact: Unraveling the complexities of entrepreneurship in the digital age. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2024 , 1–15. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lubis, A.S.; Wijaya, C.; Sakapurnama, E. Analysis of entrepreneurial ecosystem factors on productive entrepreneurship of digital start-ups in Indonesia. Int. J. Bus. Ecosyst. Strategy 2023 , 5 , 11–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, X.; Yang, G.; Shao, T.; Yang, D.; Liu, Z. Does digital infrastructure promote individual entrepreneurship? Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment on the “Broadband China” strategy. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2024 , 206 , 123555. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mtibaa, N.; Boudabbous, S. Entrepreneur digital (ED) et processus entrepreneurial: Schéma théorique et validation empirique. Rev. Int. Des Sci. De Gest. 2023 , 6 , 24–47. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kraus, S.; Vonmetz, K.; Orlandi, L.B.; Zardini, A.; Rossignoli, C. Digital entrepreneurship: The role of entrepreneurial orientation and digitalization for disruptive innovation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2023 , 193 , 122638. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hommel, K.; Bican, P.M. Digital entrepreneurship in finance: Fintechs and funding decision criteria. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 8035. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Berger, E.S.; Von Briel, F.; Davidsson, P.; Kuckertz, A. Digital or not–The future of entrepreneurship and innovation: Introduction to the special issue. J. Bus. Res. 2021 , 125 , 436–442. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bakry, D.S.; Daim, T.; Dabic, M.; Yesilada, B. An evaluation of the effectiveness of innovation ecosystems in facilitating the adoption of sustainable entrepreneurship. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2022 , 62 , 763–789. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jones, P.; Maas, G.; Dobson, S.; Newbery, R.; Agyapong, D.; Matlay, H. Entrepreneurship in Africa, part 1: Entrepreneurial dynamics in Africa. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 2018 , 25 , 346–348. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Al Halbusi, H.; Al-Sulaiti, K.; Abdelfattah, F.; Ahmad, A.B.; Hassan, S. Understanding consumers’ adoption of e-pharmacy in Qatar: Applying the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. J. Sci. Technol. Policy Manag. 2024; ahead-of-print . [ Google Scholar ]
• Al Halbusi, H.; Soto-Acosta, P.; Popa, S. Entrepreneurial passion, role models and self-perceived creativity as antecedents of e-entrepreneurial intention in an emerging Asian economy: The moderating effect of social media. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 2022 , 1–32. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, W.; Xu, Y.; Wu, C.H.; Luo, Y. Fortune favors the experienced: Entrepreneurs’ Internet-Era Imprint, digital entrepreneurship and venture capital. Inf. Process. Manag. 2023 , 60 , 103406. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Al Halbusi, H.; Klobas, J.E.; Ramayah, T. Green core competence and firm performance in a post-conflict country, Iraq. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2023 , 32 , 2702–2714. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fairlie, R.W.; Robb, A.M. Why Are Black-Owned Businesses Less Successful than White-Owned Businesses? The Role of Families, Inheritances, and Business Human Capital. J. Labor Econ. 2007 , 25 , 289–323. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alhajri, A.; Aloud, M. Female digital entrepreneurship: A structured literature review. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2024 , 30 , 369–397. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hermawan, E.; Vikaliana, R. The Relationship of Socio-Economic Status to Emotional and Consumptive Behavior. Asian J. Manag. Entrep. Soc. Sci. 2023 , 3 , 214–226. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hossain, M.A.; Jain, R. Determinants of Micro-Entrepreneurship: A Study on Socio-Economic Factors in Context of Digital Bangladesh. Int. J. Bus. Econ. Res. 2017 , 6 , 37–42. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammoda, B. Digital Technology in Entrepreneurship Education: An Overview of the Status Quo. In Digital Transformation for Entrepreneurship ; World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.: Singapore, 2024; pp. 7–93. [ Google Scholar ]
• Oladapo, I.A.; Alkethery, N.M.; AlSaqer, N.S. Consequences of COVID-19 Shocks and Government Initiatives on Business Performance of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises in Saudi Arabia. J. Small Bus. Strategy 2023 , 33 , 64–88. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ferreira, J.J.; Fernandes, C.I.; Veiga, P.M. The role of entrepreneurial ecosystems in SME internationalization. J. Bus. Res. 2023 , 157 , 113603. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ma, Y.; Autin, K.L.; Ezema, G.N. Validation of the Chinese decent work scale. J. Career Dev. 2023 , 50 , 37–51. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lin, B.; Zhou, Y. Measuring the green economic growth in China: Influencing factors and policy perspectives. Energy 2022 , 241 , 122518. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Al Halbusi, H.; Soto-Acosta, P.; Popa, S. Analysing e-entrepreneurial intention from the theory of planned behaviour: The role of social media use and perceived social support. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2023 , 19 , 1611–1642. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) , 2nd ed.; Sage: London, UK; Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003 , 88 , 879. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Podsakoff, N.P. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012 , 63 , 539–569. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015 , 43 , 115–135. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dawson, J.F. Moderation in management research: What, why, when, and how. J. Bus. Psychol. 2014 , 29 , 1–19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Usman, M.; Vanhaverbeke, W.; Roijakkers, N. How open innovation can help entrepreneurs in sensing and seizing entrepreneurial opportunities in SMEs. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2023 , 29 , 2065–2090. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, C.; Chen, M.; Wang, Q.; Fang, Y. The study of value network reconstruction and business model innovation driven by entrepreneurial orientation. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2023 , 19 , 2013–2036. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Odeyemi, O.; Oyewole, A.T.; Adeoye, O.B.; Ofodile, O.C.; Addy, W.A.; Okoye, C.C.; Ololade, Y.J. Entrepreneurship in Africa: A review of growth and challenges. Int. J. Manag. Entrep. Res. 2024 , 6 , 608–622. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ordeñana, X.; Vera-Gilces, P.; Zambrano-Vera, J.; Jiménez, A. The effect of high-growth and innovative entrepreneurship on economic growth. J. Bus. Res. 2024 , 171 , 114243. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dzhengiz, T.; Patala, S. The role of cross-sector partnerships in the dynamics between places and innovation ecosystems. RD Manag. 2024 , 54 , 370–397. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Okoye, K.; Hussein, H.; Arrona-Palacios, A.; Quintero, H.N.; Ortega, L.O.P.; Sanchez, A.L.; Ortiz, E.A.; Escamilla, J.; Hosseini, S. Impact of digital technologies upon teaching and learning in higher education in Latin America: An outlook on the reach, barriers, and bottlenecks. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2023 , 28 , 2291–2360. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Błażejowski, M.; Kwiatkowski, J.; Gazda, J. Sources of economic growth: A global perspective. Sustainability 2019 , 11 , 275. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chew, X.; Alnoor, A.; Khaw, K.W.; Sadaa, A.M.; Al Halbusi, H.; Muhsen, Y.R. Symmetric and asymmetric modeling to boost customers’ trustworthiness in livestreaming commerce. In Current Psychology ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2024; pp. 1–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Al Halbusi, H.; Popa, S.; Alshibani, S.M.; Soto-Acosta, P. Greening the future: Analyzing green entrepreneurial orientation, green knowledge management and digital transformation for sustainable innovation and circular economy. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2024; ahead-of-print . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Alzamel, S. Building a Resilient Digital Entrepreneurship Landscape: The Importance of Ecosystems, Decent Work, and Socioeconomic Dynamics. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 7605. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177605

Alzamel S. Building a Resilient Digital Entrepreneurship Landscape: The Importance of Ecosystems, Decent Work, and Socioeconomic Dynamics. Sustainability . 2024; 16(17):7605. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177605

Alzamel, Samar. 2024. "Building a Resilient Digital Entrepreneurship Landscape: The Importance of Ecosystems, Decent Work, and Socioeconomic Dynamics" Sustainability 16, no. 17: 7605. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177605

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

About Stanford GSB

• The Leadership
• Dean’s Updates
• School News & History
• Commencement
• Business, Government & Society
• Centers & Institutes

Center for Entrepreneurial Studies

• Center for Social Innovation
• Stanford Seed

About the Experience

• Learning at Stanford GSB
• Experiential Learning
• Guest Speakers
• Entrepreneurship
• Social Innovation
• Communication
• Life at Stanford GSB
• Collaborative Environment
• Activities & Organizations
• Student Services
• Housing Options
• International Students

Full-Time Degree Programs

• Why Stanford MBA
• Academic Experience
• Financial Aid
• Why Stanford MSx
• Research Fellows Program
• See All Programs

Non-Degree & Certificate Programs

• Executive Education
• Stanford Executive Program
• Programs for Organizations
• The Difference
• Online Programs
• Stanford LEAD
• Seed Transformation Program
• Aspire Program
• Seed Spark Program
• Faculty Profiles
• Academic Areas
• Awards & Honors
• Conferences

Faculty Research

• Publications
• Working Papers
• Case Studies

Research Hub

• Research Labs & Initiatives
• Business Library
• Data, Analytics & Research Computing
• Behavioral Lab

Research Labs

• Cities, Housing & Society Lab
• Golub Capital Social Impact Lab

Research Initiatives

• Corporate Governance Research Initiative
• Corporations and Society Initiative
• Policy and Innovation Initiative
• Rapid Decarbonization Initiative
• Stanford Latino Entrepreneurship Initiative
• Value Chain Innovation Initiative
• Venture Capital Initiative
• Career & Success
• Climate & Sustainability
• Corporate Governance
• Culture & Society
• Finance & Investing
• Government & Politics
• Leadership & Management
• Markets and Trade
• Operations & Logistics
• Opportunity & Access
• Technology & AI
• Opinion & Analysis
• Email Newsletter

Welcome, Alumni

• Communities
• Digital Communities & Tools
• Regional Chapters
• Women’s Programs
• Identity Chapters
• Find Your Reunion
• Career Resources
• Job Search Resources
• Career & Life Transitions
• Programs & Webinars
• Career Video Library
• Alumni Education
• Research Resources
• Volunteering
• Alumni News
• Class Notes
• Alumni Voices
• Contact Alumni Relations
• Upcoming Events

Admission Events & Information Sessions

• MBA Program
• MSx Program
• PhD Program
• Alumni Events
• All Other Events
• Search Fund Primer
• Teaching & Curriculum
• Affiliated Faculty
• Faculty Advisors
• Louis W. Foster Resource Center
• Faculty & Staff

The Center for Entrepreneurial Studies, founded in 1996, works to prepare effective, insightful entrepreneurial leaders and to enhance knowledge about entrepreneurship and innovation. Stanford GSB has a broad and varied expertise in entrepreneurship — a wide range of courses in entrepreneurship and innovation, engaging co-curricular learning options, and faculty research on innovation, startups, venture funding, and entrepreneurial ecosystems.

Entrepreneurial Education

Stanford GSB offers more than 50 different courses in entrepreneurship and innovation, taught by academic faculty, frequently in partnership with accomplished entrepreneurs and seasoned investors. Students also have access to dozens of entrepreneurial courses at other Stanford schools, enabling them to create a personalized curriculum to meet their learning goals.

• Startup Garage

Where student teams design and test new business concepts that address real-world needs Students at Stanford GSB have the unique opportunity to custom-tailor their curriculum, with over 60 courses in entrepreneurship and innovation to choose from.

• Formation of New Ventures

Stanford GSB offers students who want to undertake an entrepreneurial career by pursuing opportunities leading to ownership of a business. The course deals with case situations from the point of view of the entrepreneur rather than the passive investor. Many cases involve visitors, since the premise is that opportunity and action have large idiosyncratic components.

• Managing Growing Enterprises

Explore challenges faced by entrepreneurs as they rapidly scale a company. Throughout the course, emphasis is placed on the application of analytical tools to administrative practice.

Beyond the Classroom

Stanford GSB offers students many opportunities to extend their entrepreneurial learning outside the classroom. Co-curricular programs such as Stanford Venture Studio, entrepreneurial workshops, and the Entrepreneurial Summer Program create unique educational experiences to augment classroom learning.

Research & Thought Leadership

Stanford faculty conduct research on a wide set of entrepreneurial topics from the valuation of unicorn firms, to the impact of experienced entrepreneurs, to the unique challenges facing Latino and Black entrepreneurs in the United States.

U.S. Black-Owned Businesses: Pre-pandemic Trends & Challenges

This research brief leverages multiple datasets from the U.S. Census Bureau to provide a summary of the state of Black-owned businesses in the United States. It is important to understand and measure these pre-pandemic trends in order to pinpoint…

2024 Search Fund Study

The impact of covid-19 on latino-owned businesses.

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic. Two weeks later, the Stanford Latino Entrepreneurship Initiative administered a survey to 224 mostly scaled ($1 million+ revenue) Latino-owned businesses in the United…

The Secrets of Highly Successful Young Entrepreneurs

Speak like a founder: how successful entrepreneurs communicate to their teams, doordash ceo tony xu on why obsession with detail matters, alumni entrepreneurs.

Alumni have found the entrepreneurial curriculum, programs, and community at Stanford GSB essential in developing their leadership skills. We invite you to hear the stories of some of those alumni.

Ricardo A. Navarro

After meeting in school, Cervantes and Livas teamed up to build a successful bakery chain around the idea that good food brings people together.

Entrepreneur Voices

Andrew Leon Hanna

Oladoyin Oladapo

Emily Núñez Cavness

Ritu Narayan

Tawanda Mahere

CES was founded in 1996 through a visionary partnership of two Stanford GSB faculty, Charles A. Holloway and H. Irving Grousbeck , to address the need for greater understanding of issues facing entrepreneurs and the entrepreneurial community.

• See the Current DEI Report
• Supporting Data
• Research & Insights
• Share Your Thoughts
• Defining Social Innovation
• Impact Compass
• Global Health Innovation Insights
• Faculty Affiliates
• Student Awards & Certificates
• Changemakers
• Dean Jonathan Levin
• Dean Garth Saloner
• Dean Robert Joss
• Dean Michael Spence
• Dean Robert Jaedicke
• Dean Rene McPherson
• Dean Arjay Miller
• Dean Ernest Arbuckle
• Dean Jacob Hugh Jackson
• Dean Willard Hotchkiss
• Faculty in Memoriam
• Stanford GSB Firsts
• Annual Alumni Dinner
• Class of 2024 Candidates
• Certificate & Award Recipients
• Dean’s Remarks
• Keynote Address
• Teaching Approach
• Analysis and Measurement of Impact
• The Corporate Entrepreneur: Startup in a Grown-Up Enterprise
• Data-Driven Impact
• Designing Experiments for Impact
• Digital Marketing
• The Founder’s Right Hand
• Marketing for Measurable Change
• Product Management
• Public Policy Lab: Financial Challenges Facing US Cities
• Public Policy Lab: Homelessness in California
• Lab Features
• Curricular Integration
• View From The Top
• Explore Beyond the Classroom
• Stanford Venture Studio
• Summer Program
• Workshops & Events
• The Five Lenses of Entrepreneurship
• Leadership Labs
• Executive Challenge
• Arbuckle Leadership Fellows Program
• Selection Process
• Training Schedule
• Time Commitment
• Learning Expectations
• Post-Training Opportunities
• Who Should Apply
• Introductory T-Groups
• Leadership for Society Program
• Certificate
• 2024 Awardees
• 2023 Awardees
• 2022 Awardees
• 2021 Awardees
• 2020 Awardees
• 2019 Awardees
• 2018 Awardees
• Social Management Immersion Fund
• Stanford Impact Founder Fellowships
• Stanford Impact Leader Prizes
• Social Entrepreneurship
• Stanford GSB Impact Fund
• Economic Development
• Energy & Environment
• Stanford GSB Residences
• Environmental Leadership
• Stanford GSB Artwork
• A Closer Look
• California & the Bay Area
• Voices of Stanford GSB
• Business & Beneficial Technology
• Business & Sustainability
• Business & Free Markets
• Business, Government, and Society Forum
• Get Involved
• Second Year
• Global Experiences
• JD/MBA Joint Degree
• MA Education/MBA Joint Degree
• MD/MBA Dual Degree
• MPP/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Computer Science/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Electrical Engineering/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Environment and Resources (E-IPER)/MBA Joint Degree
• Academic Calendar
• Clubs & Activities
• LGBTQ+ Students
• Military Veterans
• Minorities & People of Color
• Partners & Families
• Students with Disabilities
• Student Support
• Residential Life
• Student Voices
• MBA Alumni Voices
• A Week in the Life
• Career Support
• Employment Outcomes
• Cost of Attendance
• Knight-Hennessy Scholars Program
• Yellow Ribbon Program
• BOLD Fellows Fund
• Application Process
• Loan Forgiveness
• Contact the Financial Aid Office
• Evaluation Criteria
• GMAT & GRE
• English Language Proficiency
• Personal Information, Activities & Awards
• Professional Experience
• Letters of Recommendation
• Optional Short Answer Questions
• Application Fee
• Reapplication
• Deferred Enrollment
• Joint & Dual Degrees
• Entering Class Profile
• Event Schedule
• Ambassadors
• New & Noteworthy
• Ask a Question
• See Why Stanford MSx
• Is MSx Right for You?
• MSx Stories
• Leadership Development
• How You Will Learn
• Admission Events
• Personal Information
• GMAT, GRE & EA
• English Proficiency Tests
• Career Change
• Career Advancement
• Career Support and Resources
• Daycare, Schools & Camps
• U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents
• Requirements
• Requirements: Behavioral
• Requirements: Quantitative
• Requirements: Macro
• Requirements: Micro
• Annual Evaluations
• Field Examination
• Research Activities
• Research Papers
• Dissertation
• Oral Examination
• Current Students
• Education & CV
• International Applicants
• Statement of Purpose
• Reapplicants
• Application Fee Waiver
• Deadline & Decisions
• Job Market Candidates
• Academic Placements
• Stay in Touch
• Faculty Mentors
• Current Fellows
• Standard Track
• Fellowship & Benefits
• Group Enrollment
• Program Formats
• Developing a Program
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Strategic Transformation
• Program Experience
• Contact Client Services
• Campus Experience
• Live Online Experience
• Silicon Valley & Bay Area
• Digital Credentials
• Faculty Spotlights
• Participant Spotlights
• Eligibility
• International Participants
• Stanford Ignite
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Operations, Information & Technology
• Organizational Behavior
• Political Economy
• Classical Liberalism
• The Eddie Lunch
• Accounting Summer Camp
• California Econometrics Conference
• California Quantitative Marketing PhD Conference
• California School Conference
• China India Insights Conference
• Homo economicus, Evolving
• Political Economics (2023–24)
• Scaling Geologic Storage of CO2 (2023–24)
• A Resilient Pacific: Building Connections, Envisioning Solutions
• Adaptation and Innovation
• Changing Climate
• Civil Society
• Climate Impact Summit
• Climate Science
• Corporate Carbon Disclosures
• Earth’s Seafloor
• Environmental Justice
• Operations and Information Technology
• Organizations
• Sustainability Reporting and Control
• Taking the Pulse of the Planet
• Urban Infrastructure
• Watershed Restoration
• Junior Faculty Workshop on Financial Regulation and Banking
• Ken Singleton Celebration
• Marketing Camp
• Quantitative Marketing PhD Alumni Conference
• Presentations
• Theory and Inference in Accounting Research
• Stanford Closer Look Series
• Quick Guides
• Core Concepts
• Journal Articles
• Glossary of Terms
• Subscribe to Corporate Governance Emails
• Researchers & Students
• Research Approach
• Charitable Giving
• Financial Health
• Government Services
• Workers & Careers
• Short Course
• Adaptive & Iterative Experimentation
• Incentive Design
• Social Sciences & Behavioral Nudges
• Bandit Experiment Application
• Conferences & Events
• Reading Materials
• Energy Entrepreneurship
• Faculty & Affiliates
• SOLE Report
• Responsible Supply Chains
• Current Study Usage
• Pre-Registration Information
• Participate in a Study
• Founding Donors
• Program Contacts
• Location Information
• Participant Profile
• Network Membership
• Program Impact
• Collaborators
• Entrepreneur Profiles
• Company Spotlights
• Seed Transformation Network
• Responsibilities
• Current Coaches
• How to Apply
• Meet the Consultants
• Meet the Interns
• Intern Profiles
• Collaborate
• Research Library
• News & Insights
• Databases & Datasets
• Research Guides
• Consultations
• Research Workshops
• Career Research
• Research Data Services
• Course Reserves
• Course Research Guides
• Material Loan Periods
• Fines & Other Charges
• Document Delivery
• Interlibrary Loan
• Equipment Checkout
• Print & Scan
• MBA & MSx Students
• PhD Students
• Other Stanford Students
• Faculty Assistants
• Research Assistants
• Stanford GSB Alumni
• Telling Our Story
• Staff Directory
• Site Registration
• Alumni Directory
• Alumni Email
• Privacy Settings & My Profile
• Event Registration Help
• Success Stories
• The Story of Circles
• Support Women’s Circles
• Stanford Women on Boards Initiative
• Alumnae Spotlights
• Insights & Research
• Industry & Professional
• Entrepreneurial Commitment Group
• Recent Alumni
• Half-Century Club
• Fall Reunions
• Spring Reunions
• MBA 25th Reunion
• Half-Century Club Reunion
• Faculty Lectures
• Ernest C. Arbuckle Award
• Alison Elliott Exceptional Achievement Award
• ENCORE Award
• Excellence in Leadership Award
• John W. Gardner Volunteer Leadership Award
• Robert K. Jaedicke Faculty Award
• Jack McDonald Military Service Appreciation Award
• Jerry I. Porras Latino Leadership Award
• Tapestry Award
• Student & Alumni Events
• Executive Recruiters
• Interviewing
• Land the Perfect Job with LinkedIn
• Negotiating
• Elevator Pitch
• Email Best Practices
• Resumes & Cover Letters
• Self-Assessment
• Whitney Birdwell Ball
• Margaret Brooks
• Bryn Panee Burkhart
• Margaret Chan
• Ricki Frankel
• Peter Gandolfo
• Cindy W. Greig
• Natalie Guillen
• Carly Janson
• Sloan Klein
• Sherri Appel Lassila
• Stuart Meyer
• Tanisha Parrish
• Virginia Roberson
• Philippe Taieb
• Michael Takagawa
• Terra Winston
• Johanna Wise
• Debbie Wolter
• Rebecca Zucker
• Complimentary Coaching
• Changing Careers
• Work-Life Integration
• Career Breaks
• Flexible Work
• Encore Careers
• Join a Board
• D&B Hoovers
• Data Axle (ReferenceUSA)
• EBSCO Business Source
• Global Newsstream
• Market Share Reporter
• ProQuest One Business
• RKMA Market Research Handbook Series
• Student Clubs
• Entrepreneurial Students
• Stanford GSB Trust
• Alumni Community
• How to Volunteer
• Springboard Sessions
• Consulting Projects
• 2020 – 2029
• 2010 – 2019
• 2000 – 2009
• 1990 – 1999
• 1980 – 1989
• 1970 – 1979
• 1960 – 1969
• 1950 – 1959
• 1940 – 1949
• Service Areas
• ACT History
• ACT Awards Celebration
• ACT Governance Structure
• Building Leadership for ACT
• Individual Leadership Positions
• Leadership Role Overview
• Purpose of the ACT Management Board
• Contact ACT
• Business & Nonprofit Communities
• Reunion Volunteers
• Ways to Give
• Fiscal Year Report
• Business School Fund Leadership Council
• Planned Giving Options
• Planned Giving Benefits
• Planned Gifts and Reunions
• Legacy Partners
• Giving News & Stories
• Giving Deadlines
• Development Staff
• Submit Class Notes
• Class Secretaries
• Board of Directors
• Health Care
• Sustainability
• Class Takeaways
• All Else Equal: Making Better Decisions
• If/Then: Business, Leadership, Society
• Grit & Growth
• Think Fast, Talk Smart
• Spring 2022
• Spring 2021
• Autumn 2020
• Summer 2020
• Winter 2020
• In the Media
• For Journalists
• DCI Fellows
• Other Auditors
• Academic Calendar & Deadlines
• Course Materials
• Entrepreneurial Resources
• Campus Drive Grove
• Campus Drive Lawn
• CEMEX Auditorium
• King Community Court
• Seawell Family Boardroom
• Stanford GSB Bowl
• Stanford Investors Common
• Town Square
• Vidalakis Courtyard
• Vidalakis Dining Hall
• Catering Services
• Policies & Guidelines
• Reservations
• Contact Faculty Recruiting
• Lecturer Positions
• Postdoctoral Positions
• Accommodations
• CMC-Managed Interviews
• Recruiter-Managed Interviews
• Virtual Interviews
• Campus & Virtual
• Search for Candidates
• Think Globally
• Recruiting Calendar
• Recruiting Policies
• Full-Time Employment
• Summer Employment
• Entrepreneurial Summer Program
• Global Management Immersion Experience
• Social-Purpose Summer Internships
• Process Overview
• Project Types
• Client Eligibility Criteria
• Client Screening
• ACT Leadership
• Social Innovation & Nonprofit Management Resources
• Develop Your Organization’s Talent
• Centers & Initiatives
• Student Fellowships

• Harvard Business School →
• Faculty & Research →
• Featured Topics
• Business & Environment
• Business History

Entrepreneurship

• Globalization
• Health Care
• Human Behavior & Decision-Making
• Social Enterprise
• Technology & Innovation
• Entrepreneurship →

Entrepreneurship as Experimentation

Entrepreneurship research is on the rise, but many questions about its fundamental nature still exist. We argue that entrepreneurship is about experimentation: the probabilities of success are low, extremely skewed, and unknowable until an investment is made. At a macro level, experimentation by new firms underlies the Schumpeterian notion of creative destruction. However, at a micro level, investment and continuation decisions are not always made in a competitive Darwinian contest. Instead, a few investors make decisions that are impacted by incentive, agency, and coordination problems, often before a new idea even has a chance to compete in a market. We contend that costs and constraints on the ability to experiment alter the type of organizational form surrounding innovation and influence when innovation is more likely to occur. These factors not only govern how much experimentation is undertaken in the economy, but also the trajectory of experimentation, with potentially very deep economic consequences.

Entrepreneurship research is on the rise, but many questions about its fundamental nature still exist. We argue that entrepreneurship is about experimentation: the probabilities of success are low, extremely skewed, and unknowable until an investment is made. At a macro level, experimentation by new firms underlies the Schumpeterian notion of...

• January 2014 (Revised October 2014)

Andreessen Horowitz

Andreessen Horowitz (a16z), a venture capital firm launched in 2009, has quickly broken into the VC industry's top ranks, in terms of its ability to invest in Silicon Valley's most promising startups. The case recounts the firm's history; describes its co-founders' motivations and their strategy for disrupting an industry in the midst of dramatic structural change; and asks whether a16z's success to date has been due to its novel organization structure. a16z's 22 investment professionals are supported by 43 recruiting and marketing specialists—an "operating team" that is an order of magnitude larger than that of any other VC firm. Furthermore, the operating team aims to not only assist a16z portfolio companies, but also to be broadly helpful to all parties in the Silicon Valley ecosystem, including search firms, journalists, PR agencies, and Fortune 500 executives. The bet: by providing "no-strings-attached" help to ecosystem partners, the partners might someday reciprocate by steering founders seeking funding to a16z. The case closes by asking whether a16z should seek to double its scale over the next years.

Andreessen Horowitz (a16z), a venture capital firm launched in 2009, has quickly broken into the VC industry's top ranks, in terms of its ability to invest in Silicon Valley's most promising startups. The case recounts the firm's history; describes its co-founders' motivations and their strategy for disrupting an industry in the midst of dramatic...

• February 2014
• Background Note

Raising Startup Capital

Entrepreneurs typically focus their full energies on business-building. But raising capital is a core part of building a valuable business. Developing expertise in raising capital is more than a necessary evil, it is a competitive weapon. Master it and you will be in a better position to make your company a massive success. But how do you finance a new venture? In this note, I will try to help answer this question by addressing the following topics: Types of funding. The two major types of startup capital are equity funding and debt funding although there are a few hybrid flavors as well. Sources of funding. These include venture capital firms, angel investors, crowd-funding, and accelerators/incubators. What investors look for. Each source has a different funding process and set of criteria which you need to understand before seeking funding from that source. The mechanics of equity funding. Seeking and securing funding involves setting amounts, agreeing to terms, and defining relationships.

Entrepreneurs typically focus their full energies on business-building. But raising capital is a core part of building a valuable business. Developing expertise in raising capital is more than a necessary evil, it is a competitive weapon. Master it and you will be in a better position to make your company a massive success. But how do you finance...

• January 2014

The Consequences of Entrepreneurial Finance: Evidence from Angel Financings

This paper documents that ventures that are funded by two successful angel groups experience superior outcomes to rejected ventures: they have improved survival, exits, employment, patenting, web traffic, and financing. We use strong discontinuities in angel funding behavior over small changes in their collective interest levels to implement a regression discontinuity approach. We confirm the positive effects for venture operations, with qualitative support for a higher likelihood of successful exits. On the other hand, there is no difference in access to additional financing around the discontinuity. This might suggest that financing is not a central input of angel groups.

This paper documents that ventures that are funded by two successful angel groups experience superior outcomes to rejected ventures: they have improved survival, exits, employment, patenting, web traffic, and financing. We use strong discontinuities in angel funding behavior over small changes in their collective interest levels to implement a...

• September 2014 (Revised December 2014)

The Ullens Center for Contemporary Art

Since its opening in Beijing in November 2007 as the first non-profit art center in China, UCCA had been operating with the mission to "promote the continued development of the Chinese art scene, foster international exchange, and showcase the latest in art and culture to hundreds of thousands of visitors each year." For the past six years, UCCA had worked with more than 100 artists and designers to present 87 art exhibitions and 1,826 public programs to over 1.8 million visitors, including many important leaders from all over the world. Given the context of the economic and political environment in the rapidly changing Chinese art market, the founders and senior management of UCCA wondered what they could do to achieve growth and financial viability while continuing to realize their mission.

Since its opening in Beijing in November 2007 as the first non-profit art center in China, UCCA had been operating with the mission to "promote the continued development of the Chinese art scene, foster international exchange, and showcase the latest in art and culture to hundreds of thousands of visitors each year." For the past six years, UCCA...

• Discussion Paper

The Promise of Microfinance and Women's Empowerment: What Does the Evidence Say?

The microfinance revolution has transformed access to financial services for low-income populations worldwide. As a result, it has become one of the most talked-about innovations in global development in recent decades. However, its expansion has not been without controversy. While many hailed it as a way to end world poverty and promote female empowerment, others condemned it as a disaster for the poor. Female empowerment has often been seen as one of the key promises of the industry. In part, this is based on the fact that more than 80% of its poorest clients, i.e., those who live on less than $1.25/day, are women. This paper discusses what we have learned so far about the potential and limits of microfinance and how insights from research and practice can help inform the industry's current products, policies and future developments.

The microfinance revolution has transformed access to financial services for low-income populations worldwide. As a result, it has become one of the most talked-about innovations in global development in recent decades. However, its expansion has not been without controversy. While many hailed it as a way to end world poverty and promote female...

Initiatives & Projects

Our long tradition of research in Entrepreneurship goes back to the 1930's and 1940's with the “the father of venture capitalism,” General Georges Doriot, and Joseph Schumpeter’s theory of innovation as a process of “creative destruction.” Building on our intellectual roots, our scholars come from disciplines including economics, finance, sociology, strategy, business history, management, and social entrepreneurship. A number of our faculty come from practice as venture capitalists and start-up founders. We focus our research on the identification and pursuit of entrepreneurial opportunities; domestic and international funding of entrepreneurial endeavors; innovation, particularly technological innovation in international ventures; the environments in which entrepreneurs make decisions; and social entrepreneurship. As our research contributes new insights, we are advancing the world’s understanding of complex entrepreneurial issues and helping to increase the entrepreneurial success of our students and practitioners worldwide.

The Arthur Rock Center for Entrepreneurship and the Social Enterprise Initiative encourage innovation to address the large-scale issues that beset society.

Recent Publications

Google stadia: game on or game over.

• July 2024 |
• Faculty Research

Jacqueline Cook at Vendasta: Debating an IPO

Freelancer, ltd., growing foodology into latin america's largest platform for virtual restaurants.

• June 2024 |

Lana Ghanem: Pushing the Boundaries of Health Care through Venture Capital

Snaptravel: betting on 'super.com', driving scale with otto, investor influence on media coverage: evidence from venture capital-backed startups.

• Working Paper |

Building Innovation at VINCI

Mstudio and djoli: accelerating startup growth in francophone africa, seminars & conferences.

• 02 Oct 2024
• 09 Oct 2024

HBS Working Knowlege

• 03 Sep 2024

How the US Government Is Innovating in Its Efforts to Fund Semiconductor Manufacturing

• 20 Aug 2024

Angel City Football Club: A New Business Model for Women’s Sports

• 02 Aug 2024

How a Mission to Cut Food Waste Launched a Multimillion-Dollar Venture

Harvard business publishing, how to negotiate with vcs, harvard business review family business handbook: how to build and sustain a successful, enduring enterprise.

The definition of entrepreneurship: is it less complex than we think?

International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research

ISSN : 1355-2554

Article publication date: 4 November 2021

Issue publication date: 17 December 2021

The paper introduces a new conceptualisation of entrepreneurship that promotes a broader perspective of the phenomenon. The purpose of the paper is to re-conceptualise the act of entrepreneurship so as to reduce it to the fundamental behaviours and processes.

Design/methodology/approach

The paper sets out the motivations for and challenges in establishing a broader definition of entrepreneurship. Following this, current approaches to defining entrepreneurship are reviewed. In light of these, a definition of entrepreneurship is offered that captures a new perspective in understanding entrepreneurship. A critique of the offered definition is offered with regards to promoting theory development, empirical research, quality predictions and a distinctive research domain.

The authors argue that a definition of entrepreneurship that is focussed on the development and validation of ideas provides a thought-provoking re-conceptualisation of entrepreneurship. Extant perspectives on entrepreneurship as business/organisation creation, uncertainty, innovation, value creation and opportunity recognition/creation are drawn on to demonstrate the applicability of the definition.

Originality/value

The pursuit for an encompassing definition of entrepreneurship has been both extensive and earnest, which has inadvertently resulted in a sizable pool of definitions. The authors offer a re-conceptualisation of entrepreneurship with the intent to provide a broad yet coherent definition that encompasses all acts of entrepreneurship. A benefit of this conceptualisation is the establishment of the endpoint of the entrepreneurship process that delineates it from the domain of management.

• Entrepreneurship research
• Entrepreneurial process

Prince, S. , Chapman, S. and Cassey, P. (2021), "The definition of entrepreneurship: is it less complex than we think?", International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research , Vol. 27 No. 9, pp. 26-47. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-11-2019-0634

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2021, Sam Prince, Stephen Chapman and Peter Cassey

Published by Emerald Publishing Limited . This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

Introduction

Extant definitions of entrepreneurship variously relate to opportunity pursuit, business creation, uncertainty, profit-seeking and more, reflecting the myriad perspectives that exist within the entrepreneurship field and beyond ( Bennett, 2006; Gartner, 1990 ). This definitional diversity has been well documented to date ( Audretsch et al. , 2015; Alegre et al. , 2017; Bacq and Jansen, 2011; Bruyat and Julian, 2001; Dato-on and Kalakay, 2016; Moroz and Hindle, 2011 ), including the impact this diversity has on what is included and excluded within the entrepreneurship domain ( Howorth et al. , 2005 ). Whilst some scholars have lamented the attention that the definition of entrepreneurship has received in the literature (e.g. Low, 2001 ), others have motivated a continued discourse as a means of advancing the field ( Baker and Welter, 2017; Shane, 2012; Welter et al. , 2017 ). This is captured by an author of one of most prominent definitions of entrepreneurship within the field today ( Shane and Venkataraman, 2000 ), stating that “[…] the field has taken a problematic approach to dealing with this unresolved definitional debate. Instead of hashing it out, the field has largely adopted [our definition,] […] if the field is to advance, we need to do a better job of deciding on our definition of entrepreneurship” ( Shane, 2012 , p. 13).

The conjecture of Shane's (2012) remarks implies that a lack of clarity surrounding the definition of entrepreneurship has impacted on the advancement of the field in some respects. Two broad domains in which this impact may be seen are education and research – however, given the scope of entrepreneurship, we acknowledge that the domains of impact are likely ubiquitous. The demand for entrepreneurship education has been increasing for the previous two decades ( AACSB, 2017; Charney and Libecap, 2003 ). Interestingly, however, there is a lack of continuity in the programmes that are offered across these institutions ( Bennett, 2006; Brush et al. , 2003 ). One of the benefits that definitional clarity offers entrepreneurship education is the establishment of discipline boundaries, demarcating what entrepreneurship is and, importantly, what it is not. Arguably, clearer boundaries provided through definitional clarity would promote more coherent and efficacious education programmes. From a research perspective, definitional clarity facilitates investigations into entrepreneurship by establishing the questions to be asked and the behaviours, processes and outcomes to be studied, providing a clear lens through which concerted research can accumulate ( Anderson and Starnawska, 2008 ).

The paper is an earnest attempt to contribute to the important ongoing discourse around the definitional clarity of entrepreneurship. A narrative methodological approach was adopted for the current work. In an attempt to capture the many and diverse conceptualisations and definitions of entrepreneurship and to avoid reviewing literature from within limited conceptual perspectives ( Baker and Welter, 2017; Welter et al. , 2017 ) or within a particular period, we elected to not restrict our search to specific journals nor time periods. Instead, we required only that articles be from scholarly peer-reviewed sources. Literature searches were conducted using combinations of the keywords: definition*, defining, meaning*, concept* and entrepreneur*. In addition, relevant references found within retrieved papers were reviewed. After reviewing papers that offered a distinct definition of entrepreneurship, the authors debated these definitions in an effort to distil out the commonalities that existed across definitions. This approach, ultimately, proved difficult and so was augmented with a more conceptual approach whereby the authors debated conceptualisations that would be consistent with and account for the definitions in the reviewed literature.

Herein we unpack some of the challenges in establishing definitional clarity. Following this, we review current approaches to account for the extant definitional diversity. Next, we introduce a new conceptualisation of entrepreneurship that aspires to be a broader definition that captures the fundamental aspects of entrepreneurship across the myriad contexts in which it is enacted. This definition is then analysed with respect to current prominent definitional categories in an attempt to demonstrate its applicability. Lastly, we critique of the offered definition highlighting implications and limitations.

Challenges in establishing definitional clarity

As a field of inquiry, entrepreneurship is distinct from many other fields as it is studied from the perspectives of different disciplines. For example, economics, business, management, psychology and sociology scholars have all contributed definitions to the entrepreneurship literature, each from the perspectives of the varying ontological paradigms that underlie these different disciplines. Unsurprisingly, this has influenced many diverse conceptualisations of entrepreneurship ( Anderson and Starnawska, 2008; Bruyat and Julian, 2001; Lindgren and Packendorff, 2009 ). Notwithstanding this multi-discipline approach to entrepreneurship research to date, it is not apparent why definitional clarity could not exist across invested research disciplines.

Beyond the differing perspectives in defining entrepreneurship, is the vastly different ways in which entrepreneurship is enacted. Such complexity has largely been dealt with in the literature with one of two approaches. One approach has resulted in a burgeoning literature of sub-classes of entrepreneurship. As a non-exhaustive list, nascent ( Lichtenstein et al. , 2007 ), international ( Keupp and Grassman, 2009 ), corporate ( Sharma and Chrisman, 1999 ), intrapreneurship ( Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001 ), technological ( Shane and Venkataraman, 2003 ), social ( Bacq and Janssen, 2011 ), academic ( Abreu and Grinevich, 2013 ), environmental ( Lenox and York, 2011 ) and indigenous ( Hindle and Moroz, 2010 ) entrepreneurship have all been defined. Whilst these extant definitions are well suited to the sub-class of entrepreneurship they describe, they are limited in holistically describing entrepreneurship, as it is enacted in the myriad of ways ( Kobia and Sikalieh, 2010 ).

Another, likely incidental, approach was highlighted in a recent commentary, lamenting a bias in contemporary research to focus on high-growth technology-centric entrepreneurship ( Welter et al. , 2017 ). The authors persuasively argue that such a bias towards the low-hanging fruit of the entrepreneurship phenomenon (i.e. hyper-successful billionaire tech firms) has restricted the perspective of entrepreneurship to what are, in actuality, rare acts of entrepreneurship. This tendency to focus on only one type, or perhaps more accurately, to not focus on all types of entrepreneurship has been suggested to be a main contributor to the current definitional obscurity with important consequences for the direction of the field ( Baker and Welter, 2017 ).

An often-overlooked challenge in gaining definitional clarity is temporal. Does entrepreneurship as it is currently enacted resemble entrepreneurship from Cantillon's (1734) 18th century description? Or from before the common era when trade first appeared? Brockhaus (1987) acknowledged this temporal dynamic, stating that definitions of entrepreneurship have changed in line with the evolution of business concepts and ownership forms. This was a very astute insight considering the technology and Internet booms, which have dramatically impacted on both the practice and study of entrepreneurship ( Welter et al. , 2017 ), would not occur for many years. Importantly, this changing phenotype of entrepreneurship is on-going.

These challenges necessitate a different approach. This approach entails transitioning from the specifics, from the specific perspective of one discipline, from one specific type of entrepreneur or act of entrepreneurship and from one specific element of entrepreneurship that is tied too closely to transitory factors. The goal of such an approach is to find the commonality that underpins all acts of entrepreneurship. In short, we need to broaden our horizons (see Baker and Welter, 2017 for a foundational essay motivating this approach).

A broadening of horizons

Based on a review of the literature, two general approaches to broaden entrepreneurship definitions beyond specific theoretical perspectives can be identified. One approach has been in the earnest attempts to form amalgamated definitions that capture the essential elements across numerous theoretical perspectives on entrepreneurship. For example, Hébert and Link (1989) proposed a definition that encompassed uncertainty, opportunity recognition and innovation, combining insights from the seminal economic theorists Knight (1921), Kirzner (1979) and Schumpeter (1934) , respectively. Definitions resulting from this approach (see also McKenzie et al. , 2007 ) are necessarily complex, with the inclusion of many definitional elements. Consequently, such definitions become highly precise. In contrast to the goals of the approach, the resulting definitions produce a specific checklist that describes a restricted perspective of entrepreneurship. Indeed, other scholars have been critical of this approach, advising against such a “complexity trap” ( Peneder, 2009 , p. 79).

Another approach embracing a broader perspective looks to maintain the prominent theoretical perspectives on entrepreneurship but with the added structure of a sophisticated and multi-faceted framework (e.g. Kuratko et al. , 2015; Peneder, 2009; Shepherd, 2011 ). The goal of this approach is to encompass the many theoretical perspectives on entrepreneurship with definitional coherence provided through the deliberate complexity of the framework. For instance, Audretsch et al. (2015) developed a framework around three definitional themes that they describe as the most common – organizational status, entrepreneurial behaviour and business or individual performance. The framework embraces the complexity amongst the differing perspectives of entrepreneurship whilst providing important structure to assist interpretation. Given the relatively recent emergence of this approach, it is yet unclear what impact it will have on the future development on the field. What is apparent is that the approach is theoretically sophisticated. At a minimum, it requires a cursory knowledge of a broad scientific literature. As such, the applicability of this approach is limited outside of the research domain. However, the move to embrace a broader perspective is undoubtedly positive and marks a promising direction in the pursuit of definitional clarity.

A new approach

The alternative approach to adding complexity into a definition is to stipulate a definition at a more fundamental level. That is, to achieve the desired all-encompassing nature by reducing the complexity. As such, our goal is to capture all entrepreneurs with a definition of entrepreneurship. To achieve this goal, the definition should include only those elements shared across all acts of entrepreneurship and reduce it to the fundamental core activity carried out by all entrepreneurs. It is in this vein that we offer a definition of entrepreneurship as the act of generating and developing an idea for validation , which we now dissect in detail.

The utility of a definition comes from the degree to which it facilitates study into the defined phenomenon. There has been growing consensus that studying entrepreneurship from a behavioural perspective is a fruitful and necessary direction for the future of the field (e.g. Audretsch, 2012; Davidsson et al. , 2001; Gartner, 1988; Ucbasaran et al. , 2001 ). The offered definition explicitly states that entrepreneurship is an act that we use as verb. That is, entrepreneurship is described here as an activity involving numerous and various behaviours, aligning the offered definition with the direction of the field. Defining entrepreneurship in this manner also suggests that participation is the prerequisite for being labelled an entrepreneur. It is not whether certain performance metrics are obtained or whether the individual or team has some desired checklist of characteristics. Of course, there are myriad factors that influence how entrepreneurship is enacted, both at the macro- and micro-levels, as well across a varying time scale ( Gartner, 1985 ). However, it is participation itself, not how it is enacted, that is the essential baseline for entrepreneurship.

The act of entrepreneurship as defined here can be broken down into three definitional elements. The first two elements involve ideas, both generating and developing them. The emphasis on ideas comes from the acknowledgement that ideas are essential in entrepreneurship ( Jarvis, 2016 ). The idea, regardless of the quality, is what the entrepreneurial entity is attempting to realise. For clarity, we refer to the individual entrepreneur or, as it is commonly enacted, the entrepreneurial team ( Kamm et al. , 1990; Klotz et al. , 2014 ) who are responsible for enacting entrepreneurship as the entrepreneurial entity. Importantly, it is not just any idea, but it is the entity's own idea. This might seem like a trivial distinction, but it is essential. To illustrate, think of an idea that gets conveyed to an individual or team, such as an employee or team member, and they are charged with implementing it, either verbatim or with very little modification. In effect, they are carrying out instructions and are, therefore, responsible for the outcome, bearing the consequences of a failure to implement the idea correctly. However, this is distinct from being responsible for the suitability and quality of the idea; it is the idea generator who bears the consequences of the failure of the idea. How such consequences manifest within the entrepreneurial entity will vary but we speculate that factors such as entity composition and dynamics ( Gundry et al. , 2016; Jin et al. , 2017; Steffens et al. , 2012 ), legal ownership ( Breugst et al. , 2015 ) and the degree of psychological ownership of the idea ( Man and Farquharson, 2015 ) are implicated. The bearing of that uncertainty is an important notion in entrepreneurship (e.g. Knight, 1921 ) and as such the notion of idea generation is explicitly included in the offered definition.

An idea, as used in the offered definition, is linked with the concept of entrepreneurial opportunity, and given the substantial literature on opportunity recognition ( Hayek, 1945; Kirzner, 1979 ), it requires some unpacking. Two broad approaches have been adopted in understanding opportunities. Namely, a discovery approach whereby entrepreneurial opportunities exist pre-formed in the environment awaiting discovery (e.g. Shane, 2003; Shane and Venkataraman, 2000 ) and a constructivist approach whereby opportunities are created by the entrepreneurial entity (e.g. Sarasvathy, 2001 ). The appropriateness and utility of both approaches have been the subject of on-going debate (e.g. Alvarez et al. , 2017; Davidsson, 2015; Ramoglou and Tsang, 2016; Ramoglou and Zyglidopoulos, 2015 ). Whilst we acknowledge the importance of these debates, it is not our intention to weigh-in. Indeed, the motivation behind the offered definition allows for both approaches to be accounted for; an idea could refer to the recognition of an opportunity as it exits pre-formed in the environment as per the discovery approach; whereas an idea could take a constructivist approach, it constitutes the blueprint with which to formulate an opportunity and substantiate its potential. Notwithstanding this flexibility, we align the idea concept most closely with Davidsson's (2015) recent description of the New Venture Idea construct. As such, “an idea” as intended in the offered definition is a cognitive and non-material conceptualisation of what the entrepreneurial entity is attempting to realise.

However, complete ideas are neither passive outcomes of the opportunity recognition process ( Davidsson, 2015 ) nor are they the same as their subsequent implementation in the form a venture ( Kuckertz et al. , 2017 ). Rather, the realisation of an idea through the formulation of (potential) solutions or the structuring of a plan is an active process – it is a development process . An established literature describes two broad forms that this development process may take. Effectuation theories ( Sarasvathy, 2001 ) describe a development process that occurs within the given means of the entrepreneurial entity. That is, the development process is constrained by and decisions are made with regard to what is currently available to the entity. Of course, the nature of those means will evolve, as the process unfolds and new opportunities present themselves ( Ronstadt, 1988 ). Conversely, causation theories describe a development process towards a pre-determined end for which the means are obtained. That is, the development process is shaped by and decisions are made with regards to what the entity is attempting to realise. Whilst we deliberately refrain from imposing a specific form on the development process within this conceptualisation of entrepreneurship, the development of an idea could unfold as a causation or effectuation process, or both ( Chandler et al. , 2011; Karri and Goel, 2008 ) or perhaps neither (see Lerner et al. , 2018 for an unintentional developmental process). Speculatively, causation process may be more prevalent in the entrepreneurial act of intrapreneurship, where idea development is likely to be constrained by the strategic vision of the organisation and for a specific pre-determined purpose. Whereas, effectuation processes may approximate entrepreneurial acts more generally given the suggested lack of prescience that underlies idea development ( Dimov, 2011 ) and the association of effectuation processes with the inherent uncertainty of entrepreneurship ( Chandler et al. , 2011 ). Therefore, how the development process manifests in any entrepreneurial act will vary, perhaps even over the course of the one act. However, it is not the specifics of the process but the process itself that is suggested to be in all acts of entrepreneurship.

We situate this development process within a broad humanistic perspective of entrepreneurship. That is, the development process is one of dynamic change where neither the entrepreneurial entity nor the idea nor the environment are static ( Bruyat and Julien, 2001 ). What this change process could look like and the factors involved for just one entrepreneurial act are both many and diverse ( Siggelkow, 2002 ), let alone for entrepreneurship as a broader phenomenon ( McKelvey, 2004 ). Given this, we choose to highlight one crucial change mechanism that permeates this process. Entrepreneurial entities interact with their environment in attempting to realise their idea, subsequently changing and being changed by their interactions ( Dimov, 2016 ). Central to these interactions is the important role of learning in the entrepreneurial process ( Cope, 2005; Rae, 2005 ). Given the breadth and depth of this diverse literature and considerations of space, we refrain from an unsophisticated discussion of the interaction and consequences of the multi-faceted phenomenon of learning (see Wang and Chugh, 2014 and c.f. Pittaway and Thorpe, 2012 figure for a visual representation of this complexity) within the development process.

However, we note that learning is inextricably embedded within the conceptualisation of entrepreneurship being advanced here and as such could subsume broader learning frameworks (e.g. Cope, 2005 ), including cognitive ( Minniti and Bygrave, 2001 ), behavioural ( Bruyat and Julien, 2001 ) and sociological ( Rae, 2005 ) models of entrepreneurial learning. Consequently, the development process is a learning process, which is shaped by the suite of experiences and skills that the entrepreneurial entity initiates the process with ( Cope, 2005; Parker, 2013; Shane, 2000 ). Over the course of the entrepreneurial entity attempting to realise their idea, there are innumerable opportunities to learn, including about the self, the venture, the environment, venture management and relationships, as a non-exhaustive and broad list of learning domains ( Cope, 2005; Rae, 2005 ). Of course, given the dynamic change nature of this process, learning is an interactive process, with insights gained in one domain facilitating, or perhaps hindering, insights gained in other domains.

The humanistic nature of this development process, and entrepreneurship more broadly, suggests that this process is imbued with an inherent emotional journey ( Cope, 2005 ). This perspective is reflected in the increasing research attention into the role of emotions in the entrepreneurship process over the last decade ( Cardon et al. , 2012; Omorede et al. , 2015; Shepherd, 2015 ). We propose that the experience of emotion is inextricably linked to the development process, with important implications for initiating the process ( Biraglia and Kadlie, 2017 ), the facilitation of and commitment to the process, including subsequent subjective perceptions of success ( Drnovsek et al. , 2016; Fisher et al. , 2018 ), team dynamics ( Cardon et al. , 2017 ) and the fluctuation of emotional valence across the process ( Collewaert et al. , 2016 ). Further demonstrating the embedded role of emotions in the conceptualisation of entrepreneurship offered here is their implication in the development process via learning ( Lackéus, 2014 ), playing both a facilitatory and inhibitory role ( Collewaert et al. , 2016 ) across various entrepreneurial functions ( Cardon et al. , 2009 ), including processing venture failure ( Byrne and Shepherd, 2015; Cope, 2011 ), and within the broad domains of learning outlined previously ( Cope, 2005; Rae, 2005 ).

We ground the third element of the offered definition, validation , in the contemporary conceptualisation of entrepreneurship as the creation of value for others ( Bruyat and Julien, 2001; Lackéus et al. , 2016; Moroz and Hindle, 2011 ). Broadly, this conceptualisation focuses on the new value that is created by the entrepreneurial entity as a result of iterative and developmental entrepreneurial processes. This view has also recently been expanded to include the nature of the value created ( Lackéus, 2018 ). The offered conceptualisation of entrepreneurship subsumes this view with the creation of new value underpinning the purpose of the development. But how is value determined? We suggest that this occurs through validation . Validation is used here as a related yet broader concept to the economic term namely, valorisation, which refers to the creation of increased or surplus value that is added to a commodity as the result of production. In essence, valorisation is the realisation of a products worth. Applied to the current conceptualisation, validation is the realisation of the worth of an idea as a result of the development process. We draw on the work of innovation diffusion and adoption to explain this further.

The staggered adoption of new ideas by individuals has long been known ( Rogers, 1962, 1976 ). For a high-level summary, the diffusion approach to idea adoption explains the staggered adoption of ideas as stemming from varying psychological profiles that influence an individual's willingness to adopt a new idea (see Peres et al. , 2010 for a review). The factors include people's perceived capacity and willingness to use a product ( Walker et al. , 2002 ); compatibility with an individual's lifestyle; knowledge, wants and needs ( Saaksjarvi, 2003 ); beliefs and attitudes surrounding a product both prior- and post-adoption ( Karahanna et al. , 1999 ), as well as differences across gender ( Venkatesh et al. , 2000 ) and age ( Morris and Venkatesh, 2000 ).

The most influential diffusion approach has been the work of Rogers (1962) , who described five segments of adopters, each characterised by a different psychological profile that defined their willingness to adopt a product (see Van den Bulte and Joshi, 2007 for a two-segment approach). For considerations of space, a summary of only the first three groups of adopters will be provided, as they concern the notion of validation. In the life cycle of an innovation, the first group to adopt a product, the innovators , show no resistance to adoption. As enthusiasts, they actively seek out the product, adopting it out of need for experience, rather than anything intrinsic to the product. The second group of adopters, the early adopters , shows resistance to adoption only in terms of how well the product will fit them. As progressives, they do not base their adoption decisions on others, willing to adopt a product if they can envision a benefit from its use, even if that benefit may not be immediate or if it would require modification to their current lifestyle. The third group of adopters, the early majority , displays the first significant resistance to adoption. They are not willing to adopt a product based merely on its own merits. Concerned with how the product will positively impact their life with minimal personal effort, they will not gravitate to a product out of curiosity. Instead, they look for references of how the product has proven its worth, needing to be persuaded by a reference group of like-minded adopters.

Somewhat paradoxically, the reference group sort by the early majority is not that of the innovators or early adopters but the early majority themselves. That is, the early majority will only adopt a product if a majority of others have already adopted it. This gives rise to a necessary pioneering early majority – the initial sub-portion of adopters who serve as the reference group for the remaining early majority. These pioneering early majorities constitute a gateway to securing adoption of an idea by the majority of the market. It is this adoption of an idea by the pioneering early majority that we refer to as validation (see Moore, 1991 for an exposition of this adoption phenomenon from a marketing perspective). As such, achieving validation is crucial for the long-term success of any entrepreneurial venture.

Recall that in the offered conceptualisation of entrepreneurship, ideas are central. As outlined previously, the idea itself is different from the specific manifestation of the idea in the form of a product, process or service that is the focus of the entrepreneurial venture. We refer to the idea manifest as an artefact ( Berglund et al. , 2020 ). As conceptualised here, validation marks idea -market fit for the entrepreneurial entity. It has been established that the target population, be that the local community or the entire world, has a want or need for the idea, and the specific artefact has gained traction in the market. At this post-validation stage, further modification of the idea is not required but only modification to the specific artefact.

The conjecture of the offered definition is that validation is the lens through which the entire idea generation and development process takes place. Every decision during this process is made, either directly or indirectly, to maximise the possibility of validation of the idea. Importantly, there is no assumption of optimality in this process. Although the entrepreneurial entity makes decisions based on considerations of validation, it does not mean that any one decision or even the entire development process will actually increase the likelihood of validation. This is an important assumption of the offered definition; it is, intentionally, completely agnostic to success. The label of entrepreneurship is separate from any notion of success of the entrepreneurial act.

Importantly, under the offered definition this marks the endpoint of entrepreneurship. Of course, the venture that enables the artefact does not end, but we propose that the on-going activity is no longer that of entrepreneurship. Rather, post-validation is the realm of management. This distinction is not semantic. The skills and focus necessary for validation of an idea are not the same as those necessary for mass-market adoption of the artefact ( Daily and Dalton, 1992; Shirokova et al. , 2015 ). It is this difference in repertoire that marks the crucial distinction between the activity of the entrepreneurial entity and the activity of management. A similar distinction was also made by Shane (2003) , who argued that the role of the entrepreneurial entity was the development of new means–ends relationships whilst the role of management was optimising those new relationships.

Accounting for existing definitions

It serves little purpose to propose a definition without situating it in the broader landscape of extant conceptualisations. Therefore, in an attempt to demonstrate the applicability of the offered definition, we compare it with prominent definitions of entrepreneurship from the academic literature. For space considerations, definitions are grouped based on five definitional elements – business creation, uncertainty, innovation, opportunity and new value creation. A list of individual definitions by category is provided in Table 1 .

Entrepreneurship as business creation

Business (or organisation) creation and ownership, in all its many forms, is a central theme in many influential definitions of entrepreneurship ( Brockhaus, 1980; Gartner, 1988; Low and MacMillan, 1988; Lumpkin and Dess, 1996 ). Any notion of business is a notable omission from the offered definition. This is not because we believe that business creation is not an act of entrepreneurship; rather, we suggest business creation is only one act of entrepreneurship. However, the lack of an explicit reference to business in a definition of entrepreneurship is far from revolutionary. Two of the most prominent entrepreneurship definitions in the literature and entrepreneurship education are those of Shane and Venkataraman (2000) and Stevenson and Jarillo (1990) , both of which make no explicit mention of business creation, management or ownership. Admittedly, Stevenson and Jarillo reference the internal environment of an organisation, but this was with the intent to capture intrapreneurship and corporate entrepreneurship, a phenomenon that is mutually exclusive to business ownership.

The entrepreneurial phenomenon of intrapreneurship presents an important sounding board for definitions of entrepreneurship. Quite clearly, entrepreneurial individuals within organisations, who are not the founder or owner, are not entrepreneurs under this category of definitions. Whilst this was perhaps the intention of the original authors, it is at odds with the growing literature on intrapreneurship (e.g. Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001; Parker, 2011 ) and corporate entrepreneurship (e.g. Dess et al. , 2003; Ireland et al. , 2009; Phan et al. , 2009 ) that situate these phenomena within the realm of entrepreneurship.

Under the offered definition, these phenomena are most assuredly acts of entrepreneurship. The entrepreneurial acts of intrapreneurship and corporate entrepreneurship are different from the entrepreneurial act of business creation insofar that one involves creating a business, whilst the others do not. Despite this, all three acts of entrepreneurship share the same underlying act of generating and developing an idea for validation. All three acts are built on an underlying idea. In an effort to have the idea realised, all three acts involve a development process that is centred on validation of the idea. Because one act involves behaviours specific to establishing a business and the other acts involve convincing an executive board, internal committee or stakeholders is irrelevant to the status of entrepreneurship.

Entrepreneurship as acting under uncertainty

An enterprising individual who risks reputation and livelihood in pursuit of a big payoff is a common portrait of an entrepreneur. Indeed, for many inside and outside of academia, acting under uncertainty is a central factor in the activity of entrepreneurship. Championing this view was the pioneering work of Knight (1921) who, amongst other issues, elucidated the distinction between uncertainty and risk, with the latter being calculable. Broadly speaking, Knight described an entrepreneur as having a higher propensity and ability to make decisions in situations inherent with uncertainty.

The implication of including acting under uncertainty (although the term risk is frequently used interchangeably) in definitions of entrepreneurship ( Cantillon, 1734; Hull et al. , 1980; Knight, 1921; Leibenstein, 1968; Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990 ) is that this characteristic separates entrepreneurs from non-entrepreneurs. However, there is by no means consensus on this issue. Some scholars claim a higher willingness to act under conditions of uncertainty amongst entrepreneurs ( Stewart and Roth, 2001 ) with others claiming no such difference ( Macko and Tyszka, 2009 ) or that the difference is more nuanced and less binary ( Brockhaus, 1987; Sarasvathy et al. , 1998 ). More colloquially, there are examples of entrepreneurs who could be labelled as uncertainty-averse in their behaviour, such as Warren Buffet whose holdings empire was built on the idea of sure long-term bets as a means of negating the inherent uncertainty in the stock market.

Notwithstanding the lack of agreement on the specific nature of uncertainty in entrepreneurship, it is uncontroversial to say that it is associated to some degree. Whilst the offered definition has no explicit reference to uncertainty, it is captured in the definitional element of validation. Validation is not guaranteed; indeed, it is inherently uncertain. Steve Jobs summed this notion up quite succinctly – “if we succeed, they'll buy them, but if we do not, then they will not.” Jobs is alluding to the two definitional elements of the development process and validation. Paraphrasing Jobs, perhaps, makes this clearer, a successful development process will result in validation of the idea by the target population, but an unsuccessful development process will not result in validation. Jobs is referring to the uncertainty inherent in validation.

Of course, an overarching goal of the development process is to increase the likelihood of validation. However, as it is the process itself, rather than the specifics, that is consistent across all acts of entrepreneurship, we suggest that there is no one ideal decision that can be made or optimal process that can be followed to ensure successful validation of the idea ( Dimov, 2011 ). This is not to say that entrepreneurial success is random, nor lucky, with the skill of the entrepreneur influencing ( Cope, 2005 ), even increasing the chance of success ( Parker, 2011 ). Importantly though, there is no guarantee of success. Therefore, the offered definition captures the uncertainty in reaching the endpoint of entrepreneurship – validation.

Entrepreneurship as innovation

Innovation is evocative of the entrepreneurial genius; the likes of Edison, Musk and Ford are all archetypes. However, innovation in entrepreneurship is an elusive concept due to limited research into the concept (for reviews see, Block et al. (2017) and Hébert and Link (2006) ). Reflective of this elusiveness is work questioning the degree to which innovation and entrepreneurship represent two distinct fields of inquiry ( Landström et al. , 2015 ). Notwithstanding this, innovation has long been associated with entrepreneurship. The influential work of Schumpeter (1934) describes innovation as the central mechanism of entrepreneurship, which he defined as new combinations of existing resources. For Schumpeter, the innovative change born out of entrepreneurship leads to a restructuring of the market, with resources and market share being reallocated from established organisations to new innovative enterprises.

Bruyat and Julien (2001) elucidate this relationship in their seminal article, where the increased novelty (i.e. innovation) of an idea is associated with the increased value that is created and, therefore, the more archetypal the act is of entrepreneurship. While the offered conceptualisation of entrepreneurship is deliberately devoid of connotations of magnitude, Bruyat and Julien's conceptualisation of new value creation provides a basis for assessing degrees of approximation of entrepreneurship within the offered definition to the extent that this is a useful research endeavour. Given that novelty and innovation exist on a continuum, at what point on this continuum does an act of idea development for validation cease to be entrepreneurial? Take for example a budding café owner who aims to differentiate their venture from other local cafés with a creative name and a menu of modestly novel sandwiches. Is this venture likely to disrupt the café paradigm? Clearly, no; it is uncontroversial to say that this idea would fall in the low-magnitude region of the innovation continuum. Indeed, this development approach may have very little impact on the venture, perhaps even hindering validation of idea. However, has the budding café owner not undertaken innovation; have they not developed new combinations of existing resources? We argue that they have. Obviously, this is an example of low-impact innovation and that from a new value-creation perspective this act would be less archetypical of entrepreneurship than, say, the highly innovative ideas of affordable self-driving electric cars, franchised restaurants or fully integrated oil services.

We make no assumptions about where and to what degree innovation needs to occur in entrepreneurship – an idea may be innovative or it may be developed in an innovative way or both. However, despite the heavily publicised high-impact innovative acts of entrepreneurship, this is not a necessary element of entrepreneurship. In reality, high-impact innovative acts are the exception rather than the rule ( Baker and Welter, 2017; Shane, 2009; Welter et al. , 2017 ). It is innovation, not high-impact innovation, which is a necessary element of entrepreneurship as conceptualised here. The offered definition implicates innovation within the act of entrepreneurship without stipulating the quality or quantity of innovation involved.

Entrepreneurship as opportunity identification/creation

Originating from the economic tradition, opportunity recognition and creation has been an influential perspective from which to conceptualise entrepreneurship ( Davidsson, 2015; Dimov, 2011; Hayek, 1945; Kirzner, 1973 ) and forms the basis of some of the most widely referenced definitions of entrepreneurship ( Kirzner, 1979; Shane and Venkataraman, 2000; Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990 ). Whether opportunities are conceptualised as existing and awaiting identification or requiring creation ( Alvarez and Barney, 2007, 2010; Alvarez et al. , 2013 ), they are the raw elements of entrepreneurship. All acts of entrepreneurship, from a rocket company wanting to establish an inter-planetary human civilisation to a child who picks flowers from his/her garden to sell on the side of the road, were initially unrealised opportunities.

Although not explicitly referenced, opportunity recognition or creation is subsumed in the offered definition. In accordance with Davidsson's (2015) concept of the New Venture Idea, we consider an idea the internal perception of external opportunities. In this sense, an opportunity may exist, awaiting recognition by alert entrepreneurial entities, or it may need to be created from yet-unintegrated elements. In either scenario, this requires specific knowledge on behalf of the entrepreneurial entity ( Kirzner, 1973 ). This guiding function that individual knowledge plays in realising opportunities appears manifest – without specific knowledge of the potential combinations of resources representing the opportunity, it could not be recognised ( Shane, 2000 ). How these opportunities are realised is determined by the nature of the development process. As outlined previously, the development process is a complex change process involving a dialogic between the entrepreneurial entity and the idea towards the instantiation of the idea as an artefact.

This is closely aligned with elements of Shane and Venkataraman's definition of entrepreneurship: the discovery, evaluation and exploitation of opportunities . Indeed, the two definitions are similar in spirit. Perhaps, the clearest distinction between the two is the explicit reference to the endpoint of entrepreneurship, the purpose of discovering, evaluating and exploiting opportunities – validation. Additionally, in updated versions of this definition the notion of profit, as in profitable opportunity, is made explicit ( Shane, 2003 ). Profit, be it realised or the pursuit of, is deliberately excluded from the offered definition. This is not to imply that many acts of entrepreneurship are not concerned with profit but to stipulate that all acts of entrepreneurship must include the pursuit of profit is unnecessarily restrictive ( Benz, 2009 ). Of course, profit need not necessarily refer to financial gains and could refer to social and environmental profit (for a solution to the monetary/social profit distinction see Schneider, 2017 ). However, this brings with it a level of ambiguity that seems at odds with the purpose of a definition of entrepreneurship.

Entrepreneurship as value creation

Recently, there has been increasing acceptance of a broader conceptualisation of entrepreneurship education within academic and European policy fields ( Lackéus, 2018; Lackéus et al. , 2016 ), which draws on established sociological perspectives of entrepreneurship as new value creation ( Bruyat and Julien, 2001; Moroz and Hindle, 2011 ). Collectively, this body of work advances a conceptualisation of entrepreneurship as creating shared value for others. This perspective shifts the focus from the conduit through which value is created (i.e. via organization creation [ Gartner, 1988 ]) to the process and its output (i.e. a dialogic between entrepreneurial entity and the new value being created). The implication of this perspective is that it is the process of creating new value that is entrepreneurial, rendering the medium it is created through moot. The offered re-conceptualization of entrepreneurship shares a similar ideological foundation. As outlined previously, we see the value-creation perspective as being subsumed within the offered definition. We conceptualise new value creation as the potential by-product of the development process. That is, the degree to which the development process results in validation of the idea artifact is the degree to which new value has been created. In that way, the potential for value creation is inherent in the development process. Importantly, we make no assumptions about how central the creation of value need be to the efforts of the entrepreneurial entity.

However, there is an inherent vagueness in the new value creation perspective, with value undoubtedly being conceptually broad. To this end, Lackéus (2018) recently provided a framework that explicates five value categories, namely, economic, enjoyment, social, harmony and influence. Whilst space considerations prevent elucidating this framework further, we draw on this work to suggest that the value that an entrepreneurial entity is attempting to create through the development process is neither unidimensional nor static. Entrepreneurial entities may engage in entrepreneurship to create value within a single category or across many. They may be deliberate in this endeavour or it may be incidental. Likewise, they type of value being created may remain consistent throughout the act or it may evolve over time as a consequence of the dynamic learning nature of the development process.

We have attempted to consolidate the offered conceptualisation with the visual illustration in Figure 1 . As described above, entrepreneurship is conceived of here as involving three inter-related components: idea generation, idea development and idea validation. These components form the broader entrepreneurial process. As outlined previously, the process originates in the realm of opportunities where ideas are initially conceived. Following this, ideas are developed towards an ever more concrete instantiation of the idea, that is, the venture offering. It is this idea manifest that has the potential to be accepted by the target market via validation. Upon validation, the entrepreneurial process ceases, with ongoing venture activities being in the realm of management. The solid arrows in Figure 1 representing these main components should not be interpreted as indicating a serial or deterministic process. Rather, as explained here, the process is dynamic and iterative. This is shown in Figure 1 via the dashed arrows that represent hypothetical iterations of this process, indicating that at any time an entrepreneurial entity may, through necessity or choice, revert to another portion of the process. The process of value creation, which is subsumed in the current conceptualisation, is represented in Figure 1 as an inextricable by-process. That is, value is what is created as a consequence of the entrepreneurship process upon validation of the idea.

To illustrate the inherent uncertainty that permeates the entire entrepreneurship process, the solid arrows depicting the current conceptualisation have been overlaid on a shaded area representing uncertainty in the top panel of Figure 1 . Furthermore, the solid-greyed arrows that project from this area indicate the omnipresent nature of uncertainty in not just the entrepreneurship process, but also in the opportunity space and the possibility for innovation. Likewise, the possibility for innovation that exists throughout the entire entrepreneurship process is depicted in the bottom panel of Figure 1 . The solid-grey arrow projecting to the opportunity space reflects that the possibility for innovation is not limited to a particular portion of the entrepreneurial process but rather is ever present.

Implications

With the current conceptualisation offered here, we have attempted to contribute to “the absolutely fundamental process issues of entrepreneurship – what goes in, what comes out, and how the transformation takes place [...]” (p. 32, Moroz and Hindle, 2011 ). In pursuit of this, we have constructed a definition using three definitional elements, with first two elements of the idea and development process influencing the third element of validation. This perspective allows for a structured means by which to study the new venture creation process, highlighting the development process as how new value is created, whereby a New Venture Idea is gradually and iteratively brought into reality as an idea artifact (see Berglund et al. , 2020 for a sophisticated explanation of how this process might look) and validation as the point at which it is created.

The motivation behind offering the current conceptualisation is not to argue against extant definitions as illegitimate but rather to suggest an alternative perspective that draws on the commonality across these definitions. To the extent we have been successful in this, we see this work as an attempt at describing a “harmonizing” view of the entrepreneurship process ( Moroz and Hindle, 2011 ). Undoubtedly, many and varied types of entrepreneurship have been described in a growing literature. We suggest that the offered definition affords the possibility to examine and compare the myriad ways in entrepreneurship is enacted, allowing for theory development and empirical investigation from a perspective that coherently encompasses this complexity. For example, the traditionally dichotomous acts of social and economic entrepreneurship ( Bacq and Janssen, 2011; Mort et al. , 2003 ) need not be viewed as fundamentally different forms of entrepreneurship, requiring a divergence of theory ( Dacin et al. , 2010 ). Rather, the current definition provides an avenue to convergence where these forms can be studied as two sides of the one coin ( Deeds, 2014; Shane, 2012 ).

This convergence can also be leveraged for effective empirical and predictive research. Given the intended broad applicability of the offered definition, we focus on the facilitation of research into entrepreneurial learning given its inherent centrality in the development process that frames entrepreneurship as a dynamic change process. A recent meta-analysis on entrepreneurial learning identified individual and collective learning and explorative and exploitative learning as two areas in need of further development ( Wang and Chugh, 2014 ). The definition being advanced here provides a potentially fruitful perspective from which to investigate these important areas. With regards to the individual/collective learning dichotomy, the deliberately neutral stance on the nature of the entrepreneurial entity provides the opportunity for research questions to be investigated within the one framework. This allows for the interaction between the type of entrepreneurial entity and the development process to be examinable without the need to combine differing perspectives focussing on the entrepreneur(s) as separate to entrepreneurial organisations. Likewise, the current conceptualisation allows for the long held explorative/exploitative dichotomy of opportunity development ( Shane and Venkataraman, 2000; Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990 ) to be examined within the one perspective. By categorising development processes either as explorative or exploitative, the nature of the development process within each category can be examined and compared with regards to, for example, cognitive styles, resource acquisition, and favourable and unfavourable learning conditions ( Wang and Chugh, 2014 ).

Perhaps, the most important implication of the current re-conceptualization is the suggestion of the endpoint of entrepreneurship through the definitional element of validation. In effect, this establishes the lifecycle of the entrepreneurial process. Often unclear in extant definitions, this provides the opportunity for an under-explored aspect of entrepreneurship to be elucidated. One consequence of demarcating the end of the entrepreneurial process is the provision of bounds on the phenomenon that advocates for a distinctive discipline. This promotes a focus on the earlier stages of what has traditionally been encompassed by the entrepreneurial process, including high growth ( Brown et al. , 2017; Autio and Rannikko, 2016 ) and venture exit ( DeTienne, 2010; DeTienne and Wennberg, 2016 ). As stated previously, under the re-conceptualisation offered here, post-validation is the domain of management that we argue entails a shift in behavioural repertoire and strategic focus ( Daily and Dolton, 1992; Shane, 2003; Shirokova et al. , 2015 ).

Such a shift in repertoire has implications for entrepreneurship education and training. What are the skills, mindsets and strategic foci that are most beneficial in pursuit of validation as opposed to post-validation? Establishing the endpoint of entrepreneurship allows for such avenues of inquiry, including elucidating the processes, behaviours, cognitions, motivations and dynamics that facilitate the pursuit of validation and understanding which repertoire components are adaptive both pre- and post-validation and which are suited only to a particular stage. Developing this understanding is advantageous, as it provides insight into what competencies may be more beneficial to develop at a particular time and which to devote limited resources.

Limitations

Given the approach we have taken to describing a conceptualisation of entrepreneurship that attempts to be broadly applicable by capturing the fundamental elements of the process, there are inherent limitations which require discussion. First, we highlight the opacity of the idea concept that is prominent in the offered definition. It is well established that entrepreneurs act on an opportunity in an attempt to realise a venture, however, the nature of this opportunity is continuing to be explored in a growing literature. In recognition of this, recent work has drawn on design science to describe opportunities-as-artefacts , which suggests opportunities can at any one time exist on a continuum from abstract ideas to their concrete instantiations and follow a gradual and iterative process of being brought into reality ( Berglund et al. , 2020 ).

In many ways, the Berglund et al. conceptualisation of entrepreneurship is compatible, even facilitatory of our conceptualisation of the idea-development process. As used in this work, the artefact concept maps onto both the idea and the idea manifest with which validation may be achieved. However, we found it important to separate out the abstract idea, as a New Venture Idea ( Davidsson, 2015 ), in order to establish the process of validation. Notwithstanding this necessity, it does render the idea concept elusive and potentially difficult to identify from a research perspective. What is an entrepreneurial entity's idea? When is it formed? Can it be different from the concrete instantiation of the idea? Despite this opacity, we see this conceptualisation as useful, as it separates the abstract and concrete forms of opportunities. This allows for acuity that facilitates the continued exploration of the nature of opportunities and ideas in entrepreneurship.

A second limitation concerns the methodology that was adopted. Whilst the conceptual and broad nature of this undertaking meant a narrative approach was appropriate ( Snyder, 2019 ), there is inherent bias and diminished rigour ( Sylvester et al. , 2013 ). We acknowledge that these limitations will have led to insights being overlooked, potentially important ones. In an effort to minimise the impact of this limitation, a deliberate effort was made to extend the literature search as broadly as possible whilst ensuring scholarly rigour in the sources retrieved. An unavoidable trade-off is needed in such an undertaking, balancing the need to synthesise a broad and diverse literature whilst maintaining coherency and focus. To that end, we do not see this work as a dogmatic stance on how best to conceptualise entrepreneurship; rather, we welcome a continuing discourse and hope that this work has contributed in some manner.

A third limitation is the use of three definitional elements namely, ideas, development and validation. Whilst this is a deliberate attempt to reduce complexity and situate the definition at a fundamental level, a valid remark is whether we have managed the balance between complexity and simplicity in adequately conceptualising entrepreneurship. The use of only minimal elements has merit. It provides a structure to the entrepreneurial process in lieu of detail on how the process is carried out from act to act and it allows for the same process to be identified in apparently disparate acts of entrepreneurship. However, following Moroz and Hindle (2011) , in an attempt to find what is generic about entrepreneurship (i.e. describing all acts of entrepreneurship), have we fallen short in finding what makes entrepreneurship distinct (i.e. describing only acts of entrepreneurship) ? Whilst we leave this to other scholars to pass judgement on, we find merit in the ongoing discussion about what human endeavours fall in the gamut of entrepreneurship.

We offer a re-conceptualization of entrepreneurship for the purpose of capturing the fundamental elements of the phenomenon. The offered definition is motivated by wanting definitional clarity that transcends the increasingly numerous and disconnected subfields of entrepreneurship ( Baker and Welter, 2017 ). It is hoped that by reducing the complexity surrounding the definition of entrepreneurship and explicating a clear elemental definition, the traditionally separated areas of entrepreneurship research and research disciplines can find common ground on which to accumulate additive insights that are theory-based and empirically tested. We anticipate that readers may find the definition unnecessarily radical; however, many calls for a shift in perspective have been previously advanced (see McKelvey (2004) and Sarasvathy and Venkataraman (2011) for alternative perspectives on shifting the entrepreneurship research paradigm). We also anticipate that many readers may find the offered definition broad and perhaps over-simplified; however, we believe this is a strength rather than a weakness. It promotes a change in perspective that considers entrepreneurship as a far wider phenomenon than organisation creation or opportunity exploitation. It promotes a conceptualisation more concerned with the nature of ideas and a development process centred on obtaining validation of those ideas through their adoption by others.

Visual representation of the offered conceptualisation of entrepreneurship

Prominent definitions of entrepreneurship by definitional theme

AACSB ( 2017 ), Business School Data Guide , AACSB International , Tampa, Florida .

Abreu , M. and Grinevich , V. ( 2013 ), “ The nature of academic entrepreneurship in the UK: widening the focus on entrepreneurial activities ”, Research Policy , Vol.  42 No.  2 , pp.  408 - 422 .

Alegre , I. , Kislenko , S. and Berbegal-Mirabent , J. ( 2017 ), “ Organized chaos: mapping the definitions of social entrepreneurship ”, Journal of Social Entrepreneurship , Vol.  8 No.  2 , pp.  248 - 264 .

Alvarez , S.A. and Barney , J.B. ( 2007 ), “ Discovery and creation: alternative theories of entrepreneurial action ”, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal , Vol.  1 Nos 1‐2 , pp.  11 - 26 .

Alvarez , S.A. and Barney , J.B. ( 2010 ), “ Entrepreneurship and epistemology: the philosophical underpinnings of the study of entrepreneurial opportunities ”, Academy of Management Annals , Vol.  4 No.  1 , pp.  557 - 583 .

Alvarez , S.A. , Barney , J.B. and Anderson , P. ( 2013 ), “ Forming and exploiting opportunities: the implications of discovery and creation processes for entrepreneurial and organizational research ”, Organization Science , Vol.  24 No.  1 , pp.  301 - 317 .

Alvarez , S.A. , Barney , J.B. , McBride , R. and Wuebker , R. ( 2017 ), “ On opportunities: philosophical and empirical implications ”, Academy of Management Review , Vol.  42 No.  4 , pp.  726 - 730 .

Anderson , A.R. and Starnawska , M. ( 2008 ), “ Research practices in entrepreneurship: problems of definition, description and meaning ”, The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation , Vol.  9 No.  4 , pp.  221 - 230 .

Antoncic , B. and Hisrich , R.D. ( 2001 ), “ Intrapreneurship: construct refinement and cross-cultural validation ”, Journal of Business Venturing , Vol.  16 No.  5 , pp.  495 - 527 .

Audretsch , D.B. , Kuratko , D.F. and Link , A.N. ( 2015 ), “ Making sense of the elusive paradigm of entrepreneurship ”, Small Business Economics , Vol.  45 No.  4 , pp.  703 - 712 .

Audretsch , D. ( 2012 ), “ Entrepreneurship research ”, Management Decision , Vol.  50 No.  5 , pp.  755 - 764 .

Autio , E. and Rannikko , H. ( 2016 ), “ Retaining winners: can policy boost high-growth entrepreneurship? ”, Research Policy , Vol.  45 No.  1 , pp.  42 - 55 .

Bacq , S. and Janssen , F. ( 2011 ), “ The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: a review of definitional issues based on geographical and thematic criteria ”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development , Vol.  23 Nos 5-6 , pp.  373 - 403 .

Baker , T. and Welter , F. ( 2017 ), “ Come on out of the ghetto, please!–Building the future of entrepreneurship research ”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research , Vol.  23 No.  2 , pp.  170 - 184 .

Bennett , R. ( 2006 ), “ Business lecturers' perceptions of the nature of entrepreneurship ”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research , Vol.  12 No.  3 , pp.  165 - 188 .

Benz , M. ( 2009 ), “ Entrepreneurship as a non-profit-seeking activity ”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal , Vol.  5 No.  1 , pp.  23 - 44 .

Berglund , H. , Bousfiha , M. and Mansoori , Y. ( 2020 ), “ Opportunities as artifacts and entrepreneurship as design ”, Academy of Management Review , Vol. 45 No. 4 , pp. 825 - 846 .

Biraglia , A. and Kadile , V. ( 2017 ), “ The role of entrepreneurial passion and creativity in developing entrepreneurial intentions: insights from American homebrewers ”, Journal of Small Business Management , Vol.  55 No.  1 , pp.  170 - 188 .

Block , J.H. , Fisch , C.O. and Van Praag , M. ( 2017 ), “ The Schumpeterian entrepreneur: a review of the empirical evidence on the antecedents, behaviour and consequences of innovative entrepreneurship ”, Industry and Innovation , Vol.  24 No.  1 , pp.  61 - 95 .

Breugst , N. , Patzelt , H. and Rathgeber , P. ( 2015 ), “ How should we divide the pie? Equity distribution and its impact on entrepreneurial teams ”, Journal of Business Venturing , Vol.  30 No.  1 , pp.  66 - 94 .

Brockhaus , R.H. ( 1980 ), “ Risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs ”, Academy of Management Journal , Vol.  23 No.  3 , pp.  509 - 520 .

Brockhaus , R.H. ( 1987 ), “ Entrepreneurial folklore ”, Journal of Small Business Management , Vol.  25 No.  3 , pp.  1 - 6 .

Brown , R. , Mawson , S. and Mason , C. ( 2017 ), “ Myth-busting and entrepreneurship policy: the case of high growth firms ”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development , Vol.  29 Nos 5-6 , pp.  414 - 443 .

Brush , C.G. , Duhaime , I.M. , Gartner , W.B. , Stewart , A. , Katz , J.A. , Hitt , M.A. and Venkataraman , S. ( 2003 ), “ Doctoral education in the field of entrepreneurship ”, Journal of Management , Vol.  29 No.  3 , pp.  309 - 331 .

Bruyat , C. and Julien , P.A. ( 2001 ), “ Defining the field of research in entrepreneurship ”, Journal of Business Venturing , Vol.  16 No.  2 , pp.  165 - 180 .

Byrne , O. and Shepherd , D.A. ( 2015 ), “ Different strokes for different folks: entrepreneurial narratives of emotion, cognition, and making sense of business failure ”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , Vol.  39 No.  2 , pp.  375 - 405 .

Cantillon , R. ( 1734 ), Essai sur la nature du commerce en general , (Essay on the nature of trade in general) (Translated by Henry Higgs.) , MacMillan , London .

Cardon , M.S. , Wincent , J. , Singh , J. and Drnovsek , M. ( 2009 ), “ The nature and experience of entrepreneurial passion ”, Academy of Management Review , Vol.  34 No.  3 , pp.  511 - 532 .

Cardon , M.S. , Foo , M.D. , Shepherd , D. and Wiklund , J. ( 2012 ), “ Exploring the heart: entrepreneurial emotion is a hot topic ”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , Vol.  36 No.  1 , pp.  1 - 10 .

Cardon , M.S. , Post , C. and Forster , W.R. ( 2017 ), “ Team entrepreneurial passion: its emergence and influence in new venture teams ”, Academy of Management Review , Vol.  42 No.  2 , pp.  283 - 305 .

Chandler , G.N. , DeTienne , D.R. , McKelvie , A. and Mumford , T.V. ( 2011 ), “ Causation and effectuation processes: a validation study ”, Journal of Business Venturing , Vol.  26 No.  3 , pp.  375 - 390 .

Charney , A.H. and Libecap , G.D. ( 2003 ), “ The contribution of entrepreneurship education: an analysis of the Berger program ”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education , Vol.  1 No.  3 , pp.  385 - 418 .

Collewaert , V. , Anseel , F. , Crommelinck , M. , De Beuckelaer , A. and Vermeire , J. ( 2016 ), “ When passion fades: disentangling the temporal dynamics of entrepreneurial passion for founding ”, Journal of Management Studies , Vol.  53 No.  6 , pp.  966 - 995 .

Cope , J. ( 2005 ), “ Toward a dynamic learning perspective of entrepreneurship ”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , Vol.  29 No.  4 , pp.  373 - 397 .

Cope , J. ( 2011 ), “ Entrepreneurial learning from failure: an interpretative phenomenological analysis ”, Journal of Business Venturing , Vol.  26 No.  6 , pp.  604 - 623 .

Dacin , P.A. , Dacin , M.T. and Matear , M. ( 2010 ), “ Social entrepreneurship: why we don't need a new theory and how we move forward from here ”, Academy of Management Perspectives , Vol.  24 No.  3 , pp.  37 - 57 .

Daily , C.M. and Dalton , D.R. ( 1992 ), “ Financial performance of founder-managed versus professionally managed small corporations ”, Journal of Small Business Management , Vol.  30 No.  2 , pp.  25 - 34 .

Dato-on , M.C. and Kalakay , J. ( 2016 ), “ The winding road of social entrepreneurship definitions: a systematic literature review ”, Social Enterprise Journal , Vol.  12 No.  2 , pp.  131 - 160 .

Davidsson , P. , Low , M. and Wright , M. ( 2001 ), “ Introduction: low and MacMillan ten years on–achievements and future directions for entrepreneurship research ”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , Vol.  25 No.  4 , pp.  5 - 16 .

Davidsson , P. ( 2015 ), “ Entrepreneurial opportunities and the entrepreneurship nexus: a re-conceptualization ”, Journal of Business Venturing , Vol.  30 No.  5 , pp.  674 - 695 .

Deeds , D. ( 2014 ), “ Thoughts on the challenge of empirical research in entrepreneurship ”, Handbook of Research Methods and Applications in Entrepreneurship and Small Business , Edward Elgar Publishing .

Dess , G.G. , Ireland , R.D. , Zahra , S.A. , Floyd , S.W. , Janney , J.J. and Lane , P.J. ( 2003 ), “ Emerging issues in corporate entrepreneurship ”, Journal of Management , Vol.  29 No.  3 , pp.  351 - 378 .

DeTienne , D. and Wennberg , K. ( 2016 ), “ Studying exit from entrepreneurship: new directions and insights ”, International Small Business Journal , Vol.  34 No.  2 , pp.  151 - 156 .

DeTienne , D.R. ( 2010 ), “ Entrepreneurial exit as a critical component of the entrepreneurial process: theoretical development ”, Journal of Business Venturing , Vol.  25 No.  2 , pp.  203 - 215 .

Dimov , D. ( 2011 ), “ Grappling with the unbearable elusiveness of entrepreneurial opportunities ”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , Vol.  35 No.  1 , pp.  57 - 81 .

Dimov , D. ( 2016 ), “ Toward a design science of entrepreneurship ”, Models of Start-Up Thinking and Action: Theoretical, Empirical and Pedagogical Approaches , Emerald Group Publishing .

Drnovsek , M. , Cardon , M.S. and Patel , P.C. ( 2016 ), “ Direct and indirect effects of passion on growing technology ventures ”, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal , Vol.  10 No.  2 , pp.  194 - 213 .

Fisher , R. , Merlot , E. and Johnson , L.W. ( 2018 ), “ The obsessive and harmonious nature of entrepreneurial passion ”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research , Vol. 24 No. 1 , pp. 22 - 40 .

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 .

Gartner , W.B. ( 1988 ), “ Who is an entrepreneur? Is the wrong questions ”, American Journal of Small Business , Vol.  12 No.  4 , pp.  11 - 32 .

Gartner , W.B. ( 1990 ), “ What are we talking about when we talk about entrepreneurship? ”, Journal of Business Venturing , Vol.  5 No.  1 , pp.  15 - 28 .

Gundry , L.K. , Ofstein , L.F. and Monllor , J. ( 2016 ), “ Entrepreneurial team creativity: driving innovation from ideation to implementation ”, Journal of Enterprising Culture , Vol.  24 No.  1 , pp.  55 - 77 .

Hayek , F.A. ( 1945 ), “ The use of knowledge in society ”, The American Economic Review , Vol. 35 No. 4 , pp. 519 - 530 .

Hébert , R.F. and Link , A.N. ( 1989 ), “ In search of the meaning of entrepreneurship ”, Small Business Economics , Vol.  1 No.  1 , pp.  39 - 49 .

Hébert , R.F. and Link , A.N. ( 2006 ), “ The entrepreneur as innovator ”, The Journal of Technology Transfer , Vol.  31 No.  5 , pp.  589 - 597 .

Hindle , K. and Moroz , P. ( 2010 ), “ Indigenous entrepreneurship as a research field: developing a definitional framework from the emerging canon ”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal , Vol.  6 No.  4 , pp.  357 - 385 .

Howorth , C. , Tempest , S. and Coupland , C. ( 2005 ), “ Rethinking entrepreneurship methodology and definitions of the entrepreneur ”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development , Vol.  12 No.  1 , pp.  24 - 40 .

Hull , D.L. , Bosley , J.J. and Udell , G.G. ( 1980 ), “ Renewing the hunt for the heffalump: identifying potential entrepreneurs by personality characteristics ”, Journal of Small Business Management (Pre-1986) , Vol.  18 No.  000001 , p. 11 .

Ireland , R.D. , Covin , J.G. and Kuratko , D.F. ( 2009 ), “ Conceptualizing corporate entrepreneurship strategy ”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , Vol.  33 No.  1 , pp.  19 - 46 .

Jarvis , L.C. ( 2016 ), “ Identification, intentions and entrepreneurial opportunities: an integrative process model ”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research , Vol.  22 No.  2 , pp.  182 - 198 .

Jin , L. , Madison , K. , Kraiczy , N.D. , Kellermanns , F.W. , Crook , T.R. and Xi , J. ( 2017 ), “ Entrepreneurial team composition characteristics and new venture performance: a meta–analysis ”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , Vol.  41 No.  5 , pp.  743 - 771 .

Kamm , J.B. , Shuman , J.C. , Seeger , J.A. and Nurick , A.J. ( 1990 ), “ Entrepreneurial teams in new venture creation: a research agenda ”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , Vol.  14 No.  4 , pp.  7 - 17 .

Karahanna , E. , Straub , D.W. and Chervany , N.L. ( 1999 ), “ Information technology adoption across time: a cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs ”, MIS Quarterly , Vol.  23 No.  3 , pp.  183 - 213 .

Karri , R. and Goel , S. ( 2008 ), “ Effectuation and over–trust: response to Sarasvathy and dew ”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , Vol.  32 No.  4 , pp.  739 - 748 .

Keupp , M.M. and Gassmann , O. ( 2009 ), “ The past and the future of international entrepreneurship: a review and suggestions for developing the field ”, Journal of Management , Vol.  35 No.  3 , pp.  600 - 633 .

Kirzner , I.M. ( 1973 ), Competition and Entrepreneurship , University of Chicago Press , Chicago, IL .

Kirzner , I.M. ( 1979 ), Perception, Opportunity, and Profit , University of Chicago Press , Chicago, IL .

Klotz , A.C. , Hmieleski , K.M. , Bradley , B.H. and Busenitz , L.W. ( 2014 ), “ New venture teams: a review of the literature and roadmap for future research ”, Journal of Management , Vol.  40 No.  1 , pp.  226 - 255 .

Knight , F.H. ( 1921 ), Risk, Uncertainty and Profit , Hart, Schaffner and Marx , New York, NY .

Kobia , M. and Sikalieh , D. ( 2010 ), “ Towards a search for the meaning of entrepreneurship ”, Journal of European Industrial Training , Vol.  34 No.  2 , pp.  110 - 127 .

Kuckertz , A. , Kollmann , T. , Krell , P. and Stöckmann , C. ( 2017 ), “ Understanding, differentiating, and measuring opportunity recognition and opportunity exploitation ”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research , Vol.  23 No.  1 , pp.  78 - 97 .

Kuratko , D.F. , Morris , M.H. and Schindehutte , M. ( 2015 ), “ Understanding the dynamics of entrepreneurship through framework approaches ”, Small Business Economics , Vol.  45 No.  1 , pp.  1 - 13 .

Lackéus , M. ( 2014 ), “ An emotion based approach to assessing entrepreneurial education ”, The International Journal of Management Education , Vol.  12 No.  3 , pp.  374 - 396 .

Lackéus , M. ( 2018 ), “ ‘What is value?’–A framework for analyzing and facilitating entrepreneurial value creation ”, Uniped , Vol.  41 No.  01 , pp.  10 - 28 .

Lackéus , M. , Lundqvist , M. and Middleton , K.W. ( 2016 ), “ Bridging the traditional-progressive education rift through entrepreneurship ”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research , Vol. 22 No. 6 , pp. 777 - 803 .

Landström , H. , Åström , F. and Harirchi , G. ( 2015 ), “ Innovation and entrepreneurship studies: one or two fields of research? ”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal , Vol.  11 No.  3 , pp.  493 - 509 .

Leibenstein , H. ( 1968 ), “ Entrepreneurship and development ”, The American Economic Review , Vol.  58 No.  2 , pp.  72 - 83 .

Lenox , M. and York , J.G. ( 2011 ), “ Environmental entrepreneurship ”, The Oxford Handbook of Business and Natural Environment , pp.  70 - 92 .

Lerner , D.A. , Hunt , R.A. and Dimov , D. ( 2018 ), “ Action! Moving beyond the intendedly-rational logics of entrepreneurship ”, Journal of Business Venturing , Vol.  33 No.  1 , pp.  52 - 69 .

Lichtenstein , B.B. , Carter , N.M. , Dooley , K.J. and Gartner , W.B. ( 2007 ), “ Complexity dynamics of nascent entrepreneurship ”, Journal of Business Venturing , Vol.  22 No.  2 , pp.  236 - 261 .

Lindgren , M. and Packendorff , J. ( 2009 ), “ Social constructionism and entrepreneurship ”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research , Vol. 15 No. 1 , pp. 25 - 47 .

Low , M.B. and MacMillan , I.C. ( 1988 ), “ Entrepreneurship: past research and future challenges ”, Journal of Management , Vol.  14 No.  2 , pp.  139 - 161 .

Low , M.B. ( 2001 ), “ The adolescence of entrepreneurship research: specification of purpose ”, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice , Vol.  25 No.  4 , pp.  17 - 26 .

Lumpkin , G.T. and Dess , G.G. ( 1996 ), “ Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance ”, Academy of Management Review , Vol.  21 No.  1 , pp.  135 - 172 .

Macko , A. and Tyszka , T. ( 2009 ), “ Entrepreneurship and risk taking ”, Applied Psychology , Vol.  58 No.  3 , pp.  469 - 487 .

Man , T.W.Y. and Farquharson , M. ( 2015 ), “ Psychological ownership in team-based entrepreneurship education activities ”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research , Vol. 21 No. 4 , pp. 600 - 621 .

McKelvey , B. ( 2004 ), “ Toward a complexity science of entrepreneurship ”, Journal of Business Venturing , Vol.  19 No.  3 , pp.  313 - 341 .

McKenzie , B. , Ugbah , S.D. and Smothers , N. ( 2007 ), “ Who is an entrepreneur? is it still the wrong question? ”, Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal , Vol.  13 No.  1 , pp.  23 - 43 .

Minniti , M. and Bygrave , W. ( 2001 ), “ A dynamic model of entrepreneurial learning ”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , Vol.  25 No.  3 , pp.  5 - 16 .

Moore , G.A. ( 1991 ), Crossing the Chasm: Marketing and Selling Technology Products to Mainstream Customers , Harper Business , New York, NY .

Moroz , P.W. and Hindle , K. ( 2011 ), “ Entrepreneurship as a process: toward harmonizing multiple perspectives ”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , Vol.  36 No.  4 , pp.  781 - 818 .

Morris , M.G. and Venkatesh , V. ( 2000 ), “ Age differences in technology adoption decisions: implications for a changing work force ”, Personnel Psychology , Vol.  53 No.  2 , pp.  375 - 403 .

Mort , G. , Weerawardena , J. and Carnegie , K. ( 2003 ), “ Social entrepreneurship: towards conceptualisation ”, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing , Vol.  8 No.  1 , pp.  76 - 88 .

Omorede , A. , Thorgren , S. and Wincent , J. ( 2015 ), “ Entrepreneurship psychology: a review ”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal , Vol.  11 No.  4 , pp.  743 - 768 .

Parker , S.C. ( 2011 ), “ Intrapreneurship or entrepreneurship? ”, Journal of Business Venturing , Vol.  26 No.  1 , pp.  19 - 34 .

Parker , S.C. ( 2013 ), “ Do serial entrepreneurs run successively better-performing businesses? ”, Journal of Business Venturing , Vol.  28 No.  5 , pp.  652 - 666 .

Peneder , M. ( 2009 ), “ The meaning of entrepreneurship: a modular concept ”, Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade , Vol.  9 No.  2 , pp.  77 - 99 .

Peres , R. , Muller , E. and Mahajan , V. ( 2010 ), “ Innovation diffusion and new product growth models: a critical review and research directions ”, International Journal of Research in Marketing , Vol.  27 No.  2 , pp.  91 - 106 .

Phan , P.H. , Wright , M. , Ucbasaran , D. and Tan , W.L. ( 2009 ), “ Corporate entrepreneurship: current research and future directions ”, Journal of Business Venturing , Vol.  24 No.  3 , pp.  197 - 205 .

Pittaway , L. and Thorpe , R. ( 2012 ), “ A framework for entrepreneurial learning: a tribute to Jason Cope ”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development , Vol.  24 Nos 9-10 , pp.  837 - 859 .

Rae , D. ( 2005 ), “ Entrepreneurial learning: a narrative-based conceptual model ”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development , Vol.  12 No.  3 , pp.  323 - 335 .

Ramoglou , S. and Tsang , E.W. ( 2016 ), “ A realist perspective of entrepreneurship: opportunities as propensities ”, Academy of Management Review , Vol.  41 No.  3 , pp.  410 - 434 .

Ramoglou , S. and Zyglidopoulos , S.C. ( 2015 ), “ The constructivist view of entrepreneurial opportunities: a critical analysis ”, Small Business Economics , Vol.  44 No.  1 , pp.  71 - 78 .

Rogers , E.M. ( 1962 ), Diffusion of Innovations , Free Press of Glencoe , New York, NY .

Rogers , E.M. ( 1976 ), “ New product adoption and diffusion ”, Journal of Consumer Research , Vol.  2 No.  4 , pp.  290 - 301 .

Ronstadt , R. ( 1988 ), “ The corridor principle ”, Journal of Business Venturing , Vol.  3 No.  1 , pp.  31 - 40 .

Saaksjarvi , M. ( 2003 ), “ Consumer adoption of technological innovations ”, European Journal of Innovation Management , Vol.  6 No.  2 , pp.  90 - 100 .

Sarasvathy , S.D. ( 2001 ), “ Causation and effectuation: toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency ”, Academy of Management Review , Vol. 26 No. 2 , pp. 243 - 263 .

Sarasvathy , S.D. and Venkataraman , S. ( 2011 ), “ Entrepreneurship as method: open questions for an entrepreneurial future ”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , Vol.  35 No.  1 , pp.  113 - 135 .

Sarasvathy , D.K. , Simon , H.A. and Lave , L. ( 1998 ), “ Perceiving and managing business risks: differences between entrepreneurs and bankers ”, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization , Vol.  33 No.  2 , pp.  207 - 225 .

Schneider , A. ( 2017 ), “ Social entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship, collectivism, and everything in between: prototypes and continuous dimensions ”, Public Administration Review , Vol.  77 No.  3 , pp.  421 - 431 .

Schumpeter , J.A. ( 1934 ), The Theory of Economic Development , Harvard University Press , Cambridge, MA .

Shane , S. and Venkataraman , S. ( 2000 ), “ The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research ”, Academy of Management Review , Vol.  25 No.  1 , pp.  217 - 226 .

Shane , S. and Venkataraman , S. ( 2003 ), “ Guest editors' introduction to the special issue on technology entrepreneurship ”, Research Policy , Vol.  32 No.  2 , pp.  181 - 184 .

Shane , S. ( 2000 ), “ Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities ”, Organization Science , Vol.  11 No.  4 , pp.  448 - 469 .

Shane , S. ( 2003 ), A General Theory of Entrepreneurship: the Individual-Opportunity Nexus , Edward Elgar Publishing , Cheltenham .

Shane , S. ( 2009 ), “ Why encouraging more people to become entrepreneurs is bad public policy ”, Small Business Economics , Vol.  33 No.  2 , pp.  141 - 149 .

Shane , S. ( 2012 ), “ Reflections on the 2010 AMR decade award: delivering on the promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research ”, Academy of Management Review , Vol.  37 No.  1 , pp.  10 - 20 .

Sharma , P. and Chrisman , J.J. ( 1999 ), “ Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the field of corporate entrepreneurship ”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , Vol.  23 No.  3 , pp.  11 - 27 .

Shepherd , D.A. ( 2011 ), “ Multilevel entrepreneurship research: opportunities for studying entrepreneurial decision making ”, Journal of Management , Vol.  37 No.  2 , pp.  412 - 420 .

Shepherd , D. ( 2015 ), “ Party On! A call for entrepreneurship research that is more interactive, activity based, cognitively hot, compassionate, and prosocial ”, Journal of Business Venturing , Vol.  30 No.  4 , pp.  489 - 507 .

Shirokova , G. , Vega , G. and Knatko , D. ( 2015 ), “ Crossing the threshold from founder management to professional management in Russian firms: an institutional perspective ”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research , Vol.  21 No.  1 , pp.  76 - 106 .

Siggelkow , N. ( 2002 ), “ Evolution toward fit ”, Administrative Science Quarterly , Vol.  47 No.  1 , pp.  125 - 159 .

Snyder , H. ( 2019 ), “ Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and guidelines ”, Journal of Business Research , Vol.  104 , pp.  333 - 339 .

Steffens , P. , Terjesen , S. and Davidsson , P. ( 2012 ), “ Birds of a feather get lost together: new venture team composition and performance ”, Small Business Economics , Vol.  39 No.  3 , pp.  727 - 743 .

Stevenson , H.H. and Jarillo , J.C. ( 1990 ), “ A paradigm of entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial management ”, Strategic Management Journal , Vol.  11 , pp.  17 - 27 .

Stewart , W.H. Jr and Roth , P.L. ( 2001 ), “ Risk propensity differences between entrepreneurs and managers: a meta-analytic review ”, Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol.  86 No.  1 , pp.  145 - 153 .

Sylvester , A. , Tate , M. and Johnstone , D. ( 2013 ), “ Beyond synthesis: Re-presenting heterogeneous research literature ”, Behaviour and Information Technology , Vol.  32 No.  12 , pp.  1199 - 1215 .

Ucbasaran , D. , Westhead , P. and Wright , M. ( 2001 ), “ The focus of entrepreneurial research: contextual and process issues ”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , Vol.  25 No.  4 , pp.  57 - 80 .

Van den Bulte , C. and Joshi , Y.V. ( 2007 ), “ New product diffusion with influentials and imitators ”, Marketing Science , Vol.  26 No.  3 , pp.  400 - 421 .

Venkatesh , V. , Morris , M.G. and Ackerman , P.L. ( 2000 ), “ A longitudinal field investigation of gender differences in individual technology adoption decision-making processes ”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , Vol.  83 No.  1 , pp.  33 - 60 .

Walker , R.H. , Craig-Lees , M. , Hecker , R. and Francis , H. ( 2002 ), “ Technology-enabled service delivery: an investigation of reasons affecting customer adoption and rejection ”, International Journal of Service Industry Management , Vol.  13 No.  1 , pp.  91 - 106 .

Wang , C.L. and Chugh , H. ( 2014 ), “ Entrepreneurial learning: past research and future challenges ”, International Journal of Management Reviews , Vol.  16 No.  1 , pp.  24 - 61 .

Welter , F. , Baker , T. , Audretsch , D.B. and Gartner , W.B. ( 2017 ), “ Everyday entrepreneurship—a call for entrepreneurship research to embrace entrepreneurial diversity ”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , Vol.  41 No.  3 , pp.  311 - 321 .

Acknowledgements

The author wish to thank the two anonymous reviewers of this article whose insightful critiques pushed to us to develop our ideas and ultimately resulted in a much improved contribution.

Corresponding author

Related articles, all feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Entrepreneurship

• Business and society
• Business management
• Finance and investing
• Health and behavioral science

Constraints Don't Have to Be Constraining

• Laura Huang
• January 28, 2020

How to Compete for Talent like a Private Equity Firm

• Orit Gadiesh & Hugh MacArthur
• March 31, 2008

Managing the Trickiest Parts of a Family Business

• Sonny Iqbal
• Jennifer Pendergast
• German Herrera
• January 23, 2020

If You Were a Stock, Would You Bet On Yourself?

• Jodi Glickman
• April 04, 2013

Peanut- Finance: Swaps as Strategy

• Rosabeth Moss Kanter
• December 20, 2010

Debunking Three Entrepreneurship Myths

• Daniel Isenberg
• July 09, 2013

Losing the Top Job-and Winning It Back

• Alison Beard
• From the October 2010 Issue

It’s a Free Agent Nation, Except in Washington

• March 18, 2011

Making the Gradual Retirement of a Co-Founder Work

• Karen Firestone
• March 20, 2014

The Startups Most Likely to Succeed Have Technical Founders Who Quickly Hire Businesspeople

• Martin Murmann
• November 06, 2017

Entrepreneurs Get Better with Age

• Whitney Johnson
• June 27, 2013

How Private Equity Firms Infuse a Positive Attitude

• April 10, 2008

An Angel Investor with an Agenda (HBR Case Study)

• Regina E. Herzlinger
• Beatriz Munoz-Seca
• March 01, 2011

Turkey Badly Needs a Long-Term Plan for Syrian Refugees

• Gunes A. Asik
• April 13, 2017

One Way to Finance Tech Startups Outside of Superstar Cities

• Edward Jung
• January 24, 2019

Corporate Venturing

• Josh Lerner
• From the October 2013 Issue

Ask an Expert: What Skills Do I Need to Run a Startup?

• Yariv Ganor
• January 14, 2022

Advice on Launching a Tech Startup When You’re Not a White Man

• Cheryl Contee
• October 08, 2019

How the VC Pitch Process Is Failing Female Entrepreneurs

• Kamal Hassan
• Monisha Varadan
• Claudia Zeisberger
• January 13, 2020

How Small Businesses Can Increase Their Digital Capabilities

• John Beatty
• July 25, 2017

SC Johnson and the Greenlist Backlash

• Andrew Hoffman
• February 05, 2013

Technical Data Corp.: Business Plan

• William A. Sahlman
• May 04, 1983

Veridicom (B): What Happened?

• Naeem Zafar
• June 17, 2011
• Joseph B. Lassiter
• Evan Richardson
• September 28, 2011
• William R. Kerr
• February 03, 2016

Vespucci Partners: The New World of Venture Capital in Hungary

• Paul A. Gompers
• Tonia Labruyere
• Emilie Billaud
• February 28, 2024

Pete & Gerry's

• Jose B. Alvarez
• Natalie Kindred
• November 30, 2016

The Ice King

• Tom Nicholas
• November 15, 2007

The Innovator's Dilemma, with a New Foreword: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail

• Clayton M. Christensen
• April 09, 2024

General Electric: Strategic Position--1981

• Francis J. Aguilar
• Richard G. Hamermesh
• April 01, 1981

Danica Purg: Entrepreneurial Leadership In Shaping Leadership Development (D)

• Derek Abell
• June 02, 2014

Imprimis (A)

• Ramon Casadesus-Masanell
• Karen Elterman
• April 03, 2017

Beetle Beats: Finding a SOUND Market for ADT

• Kathryn S Savage
• Chris Scherpereel
• Mason Gerety
• Richard Hofstetter
• June 01, 2018

Aadhaar: From Voluntary to Mandatory

• Tarun Khanna
• Anjali Raina
• Rachna Chawla
• May 12, 2017

Rose Hanna (A)

• Garth Saloner
• December 10, 2008

Universal Outreach Foundation and Rocky Mountain Soap Co: Developing Sustainable CSR

• Philip Davidson
• Akari Maeda
• December 03, 2023

Niantic Labs and the Professional Entrepreneur in the Silicon Valley: Google, Pokémon Go, and Beyond (C)

• Jerome S. Engel
• November 01, 2019

Jan Van Hasenbroek (B): Going Back to School

• Susan Goldsworthy
• Kamran Kashani
• February 25, 2020

Roblox: Virtual Commerce in the Metaverse

• Ayelet Israeli
• Nicole Tempest Keller
• February 15, 2023

Newlab: Scaling an Innovation Engine

• George Gonzalez
• August 16, 2022

Popular Topics

Partner center.

Contribution of Artificial Intelligence in Entrepreneurship: A Systematic Literature Review

• Conference paper
• First Online: 29 August 2024
• Cite this conference paper

• Fatima Ezzahra Mnajli 11 &
• Razane Chroqui 12  

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems ((LNNS,volume 1100))

Included in the following conference series:

• International Conference on Digital Technologies and Applications

Increasing digitization and advances in artificial intelligence (AI) are bringing new jobs or business models. There is a gap in current research on the impact of digitalization on performance. This systematic literature review (SLR) seeks to enhance our understanding of this field and provides a logical evaluation of existing contributions. It aims to review research on the way artificial intelligence impacts performance. The findings show that artificial intelligence has a significant impact on business, especially a positive impact on entrepreneurs. The present study provides policy signal makers and entrepreneurs with a comprehensive view of key concepts, enabling them to understand the current state of artificial intelligence in the industry.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Muhuri, P.K., Shukla, A.K., Abraham, A.: Industry 4.0: a bibliometric analysis and detailed overview. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 78 , 218–235 (2019)

Google Scholar  

Schlick, J.: Industry 4.0 in der praktischen Anwendung. In: Bauernhansl, T., ten Hompel, M., Vogel-Heuser, B. (eds.) Industry 4. 0 in Produktion, Automatisierung und Logistik. Anwendung, Technologien und Migration. Springer Vieweg, Wiesbaden (2014)

Manesh, M.F., Pellegrini, M.M., Marzi, G., Dabic, M.: Knowledge management in the fourth industrial revolution: mapping the literature and scoping future avenues. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage 68 (1), 289–300 (2021)

Daugherty, P., Wilson, J.: Human þ Machine: Reimagining Work in the Age of AI. Harvard Business Review Press, Boston (2018)

Makridakis, S.: The forthcoming Artificial Intelligence (AI) revolution: its impact on society and firms. Futures 90 , 46–60 (2017)

Article   Google Scholar  

Levesque, M., Obschonka, M., Nambisan, S.: Pursuing impactful entrepreneurship research using AI. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (2020)

Amankwah-Amoah, J., Khan, Z., Wood, G.R., Knight, G.A.: COVID-19 and digitalization: the great acceleration. J. Bus. Res. 136 , 602–611 (2021)

Crescenzi, R., Giua, M., Sonzogno, G.V.: Mind the Covid-19 crisis: an evidence-based implementation of next generation EU. J. Policy Model. 43 (2), 278–297 (2021)

Dubey, R., et al.: Big data analytics and artificial intelligence pathway to operational performance under the effects of entrepreneurial orientation and environmental dynamism: a study of manufacturing organizations. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 226 , 107599 (2020)

Davidsson, P., Recker, J.C., von Briel, F.: External enablement of new venture creation: a framework. Acad. Manage. Perspect. 34 , 311–332 (2018). Advance Online Publication

Soltanifar, M., Hughes, M., Göcke, L.: Digital Entrepreneurship: Impact on Business and Society. Springer, Cham (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53914-6

Li, P., Li, T., Wang, X., Zhang, S., Jiang, Y., Tang, Y.: Scholar recommendation based on high-order propagation of knowledge graphs. Int. J. Semant. Web Inf. Syst. 18 (1), 1–19 (2022)

Obschonka, M., Audretsch, D.: B: Artificial intelligence and big data in entrepreneurship: A new era has begun. Small Bus. Econ. 55 (3), 529–539 (2020)

Guo, H., Guo, A., Ma, H.: Inside the black box: how business model innovation contributes to digital start-up performance. J. Innov. Knowl. 7 (2), 100188 (2022)

Caputo, A., Pizzi, S., Pellegrini, M.M., Dabić, M.: Digitalization and business models: where are we going? A science map of the field. J. Bus. Res. 123 , 489–501 (2021)

Darwish, S., Darwish, A., Bunagan, V.: New aspects on using artificial intelligence to shape the future of entrepreneurs. Inf. Sci. Lett. 9 (1), 6 (2020)

Khalid, N.: Artificial intelligence learning and entrepreneurial performance among university students: evidence from Malaysian higher educational institutions. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 39 (4), 5417–5435 (2020)

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Upadhyay, N., Upadhyay, S., Dwivedi, Y. K.: Theorizing artificial intelligence acceptance and digital entrepreneurship model. Int. J. Entrepreneurial Behav. Res. 28 , 1138–1166 (2021)

Ratten, V.: Coronavirus (covid-19) and entrepreneurship: changing life and work landscape. J. Small Bus. Entrep. 32 (5), 503–516 (2020)

Davidsson, P.: Researching Entrepreneurship: Conceptualization and Design, 2nd edn. Springer, Cham (2016)

George, G., Haas, M.R., Pentland, A.: Big data and management. Acad. Manag. J. 57 , 321–332 (2014)

Von Briel, F., Davidsson, P., Recker, J.: Digital technologies as external enablers of new venture creation in the IT hardware sector. Entrepreneurship Theory Pract. 42 (1), 47–69 (2018)

Shoufu, Y., Dan, M., Zuiyi, S., Lin, W., Li, D.: The impact of artificial intelligence industry agglomeration on economic complexity. Econ. Res. Ekonomska Istraživanja 36 , 1–29 (2022)

Pfau, W., Rimpp, P.: AI-enhanced business models for digital entrepreneurship. In: Soltanifar, M., Hughes, M., Göcke, L. (eds.) Digital entrepreneurship. FBF, pp. 121–140. Springer, Cham (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53914-6_7

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Gupta, B.M., Dhawan, S.M.: Artificial intelligence research in India: a scientometric assessment of publications output during 2007-16. DESIDOC J. Libr. Inf. Technol. 38 (6), 416 (2018)

Nambisan, S.: Digital entrepreneurship: toward a digital technology perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrep. Theory Pract. 41 (6), 1029–1055 (2017)

Gupta, B.B., Gaurav, A., Panigrahi, P.K., Arya, V.: Analysis of artificial intelligence-based technologies and approaches on sustainable entrepreneurship. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 186 , 122152 (2023)

Lv, Z., Wang, N., Ma, X., Sun, Y., Meng, Y., Tian, Y.: Evaluation standards of intelligent technology based on financial alternative data. J. Innov. Knowl. 7 (4), 100229 (2022)

Khanam, S., Tanweer, S., Khalid, S.S.: Future of internet of things: enhancing cloud-based IoT using artificial intelligence. Int. J. Cloud Appl. Comput. 12 (1), 1–23 (2022)

Lu, Y.: Artificial intelligence: a survey on evolution, models, applications and future trends. J. Manage. Analytics 6 (1), 1–29 (2019)

Duan, L., Xu, L., Liu, Y., Lee, J.: Cluster-based outlier detection. Ann. Oper. Res. 168 (1), 151–168 (2009)

Saura, J.R., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., Palacios-Marqués, D.: Setting B2B digital marketing in artificial intelligence-based CRMs: a review and directions for future research. Ind. Mark. Manage. 98 , 161–178 (2021)

Wirtz, J.: Organizational ambidexterity: cost-effective service excellence, service robots, and artificial intelligence. Organ. Dyn. 49 (3), 1–9 (2020)

Kaplan, A., Haenlein, M.: Rulers of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of artificial intelligence. Bus. Horiz. 63 (1), 37–50 (2020)

Zoukal, S., Bakana, G.T., Nani, S., Hassoune, S.: Démarche d’élaboration d’une revue systématique. Revue Marocaine de Santé Publique 6 (9) (2019)

Popkova, E.G., Sergi, B.S.: Human capital and AI in industry 4.0. Convergence and divergence in social entrepreneurship in Russia. J. Intellect. Capital 21 (4), 565–581 (2020)

Sarasvathy, S.D., Dew, N., Velamuri, S.R., Venkataraman, S.: Three views of entrepreneurial opportunity. In: Acs, Z.J., Audretsch, D.B. (eds.) Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research. International Handbook Series on Entrepreneurship, vol. 1, pp. 141–160. Springer, Boston. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-24519-7_7

Paranyushkin, D.: InfraNodus: Generating insight using text network analysis. In: The World Wide Web Conference, pp. 3584–3589. Academic Press, May 2019

Reim, W., Åström, J., Eriksson, O.: Implementation of artificial intelligence (AI): a roadmap for business model innovation. AI 1 (2), 11 (2020)

Burström, T., Parida, V., Lahti, T., Wincent, J.: AI-enabled business-model innovation and transformation in industrial ecosystems: a framework, model and outline for further research. J. Bus. Res. 127 , 85–95 (2021)

Shepherd, D.A., Majchrzak, A.: Machines augmenting entrepreneurs: opportunities (and threats) at the Nexus of artificial intelligence and entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Ventur. 37 (4), 106227 (2022)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Laboratory of Management, Marketing and Communication, Hassan First University of Settat, ENCG, Settat, Morocco

Fatima Ezzahra Mnajli

Hassan First University of Settat, National School of Applied Sciences of Berrechid, LISA, Settat, Morocco

Razane Chroqui

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fatima Ezzahra Mnajli .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah University, Fes, Morocco

Saad Motahhir

Badre Bossoufi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Cite this paper.

Mnajli, F.E., Chroqui, R. (2024). Contribution of Artificial Intelligence in Entrepreneurship: A Systematic Literature Review. In: Motahhir, S., Bossoufi, B. (eds) Digital Technologies and Applications. ICDTA 2024. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 1100. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-68660-3_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-68660-3_2

Published : 29 August 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-68659-7

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-68660-3

eBook Packages : Intelligent Technologies and Robotics Intelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)

Share this paper

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Business Essentials
• Leadership & Management
• Credential of Leadership, Impact, and Management in Business (CLIMB)
• Entrepreneurship & Innovation
• Digital Transformation
• Finance & Accounting
• Business in Society
• For Organizations
• Support Portal
• Media Coverage
• Founding Donors
• Leadership Team

• Harvard Business School →
• HBS Online →
• Business Insights →

Business Insights

Harvard Business School Online's Business Insights Blog provides the career insights you need to achieve your goals and gain confidence in your business skills.

• Career Development
• Communication
• Decision-Making
• Earning Your MBA
• Negotiation
• News & Events
• Productivity
• Staff Spotlight
• Student Profiles
• Work-Life Balance
• AI Essentials for Business
• Alternative Investments
• Business Analytics
• Business Strategy
• Business and Climate Change
• Creating Brand Value
• Design Thinking and Innovation
• Digital Marketing Strategy
• Disruptive Strategy
• Economics for Managers
• Entrepreneurship Essentials
• Financial Accounting
• Global Business
• Launching Tech Ventures
• Leadership Principles
• Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability
• Leading Change and Organizational Renewal
• Leading with Finance
• Management Essentials
• Negotiation Mastery
• Organizational Leadership
• Power and Influence for Positive Impact
• Strategy Execution
• Sustainable Business Strategy
• Sustainable Investing
• Winning with Digital Platforms

Why Should I Study Entrepreneurship & Innovation?

• 29 Sep 2020

Entrepreneurship and innovation are increasingly popular fields in today’s evolving business scene. According to the most recent Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Report from Babson College, entrepreneurial activity in the US rose to over 17 percent in 2019—a 10 percent increase from 2018 and the highest level recorded in 21 years.

The same report states that, while 71 percent of Americans believe it’s easy to start a business, 35 percent wouldn’t for fear of failure. Similarly, 70 percent perceive themselves as innovative, but only 46 percent say they act on opportunities.

When reading the success stories of scrappy startups that have made it big, it can be easy to assume becoming an entrepreneur isn’t particularly challenging. Yet, in reality, entrepreneurship and innovation require education and effort to master. It’s knowledge of the theories and concepts behind entrepreneurship and innovation that gives many business owners the confidence to launch a venture despite the risk of failure.

In addition to entrepreneurs, corporate employees can realize the value of innovation and an entrepreneurial mindset in the workplace. According to data from Microsoft and McKinsey , innovative organizations are more likely to retain employees and experience larger financial gains than their non-innovative counterparts.

Whether you’re an aspiring entrepreneur or a professional in a corporate setting, understanding the basics of entrepreneurship and innovation can position you to succeed in today’s dynamic market. Here are six reasons you should study entrepreneurship and innovation.

Access your free e-book today.

Reasons to Study Entrepreneurship and Innovation

1. start your business on the right foot.

It’s no secret: Entrepreneurship involves inherent risk. Harvard Business School Professor William Sahlman explains this in the online course Entrepreneurship Essentials.

“Though every entrepreneur imagines success, they must act with the full knowledge that the odds are against them,” he says.

Sahlman is referring to the fact that 20 percent of businesses fail within their first year, and 50 percent don’t survive past five years.

With odds like that, beginning your entrepreneurial journey with as much knowledge as possible is imperative. By studying entrepreneurship and innovation, you can learn the underlying principles of starting a business, avoid common pitfalls, pitch ideas more effectively , validate your product, develop a solid business model, and set yourself up for success in a field where failure is common.

2. Hone Your Skills

Although stereotypes of entrepreneurs exist, there’s no specific demographic profile required to launch a successful venture. Regardless of your race, gender, age, socioeconomic status, or other identifiers, you can succeed as an entrepreneur if you possess certain business skills and traits, including:

• Financial literacy
• Knowledge of how to accept and act on feedback
• Strategic thinking skills
• A growth mindset

Luckily, these competencies can be learned and honed. Taking a course in entrepreneurship or innovation can help you identify gaps in your knowledge and develop the skills needed to fill them.

Related: How to Find the Right Entrepreneurship Course for You

3. Validate Your Business Idea

When launching a venture, validating your business idea is a vital early step. Taking an entrepreneurship or innovation course can help you learn useful frameworks through which to view your product and identify ways to prove its value to customers.

For instance, in the online course Disruptive Strategy , HBS Professor Clayton Christensen explains his jobs to be done (JTBD) theory , which posits that rather than just purchasing products, people “hire” them to do “jobs.” The job to be done is the customer’s goal, and assessing your product using the framework can illuminate their motivations, needs, and desires.

Leveraging this theory and other innovation concepts to validate your business idea early in your entrepreneurial career can have far-reaching payoff as your business grows.

4. Learn From the Experiences of Others

Studying entrepreneurship and innovation isn’t just about sharpening your skills—it’s also about building your network and support system.

Taking a course enables you to meet like-minded professionals you can rely on for advice and guidance as launch your venture.

Outside your coursework, read about and talk to entrepreneurs with more experience than you. They can share their mistakes, things they wish they’d known when they first started their businesses, and insider best practices you may not be able to glean from a textbook.

Related: How Leaders Develop and Use Their Network

5. Bring Innovative Ideas to Your Organization

At any organization, a conscious effort is required to fight off stagnation. As markets shift and customer needs change, having innovation training can help you keep your business agile.

Maintaining an entrepreneurial mindset can enable you to assess your customers’ jobs to be done and develop new ways to do them—either by creating new products or adapting your current offerings.

Beyond product-market fit, an innovative mindset can improve employee retention rates. Microsoft reports that 86 percent of people who work at innovative companies plan to stay at their current job, as opposed to just 57 percent of people who work at less innovative companies.

According to McKinsey , innovative organizations also experience greater financial returns than their less-innovative counterparts.

Innovation education touches multiple facets of an organization, and it can prove to be worth the investment.

Related: 23 Resources for Mobilizing Innovation in Your Organization

6. Create Disruption-Informed Strategies

Once you’ve studied various innovation theories, you can use them to craft informed strategies for your organization.

For instance, the theory of disruptive innovation , another concept coined by Christensen and discussed in Disruptive Strategy , is the process by which a smaller company—usually with fewer resources—moves upmarket and challenges larger, established businesses.

By studying innovation and mastering theories like this one, you can help your organization strategize to disrupt incumbent companies or prepare for any disruptive technology that could potentially drive it out of the market.

Set Yourself up for Success

Whether you’re about to launch a venture or want to make an impact at your organization, studying entrepreneurship and innovation can help you gain the skills, confidence, and competitive edge needed to succeed in an ever-changing business landscape.

If you’re interested in honing your entrepreneurial skills and innovation toolkit, explore our online entrepreneurship and innovation courses . Not sure which course is the right fit? Download our free course flowchart to determine which best aligns with your goals.

About the Author

9 Reasons Why You Should Study Entrepreneurship and Innovation

What is one benefit of studying entrepreneurship and innovation?

To help you determine if studying entrepreneurship and innovation is right for you, we asked Eller Alumni and experienced entrepreneurs this question for their best insights. From expanding your entrepreneurial toolbox to leveraging your creativity, there are several reasons why studying entrepreneurship and innovation can benefit your personal development and future careers.

Here are nine reasons you should study entrepreneurship and innovation:

Expand Your Entrepreneurial Toolbox

Live a life you will love, entrepreneurship forces you to continue learning, learn business skills for every aspect of your venture, apply your knowledge to various roles, become more business agile, ability to recognize opportunity , solve daily-life problems , leverage your creativity.

To me, the biggest benefit of studying entrepreneurship and innovation is the chance to expand and enhance what I call your "entrepreneurial toolbox." Being a successful entrepreneur requires a mix of knowledge, strategy, discipline, experience and other things that you aren't just born with. Studying entrepreneurship and ways to innovate can help you develop new ways to solve problems and gain insights on ways to navigate the path to success from ideation to market adoption.

Outside of on-the-job training, the best way to achieve your entrepreneurial aspirations is to learn from others who can impart the necessary knowledge and tools to help you become more well-rounded in whatever endeavor you decide to embark upon. Having a well-rounded toolset has made starting companies, navigating challenges and achieving success a lot easier throughout my career.

Josh Benveniste MBA and BA (Economics), Chief Marketing Officer of Paydala

My parents started their advertising agency in our garage when I was just six years old. Growing up around their business I always felt entrepreneurship was "in my blood."  I love running businesses, wearing many hats and building great teams! The right school will give you the breadth of knowledge needed to run a business, but it is passion and persistence that will make you succeed. This can't be learned in the classroom, rather it comes from being around like-minded, big-thinkers who feed your "energy". While the life of an entrepreneur can feel like a roller coaster, the energy you experience translates into living a life you will love!

Eric Lituchy ‘91 BSBA (Marketing), CEO of Hunter Digital

I spent over a decade at Merrill Lynch in a variety of roles, and I learnt more in my first year as an entrepreneur than my entire time at Merrill combined, and that’s not to say I didn’t learn a lot at Merrill! Entrepreneurship keeps you on your game. You are forced to continue learning and innovating ; by giving you ownership over every aspect of your company, it instills an incredible drive to learn. This continuous learning is not just within one specific area you focus on, but entrepreneurship allows you to learn about all the different divisions within your company and most importantly, learn about yourself—what drives you, what makes you happy! It’s an unbelievable benefit of being an entrepreneur that leads to incredible opportunities in life.

Rishi Ramchandani ‘07 BSBA (MIS/Operations Management), Founder of Cafe Cash Flow

No specific type of person is best suited to become an entrepreneur and launch a successful business venture. It takes determination, perseverance and tenacity. But it also requires that you understand your specific area of focus, such as your major in college, in addition to a wide variety of business skills that will all be leveraged every single day in your business. This includes financial literacy, marketing, leadership, product management, negotiation, strategic thinking, soft skills and so much more. Studying entrepreneurship and innovation gives you a well-rounded training that focuses on all of these areas, and more, to help you become well-versed in all of the areas that will impact your business venture.

Elyse Flynn Meyer ‘07 BSBA (Marketing/International Business), President and Founder of Prism Global Marketing Solutions

The job market is continuously changing, and companies of all sizes have to offer innovative solutions to stay competitive. That's why a professional who studied "entrepreneurship and innovation" will always be needed . A big plus of holding this degree is that you will be able to pursue a career in many different industries and fields, in big companies as well as startups. Or, if you are interested in starting your own business, you will have the right skills and knowledge to do so successfully.

Jessica Ulloa, MyPerfectResume

Develop your business leadership agility skills by studying entrepreneurship and innovation. Knowing the latest trends in entrepreneurial startups and innovations in business planning and implementation refutes ineffective people management and sales and marketing strategies. With a more agile and innovative entrepreneurial mindset, you can take your business to greater heights, thriving, adapting and outperforming others in the competition.

James Parsons, Content Powered

One major benefit of studying entrepreneurship and innovation is the gained ability to recognize opportunity. Entrepreneurial studies focus on the application of one’s knowledge and skills to commercial opportunities. Being able to determine a company’s worth through analysis of their strategies, practices, etc. can be critical for those who want to invest. Being able to describe one’s own vision thereafter becomes priceless when one is ready to leap into business ownership.

Phillip Akhzar, Arka

Educating students about innovation and entrepreneurship can help them develop real-world skills to lead extraordinary lives in this time-paced and fast-changing world.  The future is uncertain, and everyone should be ready to face and conquer. Entrepreneurship and innovation help individuals become independent and channel their creativity into creating something of their own in this competitive world.  Studying entrepreneurship and innovation enhances one's analytical and logical skills that enable one to solve any problem.  Entrepreneurship mainly helps solve daily-life problems and eases pain points with the help of innovative products and services provided. Entrepreneurs secure their futures and secure the world's future by making it a better place with simple solutions to complex problems.

Madhurima Halder, Recruit CRM

Human beings are all born with creativity that can be used to solve many complex problems of life. But to be able to use it takes a certain level of skill. Learning entrepreneurship and innovation helps people learn a lot about using creativity to simplify things in daily life. In entrepreneurship, your creativity and out-of-the-box thinking are used as a necessity. They are seen as the means to function more efficiently. And what is true success if it isn't being able to implement in real life what you learn from the books?

Samantha Odo, Precondo

Expand both your entrepreneurial thinking and the skills to bring your best ideas to fruition. Whether your goal is to launch your own venture or apply your skills in a corporation, nonprofit or public organization, you’ll emerge ready to confidently lead and make a lasting impact.

Explore the program

Terkel creates community-driven content featuring expert insights. Sign up at terkel.io to answer questions and get published.

• Share on Twitter
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Facebook
• Share on Pinterest
• Share through Email

New Research Reveals The Most Entrepreneurial States in America

I’m Ben Aston, a digital project manager and founder of thedpm.com. I've been in the industry for more than 20 years working in the UK at London’s top digital agencies including Dare, Wunderman, Lowe and DDB. I’ve delivered everything from film to CMS', games to advertising and eCRM to eCommerce sites. I’ve been fortunate enough to work across a wide range of great clients; automotive brands including Land Rover, Volkswagen and Honda; Utility brands including BT, British Gas and Exxon, FMCG brands such as Unilever, and consumer electronics brands including Sony. I'm a Certified Scrum Master, PRINCE2 Practitioner and productivity nut!

Florida was found to be the most entrepreneurial state in the U.S., followed by Georgia and Michigan.

Whether you're contemplating a side hustle, bootstrapping the development of the next killer app, or already have a pocketful of funding to launch your dream business, your location matters.

Recent research by The Digital Project Manager analyzed eight indicators for how entrepreneurial a state is, including:

• Percentage of the population that starts a new business
• Percentage of start-ups still active after one year
• Number of small businesses per 100,000 people
• Growth rate of business applications

Here's what the data showed.

Entrepreneurial Index Score: 65.12 

Floridians clearly have an entrepreneurial mindset that not only benefits themselves, but also their communities through the jobs that they create.   Florida has the highest percentage of the population that has started a business (0.61%). Of those, 86% started their venture out of choice rather than necessity, i.e., because they were unemployed or required another stream of income.

These start-ups have the highest number of jobs created in the first year with 6.53 new jobs per 1,000 people. With 13,238 small businesses per 100,000 people, this is the most in any state.

Entrepreneurial Index Score: 59.31 

Georgia is in second place, with 10,871 small businesses per 100,000 people, demonstrating a clear entrepreneurial drive.

This is supported by the second-highest percentage of the population that has started a new business (0.47%). Georgians also have a high search interest on Google for "how to start a business." 

Sign up to get weekly insights, tips, and other helpful content from digital project management experts.

• Your email *
• Yes, I want to sign up to receive regular emails filled with tips, expert insights, and more to build my PM practice.
• By submitting you agree to receive occasional emails and acknowledge our Privacy Policy . You can unsubscribe at any time. Protected by reCAPTCHA; Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
• Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

3. Michigan

Entrepreneurial index score: 58.39 .

Michigan is the third most entrepreneurial state. In 2022, there was 1772% growth in business applications compared to 2019. 78% of start-ups are still active after one year and there are 9,091 small businesses per 100,000 people.

The national average for business failure after five years is 49%, but Michigan is slightly below that at 47%.

4. Oklahoma

Entrepreneurial index score: 57.58 .

In Oklahoma, 0.44% of the population has started a new business. Of those, 82% are still active after one year, with 9,075 small businesses per 100,000 people.

84% of those in Oklahoma who start businesses do so by choice rather than a need to.  

Entrepreneurial Index Score: 57.36 

In Montana there are 11,336 small businesses per 100,000 people. Within the first year, start-ups will create 6.14 new jobs per 1,000 people, and 81% of those start-ups will still be active after the year mark. After five years, only 45% of businesses will fail, which is one of the lowest failure rates across the US. 

Entrepreneurial Index Score: 57.31 

Wyoming has 12,357 small businesses per 100,000 people. From 2019 to 2022 there was a 120% increase in applications for businesses.

This is also reflected in the Google searches in the state. "How to start a business" has one of the highest levels of search interest in Wyoming compared to the rest of America.  

7. Colorado

Entrepreneurial index score: 57.21 .

In Colorado 0.42% of the population have started up a new business. 81% of these start-up businesses are still active after one year, and within that year create 6.09 new jobs per 1,000 people..  

8. California

Entrepreneurial index score: 57.04 .

California is the most populous state in the U.S., which provides many opportunities for people to start businesses. There are 10,792 small businesses per 100,000 people in California.

82% of start-ups will still be active after one year, creating 5.7 new jobs per 1,000 people. 0.43% of Californians have started businesses and only 44% will fail after five years, which is one of the lowest failure rates. 

Entrepreneurial Index Score: 56.63 

In Idaho, start-ups will create 6.11 new jobs per 1,000 people in their first year. 89% of these start-ups are created by choice and not a necessity.

Although there was a much lower business application growth rate of only 0.20% from 2019-2022, there are still 9,320 small businesses per 100,000 people.  

Entrepreneurial Index Score: 56.38 

Texas has the second highest population, and per 100,000 people there are 10,163 small businesses. There was a growth rate of business applications between 2019 and 2022 of 52%.

81% of new businesses will still be active after a year and will create 5.18 new jobs per 1,000 people, opening op further opportunity for residents of the state.  

Nuala Turner, longtime editor of TheDigitalProjectManager.com, with deep experience covering business topics including project management software and project scheduling software , commented: “Entrepreneurship and new businesses are a driving force in economic growth and create opportunities for communities, allowing them and their people to thrive. Entrepreneurs should be encouraged to make the steps to start businesses, and this data shows the dedication and motivation that residents in the U.S. have to take the leap into being businesses owners.  

This research should serve as encouragement to the budding entrepreneurs of the states mentioned above: it's worth taking the leap to turn your passion into an income.” 

Method: Index created by ranking each factor out of 10 and adding the overall scores. The factors included were: 

• Percent of population that starts a new business
• Entrepreneurs who started a business by choice and not a necessity
• Number of jobs created by start-ups in their first year
• Percent of startups that are still active after one year
• Search interest on Google for "how to start a business" 
• Number of small businesses in each state
• Small businesses per 100,000 of the population
• Growth rate of business applications 2019-2022
• Business failure rates after five years

Full Index of every US State:

From Autonomy To Oversight: The Human Role In The Age Of AI

AI In Project Management: How Safe Is Your Job?

21 Project Management Statistics To Inform How You Work: 2024

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

• You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
• You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
• You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
• A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.