A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON ENTREPRENEURIAL OPPORTUNITY RECOGNITION AND THE ROLE OF EDUCATION AMONG FINNISH BUSINESS SCHOOL STUDENTS

Transcription

1 A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON ENTREPRENEURIAL OPPORTUNITY RECOGNITION AND THE ROLE OF EDUCATION AMONG FINNISH BUSINESS SCHOOL STUDENTS Malin Brännback, Åbo Akademi University, Finland*) Jarna Heinonen, Turku School of Economics and Business Administration, Finland Isa Hudd, Åbo Akademi University, Finland Kaisu Paasio, Turku School of Economics and Business Administration, Finland *), Åbo Akademi University, Henriksgatan 7, FIN Åbo, Finland, P: , F: , ABSTRACT Is entrepreneurship seen as a viable opportunity? To understand what makes people recognize entrepreneurship as an opportunity is important for educators as well as policymakers. Perceptions of entrepreneurship and the impact of education is studied by identifying what factors drive perceptions of entrepreneurial intentionality, perceived personal desirability, and perceived personal feasibility among a sample from two Finnish business schools. Additionally, the role of education on differences in perceptions is analyzed. Results show that there is a clear difference between how the two groups perceive entrepreneurship. In both groups the probability of starting a firm is low, i.e. entrepreneurship is not attractive. However, the groups who had participated in entrepreneurship education had a clear opportunistic view whereas the other saw entrepreneurship as a necessary last alternative. Entrepreneurial lifestyle seemed to excite respondents in both groups, but again the excitement was generated by quite different factors INTRODUCTION Finland has recently been rated the most competitive nation in the world. National investment in R&D in 2003 was 3.4% of GDP. Yet, entrepreneurial activity is low despite increasing efforts by policymakers to support and improve the situation for startup entrepreneurs. Based on the GEM data from 2003 the total entrepreneurial activity was 6.9%. Of these, 5.8% are opportunistic and only 0.6% necessity entrepreneurs. Previous studies have also shown a low (10%) entrepreneurial activity among Finnish engineering students. The measures taken by policymakers have mostly focused on helping entrepreneurs getting started, ranging from serious and quite extensive measures by the National Technology Agency (TEKES), the foundation of regional development centers for

2 supporting regional development through support for starting firms to increasing public endorsement by policymakers that entrepreneurship is good for the economy and something which is highly welcomed by society. Most of the measures have meant developing financial instruments, i.e. financial support, or the lack of financial support has been identified as the fundamental reason for low entrepreneurial activity. It is true, that starting a firm requires money. But, whether it requires some, more or a lot of it depends on the opportunity the entrepreneur decides to pursue. Moreover, actions have been taken to increase the entrepreneurial skills among start-up entrepreneurs taking the form of business plan writing courses, education on how to manage intellectual property, etc. However, there is one step prior to stretching out the hand and ask for funding. That is when the would-be entrepreneur recognizes an opportunity and/or decides to become an entrepreneur. Very little has been done to improve opportunity recognition or to generate the spark that ignites entrepreneurial activity. This is odd, to say the least, as opportunity recognition is the most distinctive and fundamental entrepreneurial behavior (Bird, 1988, Katz and Gartner, 1988, Gaglio and Katz, 2001). The literature on opportunity recognition is extensive (Kirzner, 1997, Venkataraman, 1997, Krueger, 1998, Shane, 2000, 2003, Shane and Venkatarman, 2000, Gaglio and Katz, 2001, Eckhart and Shane, 2003). However, few studies have addressed the problem of seeing entrepreneurship as an opportunity in itself. Entrepreneurial intentionality studies (Bird, 1988, Carsrud et al, 1987, Krueger and Carsrud, 1993, Krueger et al, 2000) have analyzed a variety of factors impacting intentions, drawing on Ajzen (1987) and Shapero (1982) among others. Attitudes, traits, mentors and networks have proved to impact entrepreneurial behavior, i.e. social norm plays a key role. Krueger (1998) argues for the necessity for individuals to perceive a prospective new course of action as a credible opportunity, which requires the opportunity to not just be viable, but to be perceived as viable. We have conducted a study in two Finnish schools among under-graduate students. In A 237 questionnaires were distributed and 191 returned, i.e. 80.6% response rate. In B 74 questionnaires were distributed and 72 returned, i.e. 97% response rate. Based on the results we will argue that in addition to recognizing an opportunity it is important for the would-be entrepreneur to first and foremost perceive entrepreneurship as an opportunity in it self, i.e., as an alternative employment route that also can be understood as a lifestyle decision. We will argue that although society sees entrepreneurship as good both in the form of espoused values and supporting measures for starting entrepreneurs it is highly unlikely to lead to the actual increase of entrepreneurial activity if entrepreneurship is not seen as an opportunity or if, for example there is a social norm which encourages other type of behavior. Additionally, we will argue that the social norm may fertilize the development of a misperception of who would be most suitable as an entrepreneur, a mistaken role identity. Our study seeks to provide insights to the following research questions: To what degree is entrepreneurship seen as an opportunity? To what degree does education impact the

3 ability to regard entrepreneurship as an opportunity? Are there mental prototypes of what being an entrepreneur entails? Does a mental model impact the students ability to see entrepreneurship as an opportunity? OPPORTUNITY RECOGNITION AND ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENT - HYPOTHESES Opportunity recognition as an area within entrepreneurship research has recently attracted much attention in fact there are already a number of schools of thought (Shane, 2000). The Equilibrium School assumes that everyone can recognize all entrepreneurial opportunities and that whether this actually takes place is dependent on fundamental attributes of people. In other words, it is possible to identify individuals who want to become entrepreneurs and that these are less risk averse than those who choose to become employees. Hence we can formulate our first hypothesis: H1: It is possible to identify a mental prototype of who is more suitable to become an entrepreneur The Psychological School argues that fundamental attributes of people, rather than information about opportunities determine who becomes an entrepreneur and this again depends on a person s willingness and ability to take action (Krueger et al, 2001). Much attention within this school of thought has been given entrepreneurial intentionality studies and it has been argued and shown that attitude towards behavior, social norm, and perceived behavioral control influence a person s intentions to act, although social norm has also been shown not to have a significant impact (Ajzen, 1987, Krueger et al, 2001). Intentions reflect critical underlying attitudes and manifest themselves in three perception: (i) perceived personally desirable, (ii) perceived supported by social norm, and (iii) perceived as feasible. Expected values are a prerequisite for what is perceived as personally desirable, normative beliefs for social norm, and self-efficacy for perceived feasibility. H2: There is a significant relationship between perceived personal desirability and entrepreneurial intent H3: There is a significant relationship between perceived personal feasibility and entrepreneurial intent H4: Perceived supporting social norm will impact entrepreneurial intent Moreover, studies have shown that perceived role identity impact on attitudes and intentions towards entrepreneurship and that they can be changed significantly through education (Fiet, 2000a, 2000b, Klofsten, 2000, Gibb, 2002). Role identity is here understood to be influenced by the perception of the existence of a particular educational basis and level of education that would be more suitable for an entrepreneur. It reflects the perception who becomes an entrepreneur and who does not. Role identity also includes the existence of role models either within the family or close friend(s).

4 H5: Role models in within the family will impact entrepreneurial intent The Austrian School builds on the idea of information asymmetry as the driving force. People cannot recognize all entrepreneurial opportunities, and that information about opportunities will drive entrepreneurial opportunity recognition rather than a willingness to take action (Kirzner, 1997, Shane 2000). However, the Austrian school does not indicate what kind of information would generate a higher ability to opportunity recognition, but it does carry the notion of more information. Finally, this school of thought does not tie information asymmetry to success, i.e. if information is the trigger, will it result in more successful firms. The idea of information asymmetry as the driving force is tempting in particular with respect to high technology entrepreneurship as it implicitly indicates that higher educated persons would be more prone to recognize entrepreneurial opportunities. To elaborate on that notion would mean that a country with a high proportion of the adult population having a university degree should show a high rate of entrepreneurial activity. Thus, in Finland, where 38,5% of the adult population aged years having a university degree should show a high rate of entrepreneurial activity. The reality is quite the opposite with a total entrepreneurial activity of 6.9%, which gives a strong indication of that there are other factors than having knowledge and skills involved, e.g. willingness to act. H6: There is a relationship between knowledge and skills and entrepreneurial intent The sample THE STUDY The study was conducted in two Finnish business schools in the same city in the fall The questionnaire was constructed in accordance with previous studies (Krueger et al, 2001, Autio et al, 2001). What makes this study different from others is that we target business school students. The other interesting issue is that the two business school represent the two official languages in Finland; in A the teaching language is Finnish and the school recruits primarily from the Finnish speaking population; in B the teaching language is Swedish and recruits primarily its students from the country s 6% minority. Thus, the students have a different linguistic background, which also means that they have a different cultural background and they have different regional backgrounds. In this paper we have not analyzed further these issues, but let the two schools represent proxies for them. Initially 313 questionnaires were distributed, 237 in A and 74 in B, a total of 2263 were returned (total response rate 84%. Thus we had two groups: A: 191 respondents and a response rate of 80.6% B: 72 respondents and a response rate of 97%

5 Table 1: Gender distribution of the sample B-school Gender 1 female 2 male Total 1 A B Total The gender distribution for the total sample differs significantly (? 2 =3.510, p=.061) (Table 1). In Table 1 the number of respondents differ (n=183) from the real sample size as there were 8 persons who failed to indicate there gender. Data and Measures The dependent variables Entrepreneurial intent: How probable is it that you will start a firm within 5 years? (scale 0-100) Perceived personal desirability: How attractive would it be for you to start a firm? (scale 0-100) Perceived personal feasibility: How easy would it be for you to start a firm? (scale 0-100) The independent variables The respondents was then given a battery of 17 statements which they were to rank on a 5-point scale. 1. I would be more independent as an entrepreneur as an employee 2. I would be constantly overworked as an entrepreneur 3. I could reach my goal in life as an entrepreneur 4. I could earn more money as an entreprene ur than if an employee 5. It requires too much money to start a firm 6. I would be less appreciated as an entrepreneur 7. Only if I don t get a job will I become an entrepreneur 8. It would be the best way to benefit from my education 9. I m precisely the kind of person who would become an entrepreneur 10. The lifestyle of an entrepreneur excites me 11. I know of a good market opportunity 12. I have a good business idea 13. I have skills and knowledge to become an entrepreneur 14. The example of family and relatives encourages me 15. The example of friends encourages me 16. I d be interested to join with others as an owner/founder 17. Starting a firm is difficult for me The role of family (parents and grand-parents, sisters) and friends were also controlled for. Finally, the respondents were asked to indicate what educational basis and level of education would be most suitable for becoming an entrepreneur. The data was analyzed using step-wise regression analysis as well as the statistical significance of the strength of association through cross-tabulation was analyzed.

6 RESULTS Entrepreneurial Intent 13.5% of the total sample regards the probability to become an entrepreneur higher than 50%, but only 4.6% (18 persons) give it an 80% or higher probability. In A the corresponding frequencies are 14.4% and 4.8% and in B 11.1% and 4.2%. Our study confirms the results from previous studies and show that entrepreneurial intent (R 2 =.45) is significantly dependent on perceived personal desirability (ß=.50, p=.000) and perceived personal feasibility (ß=.26, p=.000). In a path analysis (R 2 =.52) results also show that there are two other factors directly linked to entrepreneurial intent, with the ß- value lower for desirability (ß=.27, p=.001) and feasibility (ß=.34, p=.000). These factors are the lifestyle of an entrepreneur excites me (ß=.22, p=.004) and only if I don t get a job ((ß=.13, p=.014). There is a significant difference in perceived personal desirability (t=.015) between A (n=191; mean 49.37) and B (n=72; mean 49.88) but not in perceived personal feasibility (t=.071) between A (n= 191; mean 55.03) and B (n=72; mean 49.29). There is a significant difference in perceived personal desirability (t=.006) between women (n=132; mean 47.12) and men (n=123; mean 64.97) and in perceived personal feasibility (t=.001) between women (n= 132; mean 48.79) and men (n=123; mean 58.04). When analyzing the groups separately we find that for A (R 2 =.50) entrepreneurial intent is dependent on perceived personal desirability (ß=.24, p=.016), perceived personal feasibility (ß=.26, p=.001), I know of a market opportunity (ß=.16, p=.04), and The lifestyle excites me (ß=.22, p=.03). For B (R 2 =.68) we find that entrepreneurial intent is dependent on perceived personal feasibility (ß=.45, p=.000) and Only if I don t get a job (ß=.42, p=.000). There is no significant link between perceived personal desirability and intent. Hence we find a mixed support for Hypothesis 2, i.e. despite overall support we find that this is true only for group A whereas there is no significant link between perceived personal desirability and entrepreneurial intent in group B. However, Hypothesis 3 is fully supported. However, as we found we when studying the relationship of the 17 statements to entrepreneurial intent (Table 2), perceived personal desirability (Table 3), and perceived personal feasibility (Table 4) using step-wise regression analysis for the groups together and separately, we found that the groups have quite different mental maps of entrepreneurial intent, desirability and feasibility.

7 Table 2. Factors with a significant link to entrepreneurial intent Total A B 1. Lifestyle of entrepreneur excites me (ß=.36, p=.00) 1. Lifestyle of entrepreneur excites me (ß=.40, p=.00) 1. Only if I don t get a job (ß=.51, p=.00) 2. Only if it s easy (ß=.19, p=.00) 2. I have a good business idea (ß=.21, p=.01) 2. Only if it s easy (ß=.41, p=.00) 3. I have the skills and knowledge (ß=.17, p=.01) 3. I have the skills and knowledge (ß=.18, p=.03) 4. I know a market opportunity (ß=.16, p=.01) 5. If it doesn t require too much money (ß=.12, p=.05) R 2 =.44 R 2 =.43 R 2 =.61 Table 3. Factors with a significant link to perceived personal desirability Total A B 1. Lifestyle of entrepreneur excites me (ß=.39, p=.00) 1. Lifestyle of entrepreneur excites me (ß=.40, p=.00) 1. Lifestyle of entrepreneur excites me (ß=.35, p=.00) 2. I m precisely the type to become an entrepreneur (ß=.19, p=.00) 2. I have the skills and knowledge (ß=.18, p=.03) 2. I m precisely the type to become an entrepreneur (ß=.35, p=.00) 3. I have the skills and knowledge (ß=.18, p=.00) 4. It s the best way to benefit from my education (ß=.14, p=.01) 3. I could earn more money as an entrepreneur (ß=.19, p=.00) 3. Only if I don t get a job (ß=.23, p=.03) 4. I could join with others as an owner (ß=.22, p=.03) 5. I could reach my goal in life (ß=.15, p=.01) R 2 =.61 R 2 =.60 R 2 =.64 Table 4. Factors with a significant link to perceived personal feasibility Total A B 1. I have the skills and knowledge (ß=.47, p=.00) 1. If it doesn t require too much money (ß=.30, p=.00) 1. I have the skills and knowledge (ß=.34, p=.00) 2. Only if it s easy (ß=.43, p=.00) 2. I have the skills and knowledge (ß=.26, p=.00) 2. If it doesn t require too much money (ß=.30, p=.00) 3. I would be more independent as an entrepreneur (ß=.20, p=.01) 3. Only if it s easy (ß=.18, p=.01) 4. Lifestyle of entrepreneur excites me (ß=.19, p=.03) 4. I would be more independent as an entrepreneur (ß=.15, p=.02) R 2 =.59 R 2 =.41 R 2 =.45

8 Entrepreneurial mental prototype Research has for a long time tried to draw a picture of the typical entrepreneur with very little luck. As already indicated above we see that the cognitive maps of the two groups as to what drives entrepreneurial intent, perceived desirability, and feasibility are quite different. A rough estimate would suggest that group A is far more opportunistic, whereas group B sees entrepreneurship in terms of necessity. Therefore, additional analysis was conducted by comparing the rating of the factors on a five-point scale of the 17 statements supplemented with questions concerning what kind of educational background and level of education would be suitable for entrepreneurs. Table 5. The factors rated with significant difference between group A and B Statement Measures 1. As an entrepreneur I would be more independent? 2 =30.37;p= As an entrepreneur I could reach my goals in life? 2 =13.34;p= As an entrepreneur I could earn more money? 2 =22.18;p= Starting a firm requires too much money? 2 =15.50;p= As an employee I would be more appreciated than as an? 2 =17.13;p=.00 entrepreneur 6. Only those who do not get a job become entrepreneurs? 2 =53.00;p= I have a good business idea? 2 =67.42;p= I know of a good market opportunity? 2 =61.35;p= I have the skill and knowledge? 2 =11.38;p= The example of family/relatives encourages me? 2 =19.37;p= The example of friends encourages me? 2 =19.64;p= Starting a firm is easy to me? 2 =16.52;p=.00 Out of 17 statements 12 showed a significant (p<.05) difference between A and B (Table 5). As the respondents fro both groups found the entrepreneurial lifestyle exciting it is possible to assume that some kind of mental prototype must exist despite the differences shown in Table 5. Thus, with lifestyle as dependent variable we ran a step-wise regression analysis through the statements and are able to draw the following picture (Table 6). Finally, the respondents were asked what type of educational background and what level of education is most suitable for an entrepreneur. Both groups completely agreed that a business education on the college or polytechnic level is by far the best combination. Interestingly medical education, or law and technology were not perceived suitable. Not surprisingly arts, fine arts or crafts were considered very unsuitable, although reality is quite the opposite. In conclusion, we argue that it is not possible to identify a mental prototype of an entrepreneur, i.e. we do not find support for Hypothesis 1.

9 Table 6. Factors with a significant link to entrepreneurial lifestyle Total A B 1. I m precisely the type to become an entrepreneur (ß=.29, p=.00) 1. I m precisely the type to become an entrepreneur (ß=.40, p=.00) (ß=.46, p=.00) 2. The example of family/relatives encourage me (ß=.26, p=.00) 3. Starting a firm is the best way to benefit from my education (ß=.19, p=.01) 4. I could earn more money as an entrepreneur than as an employee (ß=.15, p=.02) 2. The example of friends encourages me (ß=.30, p=.00) 3. As an entrepreneur I could reach my goals in life (ß=.16, p=.01) 4. As an employee I would be less appreciated than as an entrepreneur (ß=.15, p=.02) 1. As an entrepreneur I would be more independent 2. As an entrepreneur I could earn more money (ß=.40, p=.00) 5. I know of a good market opportunity (ß=.12, p=.05) 5. I could join with others as an owner (ß=.14, p=.02) 6. As an entrepreneur I would be more independent (ß=.12, p=.05) R 2 =.50 R 2 =.63 R 2 =.45 Role of family and friends and social norm Evidence from the impact of social norms on entrepreneurial intent is mixed. Krueger et al (2001) conducted a study in the US and found no significant link between social norm and entrepreneurial link whereas Grunsten (2004) conducted a study among Finnish technology entrepreneurs and found a weak but significant link between social norm and entrepreneurial intent and a somewhat stronger link to perceived personal desirability. Our study does not provide a significant direct link between social norms and entrepreneurial intent. However, as we have seen in the previous sections the role of family, relatives and friends appear to be linked to the perception of entrepreneurial lifestyle. Moreover, there seems to be in group A the understanding that one is less appreciated as an employee and this is why the entrepreneurial lifestyle seems exciting. However, we cannot claim that our results provide any support for Hypothesis 4 and 5. The issue of information asymmetry The Austrian School assumes that opportunity recognition is tied to the fact that the potential entrepreneur has information, knowledge or skills that enables the person to recognize opportunities better than those who do not. We find that I have skills and knowledge is a significant factor in entrepreneurial intent and perceived personal desirability for the total sample and for group A in particular. The strongest link we find with respect to perceived personal feasibility for both groups. This would indicate that perception of possessing skills and knowledge is important but at the same time we find

10 that there are many other factors that play a significant role as well. Hence our results provide support for Hypothesis 6. DISCUSSION We will discuss the results in terms of the research questions of this paper. Entrepreneurship as an opportunity In the introduction we raised the concern that entrepreneurship is not seen as a viable opportunity in itself and that this may be a primary reason for the low entrepreneurial activity in Finland. Hence our first research question was to analyze to what degree entrepreneurship is seen as an opportunity. Drawing on the extant research body of entrepreneurial intentionality studies the research question was operationalized with three questions: (i) what is the probability that you will start a firm in five years, (ii) how desirable would it be for you to start a firm, and (iii) how feasible would it be for you to start a firm? Furthermore two hypotheses were formulated (Hypothesis 2 and 3). We find that there is a very small number of the respondents who rate the probability to become an entrepreneur greater than 50% and an even smaller number who indicate a high probability (<80%); 4.8% for A and 4.2% for B. Thus, entrepreneurship is not seen as an attractive opportunity. Based on our survey we found for the total sample a direct link between entrepreneurial intent and perceived personal desirability and perceived personal feasibility. However, when analysing the two groups separately we found fundamental differences in perceptions of what factors contribute to entrepreneurial intent, perceived personal desirability and perceived personal feasibility, but also that there were other factors with direct links to entrepreneurial intentionality and that again these differed between the groups. Hypothesis 3 was fully supported, but the support for Hypothesis 2 was mixed. Thus, when we look at the factors which showed a significant link to the perceptions we see that the cognitive maps are very different for the two groups. Group A appears to have an opportunistic view, whereas B is very much tuned towards a necessity-based view. In fact, B seemed to have the impression that entrepreneurship is something one does when there is nothing better around and only if it does not require too much effort. There is at least one thing that the body of literature on entrepreneurship, whether academic studies or biographies, seem to fully agree upon, and that is that starting a firm, rarely if ever is perceived as easy by the entrepreneur. The role of education The two groups have different background factors, which may partially explain the different cognitive maps. First, they represent two groups with a different linguistic and cultural background. This may be a partial explanation, but in this paper we did not delve into this issue further since we think that the difference really is rooted in educational

11 differences. Despite the fact that both groups are formed by business school students who also happen to be in the same city in fact roughly 500 yards apart there are differences. School A has had compulsory courses in entrepreneurship since 1999, i.e. every student has to take two courses in entrepreneurship. In 2004 entrepreneurship became a major subject and furthermore, a Small Business Research and Development Center has existed within the school for over 10 years. In school B there has been one optional course given in the fall 2003 and 2004, with a total of 30 participants. Hence in A entrepreneurship is present and real, whereas in B it is to many non-existent or at least highly distant. The data from group A was conducted during the exam from an entrepreneurship course whereas B filled in the questionnaires during a compulsory course in research methods. We argue, that part of the differences is due to education. As such, we find support for Shane s (2000) argument that the ability to recognize opportunities is due to information asymmetry. In this case, group A could be assumed to have a perception of entrepreneurship which was more likely to be based on facts, whereas group B was left to rely on facts that seem to be based more on myth. We know from the entrepreneurial intentionality literature and cognitive science that attitudes are linked to action, and that education can influence attitudes. It is clear from our study that the two groups have different cognitive maps regarding entrepreneurship and the fact that education has been provided for one of the groups we argue that education makes a difference. Mental prototype When we look at the factors we find that entrepreneurial lifestyle excites me is strongly present in group A but absent in B. Much to our surprise we then find that I m precisely the type to become an entrepreneur as a significant factor for group B, but not A. Apparently, there seems to exist some kind of mental prototype of what an entrepreneur is, but it is far from clear what that is. As the factors perceived to be linked to intentionality, desirability and feasibility as so very different between the groups and since one of the groups has participated in entrepreneurship education and the other has not it is possible to argue that education will impact the mental prototype. However, there does not appear to be a link to how probable it will be that the student decides to become an entrepreneur since the probabilities are very low for both groups and the difference is not statistically significant. In his criticism of the Equilibrium school, Shane (2000) questions the assumption that there exists a particular type of person who becomes an entrepreneur. Moreover, despite the large body of research it has yet not been possible to identify this homo entrepreneuriens (Brockhaus, 1982, Gartner, 1988, Baron, 1998, Hytti, 2003). Our study, shows that the two groups again have very different perceptions of what would be so exciting about the entrepreneurial lifestyle. In fact, when we look at the significant factors for both groups (Table 6), we find two factors: starting a firm is the best way to benefit from my education and I know a good market opportunity that perhaps not intuitively would be regarded as lifestyle factors. However, assuming that they impact the

12 perception of an exciting lifestyle, we may arrive at the notion that entrepreneurial intentionality is not necessarily just an opportunistic or a necessity decision, but a lifestyle decision. Social norm and role of family and friends Research on whether social norm is linked to entrepreneurial intentionality is mixed. Krueger et al (2001) found no link, but Grunsten (2004) in a study conducted on a Finnish sample showed a link although a weak one. In our study the issue of social norm was addressed as how the respondents perceived themselves to be appreciated more, i.e. as an employee or an entrepreneur and how they perceived to benefit from their education. The perceived utility has a significant link to perceived personal desirability for the total sample (Table 3), but recalling that perceived personal desirability had no link to intentionality for group B it can be assumed that the link is next to none. Interestingly, the perceived appreciation is linked to lifestyle (group A). Hence, social norm understood in terms of appreciation does not have an impact on intentionality other than in terms of lifestyle. The role of family and friends does not seem to be important in general. However, again these factors seem to be linked to entrepreneurial lifestyle. Thus, if there is a connection between social norm, family and friends it is indirect and embedded in other factors. CONCLUSIONS AND ISSUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Our study has addressed the impact of education on perceptions of entrepreneurship. We have anchored our study into the conceptual framework of entrepreneurial intentionality used in numerous previous studies. The assumption has been that by understanding what factors drive - or the differences in perceptions of these factors - entrepreneurial intentionality, perceived personal desirability, and perceived personal feasibility we may draw important insights with implications for education and policy makers. Our sample consisted of Finnish business school students and is therein different from previous studies. Krueger et al (2001) sampled US business students, and Autio et al (2001) sampled Scandinavian technology students and Grunsten (2004) sampled Finnish technology- students and start-up technology entrepreneurs. Our sample consisted of two groups where one had been participating in compulsory entrepreneurship education and the other group had not had any systematic entrepreneurship education. Our results show that the cognitive maps of the two groups are very different. The groups that had participated in education seemed to have an opportunistic view whereas the other groups saw entrepreneurship as a necessary last alternative. Although the probability that the respondents would start a firm within five years was very low in both groups, it is possible to conclude that education will have an impact on how entrepreneurship as an opportunity in itself is perceived. Both groups shared the view that the lifestyle of an entrepreneur seemed exciting. Yet, there seemed to be quite different aspects of lifestyle that excited them.

13 The impact of family and friends seems indirect and social norm was not found to significantly impact perceived personal desirability or perceived personal feasibility. It is not possible to say from our study at this stage to what degree education will increase the probability of starting a firm, only that education appears to impact the perception of entrepreneurship. However, since attitudes can be influenced via education it is likely that education can increase the probability. Therefore, the content of entrepreneurship education becomes critical. For students with academic education it would be important to provide more examples of successful academic entrepreneurs and to first and foremost demystify entrepreneurship. Also, give the different perceptions of entrepreneurship it is obvious that there are other factors than financial means and knowledge and skills, which trigger personal perceived desirability and personal perceived feasibility and therein entrepreneurial intentionality. Policymakers should observe this, and take increasing measures in increasing the attractiveness of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship is not attractive at this moment. Our results mandate additional research. In order to understand the role education, it would be necessary to collect data from students who are entering university, i.e. freshmen and then compare the data. This way we can understand how management studies impact perceptions of entrepreneurship, which in turn will enable us to a more targeted design of education. Also, it would be necessary to study the issues among graduated students, whereupon the role of experience would emerge. REFERENCES Ajzen, I. (1987) Attitudes, traits and actions: Dispositional prediction of behavior in social psychology. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 1-63 Autio, E., Keeley, R., Klofsten, M., Parker, G., Hay, M. (2001) Entrepreneurial Intent among Students in Scandinavia and in the USA. Enterprise and Innovation Management Studies 2(2), Baron, R. (1998) Cognitive Mechanisms in Entrepreneurship. Why and When Entrepreneurs Think Differently Than Other People. Journal of Business Venturing, 13(4), Bird, B. (1988) Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intentions. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), Brockhaus, R. H. (1982) The psychology of the entrepreneur. In: Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, p Ed. by Calvin A. Kent, Donald L. Sexton and Karl H Vesper, Prentice- Hall Inc. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Carsrud, A., Gaglio, C., Olm, K. (1987) Entrepreneurs-mentors, networks and successful new venture development. American Journal of Small Business, 12(2), Eckhardt, J. T., Shane, S. (2003) Opportunities and Entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29(3), Fiet, J. O. (2000a) The theoretical side of teaching entrepreneurship, Journal of Business Venturing, 16 (1), Fiet, J. O. (2000b) The pedagogical side of entrepreneurship theory, Journal of Business Venturing, 16 (2),

14 Gaglio, C. M., Katz, J. A. (2001) The psychological basis of opportunity identification: entrepreneurial alertness. Small Business Economics 16(2), Gartner, W. B. (1988) Who is an Entrepreneur? is the Wrong Question. American Journal of Small Business 12(1), Gibb, A. A. (2002) In pursuit of a new enterprise` and entrepreneurship` paradigm for learning: creative destruction, new values, new ways of doing things and new combinations of knowledge, International Journal of Management Review, 4(3), Grunsten, H. (2004) Entrepreneurial Intentions and The Entrepreneurial Environment, A Study of Technology-Based New Venture Creation, Helsinki University of Technology, Doctoral dissertation series, 2004/1, Helsinki Hytti, U. (2003) Stories of Entrepreneurs: Narrative Construction of Identities, Publications of the Turku School of Economics and Business Administration, Series A-1, Turku Kirzner, I. M. (1997) Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: an Austrian approach. Journal of Economic Literature, 35 (March), Klofsten, M. (2000) Training entrepreneurship at universities: a Swedish case. Journal of European Industrial Training, 24(6), Krueger, N. (1998) Encouraging the identification of environmental opportunities, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 11(2), Krueger, N., Carsrud, A. (1993) Entrepreneurial intentions: Applying the theory of planned behavior. Entrepreneruship and Regional Development, 5, Shane, S. (2000) Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science 11(4), Shane, S. (2003) A General Theory of Entrepreneurship, Edgar Elgar, Cheltenham Shane, S., Venkataraman, S. (2000) The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), Shapero, A. (1982) Social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In C. Kent, D. Sexton, k. Vesper (Eds.) The Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, Venkataraman, S. (1997) The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: an editor s perspective. In J. Katz, R. Brockhaus (Eds.), Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence and growth, 3, , JAI Press, Greenwich, CT

15