Opportunities to Improve Entrepreneurship Education

Journal of Small Business Management 2014 ••(••), pp. ••–•• doi: 10.1111/jsbm.12110

Opportunities to Improve Entrepreneurship Education: Contributions Considering Brazilian Challenges* by Edmilson Lima, Rose M. Lopes, Vânia Nassif, and Dirceu da Silva

This paper identifies challenges and opportunities for enhancing higher education in entrepreneurship considering student perceptions concerning both their demand for entrepreneurship education and their entrepreneurial intention as well as previous studies that present the points of view of experts. The main focus is Brazilian higher education, but the results address challenges that cross borders, such as the need for a practical approach. The study analyzed the data from the Brazilian version of the 2011 Global University Entrepreneurial Spirit Students’ Survey (GUESSS) obtained with an online questionnaire answered by 25,751 Brazilian students from 37 colleges and universities. To give a reference for a better understanding of Brazilian statistics, data were compared to those of the 2011 international GUESSS involving also 25 other countries and 64,079 responses from them. Three hypotheses were tested. The results show that entrepreneurship education has a significant negative effect on student entrepreneurial intention and also on selfefficacy. The same occurs between entrepreneurial intention and students’ demand for entrepreneurship education. Brazilian students present higher levels of entrepreneurial intention and are significantly more motivated to take courses and activities in entrepreneurship than those students in the international sample. Approximately 50 percent of Brazilian students are potential entrepreneurs. One of the opportunities identified is to take advantage of students’ positive attitudes and their high demand. The opportunities could play an important role in overcoming the challenges recognized, among which are the need for a more practical approach and the need for larger and diversified educational offerings beyond business planning. The challenges make Neck and Greene’s recommendations, presented in a 2011 issue of JSBM, particularly important for Brazil. The last three sections propose different explanations, suggestions for more research, and practical recommendations.

*We are grateful for the support of the Pró-Administração project in execution at Universidade Nove de Julho (UNINOVE) and of the UNINOVE Research Fund. Many thanks also to Philipp Sieger for the international coordination of the GUESSS project and to the JSBM evaluators and 2012 ICSB World Conference evaluators and participants who gave us a valuable feedback for improving the previous version of this paper. Edmilson Lima is associate professor in the Master’s and Doctoral Program in Administration and professor in the Professional Master’s Program in Sports Management at Universidade Nove de Julho (UNINOVE). Rose Mary Almeida Lopes is associate professor in Entrepreneurship at Escola Superior de Propaganda e Marketing—College of Advertising and Marketing. Vânia Maria Jorge Nassif is associate professor in the Professional Master’s Program in Sports Management and professor in the Master’s and Doctoral Program in Administration at Universidade Nove de Julho (UNINOVE). Dirceu da Silva is associate professor in the Master’s and Doctoral Program in Administration at Universidade Nove de Julho (UNINOVE). Address correspondence to: Edmilson Lima, Master and Doctoral Program in Administration, Universidade Nove de Julho (UNINOVE), Avenida Francisco Matarazzo, 612, Água Branca, São Paulo 05001-100, Brazil. E-mail: [email protected].

LIMA ET AL.

1

Introduction Given the sweeping changes in the global economy and associated changes in the nature of the workplace, it is no longer sufficient for institutions of higher education simply to train students to occupy traditional employment roles. Rather, entrepreneurial capabilities are becoming much more important and necessary. After all, entrepreneurship is important in organizations of all types and sizes, where people must be able to innovate and pursue new and valuable opportunities, and many contemporary college and university students want to have their own businesses in the future, regardless of their major field of study. Around the world, approximately 10 percent of students want to found their own businesses immediately after graduating, and 30 percent hope to do so within five years of graduation (Sieger, Fueglistaller, and Zellweger 2011). The importance of entrepreneurship education has even been recognized by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development as an important item in promoting development of countries (UNCTAD Secretariat 2011). However, there is a risk of promoting entrepreneurship training and activities that are inconsistent with student needs and that offer small potential of contribution, primarily if students’ interests and career choices are not taken into consideration. Thus, it is important to pursue research that can help guide the improvement of entrepreneurship education considering not only the literature containing experts’ contributions, but also students’ points of view. Student perception and evaluation of teaching are valuable to extend the findings of the literature in this area and to improve educational practices (Ackerman, Gross, and Vigneron 2009). Their constructive feedback—like that of other evaluators such as teachers and experts—is useful for faculty and education development purposes (Lam 2006; Provençal 2012). The objective of this paper is to identify challenges and opportunities for enhancing Brazilian higher education in entrepreneurship considering previous studies that present the points of view of experts (primarily for identifying challenges) and the students’ perception concerning both their demand for entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions (primarily for identifying opportunities). Presenting results of empirical studies and/ or contributions of authors specialized in entre-

2

preneurship education, previous studies tend to be essential to indicate the main problems (challenges) to improve entrepreneurship education in a country. On the other hand, students’ input is also important as they are the beneficiaries and preferably active actors in entrepreneurship education—with which they will hopefully be better development promoters in their country. One could argue that the improvement process would have better results if it considered students’ demand and entrepreneurial intention without contradicting experts’ opinions.

Entrepreneurship Education: Practice and Research Over recent years, interest in entrepreneurship education has grown because of the belief in its contributions to improving innovation in organizations and promoting the creation of new companies and jobs, which strengthen social, economic, and regional development (Fayolle, Gailly, and Lassas-Clerc 2006; Guerra and Grazziotin 2010; Lanero et al. 2011). For this reason, higher education institutions have been impelled to create environments, activities, and courses in the field. In association with that evolution, entrepreneurship in general has achieved a respectable academic space supported by more than 40 academic journals. Among them, special issues have been written on entrepreneurship education, such as the July 2013 issue of the Journal of Small Business Management and the July 2005 issue of Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice. However, the search for empirical evidence concerning the effects of entrepreneurship education is still necessary. Von Graevenitz, Harhoff, and Weber (2010) state that the work in the field is still weak. The studies on the effects of entrepreneurship education are somewhat inconclusive. There are two main streams of research results. The first and predominant one indicates that entrepreneurship education magnifies the development of entrepreneurial intention and belief of being capable of successfully performing the roles and tasks of an entrepreneur (entrepreneurial self-efficacy; according to Chen, Greene, and Crick 1998). The second one, however, demonstrates indifference (lack of effects) or diminishing effects of entrepreneurship education, and initiatives related to it, on entrepreneurial intention and perceived competencies for entrepreneurship.

JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

First Stream of Results: Magnifying Effects According to Alvarez and Busenitz (2004), if universities do not offer entrepreneurship education, students will be less likely to become entrepreneurs. This lack of offering leads to a low level of student entrepreneurial intention (Franke and Luthje 2004). In fact, Peterman and Kennedy (2003) present evidence that students’ contact with entrepreneurship awakens or strengthens their desire to create new businesses. In addition, higher education focusing on entrepreneurship helps to develop positive attitudes about entrepreneurship as a career choice (Kourilsky and Walstad 1998; Peterman and Kennedy 2003). Entrepreneurship education also has a positive effect on the perceived feasibility of entrepreneurship or on entrepreneurial self-efficacy (Wilson, Kickul, and Marlino 2007). Thus, even if students do not plan on having their own businesses, they can benefit from the development of entrepreneurial knowledge and competencies. Entrepreneurship education enhances student self-efficacy in entrepreneurship, offering them role models, social persuasion, experience of mastery, and support involving hands-on activities, business planning, and simulated or real operation of a small business (Segal, Borgia, and Schoenfeld 2005 in Pihie 2009). Second Stream of Results: Lack of Effects and Diminishing Effects On the other hand, Souitaris, Zerbinati, and Al-Laham (2007) describe initiatives’ lack of impact on the desirability and attitudes toward entrepreneurship. In a different study evaluating an entrepreneurship teaching program, Fayolle, Gailly, and Lassas-Clerc (2006) notice a reduction in entrepreneurial intention for students having previous knowledge in entrepreneurship. Studying another program, Oosterbeek, van Praag, and Ijsselstein (2010) remark that the program did not have the intended results: the effect on students’ self-assessed entrepreneurial skills was insignificant, and it was even negative on entrepreneurial intention. Complementarily, von Graevenitz, Harhoff, and Weber (2010) show that entrepreneurial intentions somewhat decrease instead of magnify effects on student’s self-assessed entrepreneurial skills. With the second stream of results, some critiques should be considered. Lautenschläger

and Haase (2011) note that entrepreneurship education is not a precondition for more entrepreneurs to start and grow new firms. They question the way in which entrepreneurship education is currently offered at universities based on the rational-oriented educational system, which does not promote creativity, opportunity recognition, and problem-solving abilities. For them, this type of system causes deficits in the entrepreneurial intention and abilities of young people. This criticism emphasizes a potential relation: The lack of effects and/or the diminishing effects of entrepreneurship education may be associated with problems in quality and content. If the entrepreneurship education is inappropriate for the students, the intended results tend not to come.

Formulating Hypotheses to Test Testing the following hypotheses is useful in establishing a conceptual context favorable to understand better the challenges and opportunities for improving Brazilian higher education in entrepreneurship. It will determine an answer from our own research and may contribute to the debate characterized by divergent results presented by the literature until now. The hypotheses are inspired in the first stream of results. This choice is based on the fact that those results are predominant and not counterintuitive like those from the second stream. H1: Entrepreneurship education is positively related to students’ entrepreneurial intention. H2: Entrepreneurship education is positively related to students’ perceived entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Another hypothesis to be tested concerns the demand for entrepreneurship education. According to the literature, entrepreneurial intention has an impact on entrepreneurship education. So, one must consider the possibility of a two-way relationship between these constructs. Entrepreneurial intention shapes student demand, interest, and choices related to courses and activities in higher education. It is a predictor of the development of entrepreneurial competencies (Fayolle, Gailly, and Lassas-Clerc 2006). As such, understanding students’ entrepreneurial intention and their perception of the course and activity offerings in

LIMA ET AL.

3

entrepreneurship at their college or university appears essential to recommend improvements in entrepreneurship education in any country. Hence, we also tested the following hypothesis. H3: Entrepreneurial intention is positively related to the demand for entrepreneurship education.

Entrepreneurial Intention Previous studies on the factors that influence people in their entrepreneurial career preferences or choices center on demographic and personal variables and on the context in which these people live. However, the factors offer but a poor explanation as they are far from the behavior they should explain (Rauch and Frese 2000). The studies also indicate that personal and situational characteristics are not sufficient for predicting entrepreneurial behavior. This reaffirms the importance of understanding entrepreneurial intentions (Krueger, Reilly, and Carsrud 2000). One of the most important models used in academic research on entrepreneurial intention is the theory of planned behavior (TPB) (Ajzen 1991, 2002; Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). All human action depends on a dose of planning, even if minimal, and intention precedes action; intention is a predictor of action (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). Our study uses the TPB model. Its utility has been justified by its contributions in many empirical studies on entrepreneurship in higher education (Fayolle, Gailly, and Lassas-Clerc 2006; Liñán and Chen 2009; Miller et al. 2009; Souitaris, Zerbinati, and Al-Laham 2007; Tran

2011). Furthermore, this model is used in the 2011 international Global University Entrepreneurial Spirit Students’ Survey (GUESSS; http://www.guesssurvey.com) that we took as reference to offer a better understanding of the 2011 Brazilian GUESSS (http://www .guesssbrasil.org) statistics on which our study is based. Lima et al. (2011) describe this Brazilian study in detail. Although the TPB model has confirmed usefulness as a predictor of future entrepreneurial behavior, it has been criticized because entrepreneurial intention does not ensure that the potential entrepreneur will effectively become an entrepreneur. Therefore, the TPB produces more contributions for understanding the formation of entrepreneurial intentions than the transition to entrepreneurial action (Tran 2011). It allows for studying and understanding the different attitudes that underlie entrepreneurial intention. It also allows examination of the antecedents that influence these attitudes. The model comprises three components of intention as shown in Figure 1. The elements in the figure may be described as follows: • The attitudes refer to the evaluation of the entrepreneurial idea, whether favorable or not, made by the actor in question. • The subjective norms relate to the perception of social pressure, whether favorable or not, of people important to the actor in question about whether or not he or she may perform a behavior concerning his or her entrepreneurial idea. • The perceived behavioral control concerns the perception of the difficulty or ease of

Figure 1 Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) Model Theory of Planned Behavior

Personal Antecedents Personal Motivations

Attitudes Subjective Norms Perceived Behavioral Control

Entrepreneurial Intention

Family Antecedents

College or University Context

Sources: Adapted from Ajzen (2002) and Fishbein and Ajzen (1975).

4


developing a behavior, taking into account past experiences, deficiencies, and obstacles. Thus, it is related to the feeling of entrepreneurial capability and also to the person’s perceived degree of control over his or her behavior to act in an entrepreneurial way. Figure 1 also emphasizes that entrepreneurial intention is influenced by personal antecedents, family antecedents, and personal motivations. Entrepreneurship education and the college or university context influence the development of these three components that precede and shape entrepreneurial intention. For Ajzen (1991), intention is stronger as long as the attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control are favorable, making the actor more inclined to perform the behavior in question. However, the author adds that the effective realization of the intention depends not only on personal motivation, but also on nonmotivational factors such as resources, opportunities, and money. The motivational and nonmotivational factors play an important role in the control that the actor exercises over his or her behavior.

Possible Improvements Based on Student Perception Student perception and evaluation is acquiring recognition as an important perspective to be considered in initiatives for improving education, primarily when complemented by the opinions of experts and teachers/professors (Ackerman, Gross, and Vigneron 2009; Lam 2006; Provençal 2012), as we do in this paper. According to Provençal (2012), faculty, administrators, and students share the criticism of seeing student evaluation of teaching and courses as little more than a “fire alarm” function—when it is used ineffectively, which is common in universities (Edström 2008). With this function, it would be useful only in emergencies when students indicate a significant problem that requires fast and important corrections. However, when it is developed and well employed, it presents important benefits: “[1] Students know best what was effective for their learning; [2] Students observe the whole class; [3] Student samples are larger [than is the case with peer evaluation, for example]” (Ackerman, Gross, and Vigneron 2009, in Provençal 2012, p. 16). It is also important to consider that “there are generally high correlations between students’ and faculty members’

evaluations of teaching” (Goldstein and Benassi 2006 in Provençal 2012, p. 16). According to Perrin (2009), to improve education, “we need to involve our students. Many students know what they need for their professional development even better than we [teachers and professors] do. They have time for research and intimate contact with the realities of their profession and their daily lives” (p. 2). There are very few studies based on what improvements in entrepreneurship education are required from a student perspective. It is much more common to find studies in which the sources are professors/teachers or experts. Here is an exception. Gasse and Tremblay (2011) compared the results of a 2,053-student-sample study, composed of Management and Engineering students, from seven different countries: Canada (Quebec Province), Tunisia, France, Romania, England, Colombia, and Germany. The contribution of the general system of education for entrepreneurship development was only highlighted by the students from Colombia and Germany (57 and 61 percent, respectively). However, concerning the general contribution of academic activities to encourage entrepreneurship, all groups indicated that projects, initiatives, simulations, internships, and work experiences helped (between 79 and 95 percent). When asked specifically about the contribution of entrepreneurship courses offered for the development of entrepreneurial spirit, the numbers declined substantially to between 20 and 40 percent. Colombian students were the exception: 82 percent responded that the courses stimulated and helped them to develop entrepreneurial spirit. In short, the general result of the research by Gasse and Tremblay (2011) shows little perceived contribution of courses on entrepreneurship and strong perceived usefulness in entrepreneurial preparation from activities requiring student participation and practical activities.

Some Challenges Indicated by the Literature in Brazil Perceiving the new trends posed by changes in global and national contexts, directors of Brazilian universities and colleges introduced and, later, expanded entrepreneurship education offerings. The “New Business” course at the Getúlio Vargas Foundation School of Business Administration was created in 1981 as part

LIMA ET AL.

5

of the MBA program, and in 1984, a similar undergraduate course was instituted for business majors. They were the first two courses in entrepreneurship in Brazil. Other institutions have followed suit: the University of São Paulo in the College of Economics, Administration, and Accounting, as well as the Rio Grande do Sul Federal University in the Department of Computer Sciences (Lopes 2010). Brazilian entrepreneurship education is growing. A web-based survey of 516 schools by Guerra and Grazziotin (2010) shows that 32 percent of public and 11.5 percent of private higher education institutions offer entrepreneurship courses; 44.6 percent of these courses are offered outside the area of Business Administration—in areas such as Computing, Engineering, Communication, Tourism, Physical Education, and Speech Therapy. Universities and colleges have increased the number of courses and activities offered in the area. Flores, Hoeltgebaum, and Silveira (2008) note that between 2004 and 2007, course numbers increased 27.8 percent in graduate business administration programs in the nation. Some Brazilian institutions offer entrepreneurship centers, business incubators, and both minors and majors in entrepreneurship education. Business plan competitions are slowly increasing in number, as well as events that stimulate entrepreneurship. In addition, academic events have occurred, including the Internationalizing Entrepreneurship Education and Training Conference 2006, the Roundtable on Entrepreneurship Education (REE) Latin America in 2007, the annual REE Satellite Brazil promoted by Endeavor, and the biannual EGEPE—National Meeting on Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management— now integrated and organized by ANEGEPE, the Brazilian Association for Research on Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management founded in February 2011. However, the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) study entitled Entrepreneurship in Brazil: 2008 (Greco et al. 2009), which developed a specific topic on education and training, provides worrying data. Based on information offered by the Ministry of Education, it states that there were 39,555 higher

education programs in Brazil in 2008. Among these, 3,465 were in administration and 988 in computer engineering, computer studies, and information systems. These four areas are usually forerunners in offering entrepreneurship courses in the country. However, only 25 educational programs were specifically related to entrepreneurship and small business management. The programs were concentrated in the south and southeast regions of Brazil—the more developed regions in the country. According to Greco et al. (2009), these numbers are associated with a modest offering of entrepreneurship courses and activities in higher education and with a lack of trained professors and teachers. The international GUESSS report indicates that, in Brazil, around 39 percent of more than 29,000 students who completed the survey questionnaire in 2011 responded that their college or university offers courses or activities in entrepreneurship. The average percentage for the 26 countries of the study is 36 percent (Sieger, Fueglistaller, and Zellweger 2011). However, when considering the international best results of 71 and 56 percent for Mexico and Liechtenstein, respectively, Brazil seems to have much to do to improve its offerings.1 Thus, these are the first two challenges to improve entrepreneurship education in Brazil as shown in Chart 1. Chart 1: Challenges 1 and 2 • Challenge 1: To increase the offer of higher education programs, courses, and activities in entrepreneurship. • Challenge 2: To train more professors and teachers in entrepreneurship education. Additionally, the results of Greco et al. (2009) show that, among entrepreneurs who start their own companies, 90 percent had never attended any course or training activity related to opening a business. Forty percent of entrepreneurs who had taken any entrepreneurship education course or activity did so during their higher education studies. These were optional, not obligatory, courses or activities. Again, this suggests that much still needs

1

The percentages in this paragraph are averages of the percentages of students who answered “yes” to the question about whether their college or university offers each one of the courses and activities listed in Table 1 of this paper.

6


to be done to improve entrepreneurship education in Brazil.

More Challenges In 2006, the Brazilian Federal Administration Council (CFA 2006) conducted a survey covering a sample of 10,552 Administration students, as well as teachers and business directors, to obtain new higher education content suggestions, more aligned with the market reality, to prepare students better.2 The main contents suggested were as follows: entrepreneurship development (46 percent), micro and smallsized business management (23.5 percent), environmental management and sustainable development (23.5 percent), and business ethics (20 percent). Clearly, a demand exists for entrepreneurship education. Anjos, Fechine, and Nóbrega (2005) indicate that only one quarter of administration students at the Universidade Federal de Campina Grande, in the northeast of the country, considered good or very good the level of debate on entrepreneurship at their university, whereas the rest assessed it as fair or poor. Students recommended changes, mainly for adopting a more practical approach to education. They pointed out the need for a more interdisciplinary perspective in this area among the different courses, expansion and improvement of debates on the subject, and incentives and training for more professors and teachers to work. Here, there is a great convergence with the expert’s perspectives summarized in Challenges 1 and 2. In another study, carried out in the context of the Entrepreneurship Education Project (http://www.entrepeduc.org; Liguori, Winkel, and Vanevenhoven 2010), Suedekum and Miller (2011) find that, compared with other universities in the world, the courses offered in Brazil in different fields of study invite fewer entrepreneurs to speak to students and do not focus on practical activities. In other words, generally, students neither see a practical approach nor study actual, specific

challenges faced by entrepreneurs. Their educational activities are usually far from those experienced by entrepreneurs. Suedekum and Miller (2011) advise that the students who intend to become entrepreneurs should have more involvement with and exposure to the experience of entrepreneurs to prepare themselves better. Entrepreneurship education in Brazil is also limited by the fact that the courses offered are essentially restricted to the development of a business plan (Degen 2009; Guerra and Grazziotin 2010). In light of this and of the needs described in this section, most Brazilian students suffer a lack of diversification, beyond business planning, in the offering of courses and activities related to entrepreneurship. Chart 2 contains a summary of the challenges presented in this section. Chart 2: Challenges 3–5 • Challenge 3: Greater proximity to and contact with entrepreneurs and their reality. • Challenge 4: A more practical approach to entrepreneurship education. • Challenge 5: Greater diversity in course and activity offerings at colleges and universities beyond business planning.

Research Methods Our survey used the GUESSS questionnaire, translated and theoretically validated by experts on entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship education in Brazil. The questionnaire contains 16 sets of multiple-choice questions primarily employing scales of 5 or 7 points. Among other elements, it measures entrepreneurship education, university offerings and university environment (Souitaris, Zerbinati, and Al-Laham 2007—with some adaptations), entrepreneurial intentions and its determinants, including locus of control and self-efficacy (Chen, Greene, and Crick 1998; Levenson 1973;

2

To better understand the results of this survey (CFA 2006), it is important to remember that the typical Brazilian administration major offers the courses established as minimal curriculum by the Brazilian law and Education Ministry: general theory of administration, human resources, finance, marketing, accounting, costs management, production management, material management, mathematics in administration, statistics in administration, data processing, managerial information system, introduction to philosophy, economy, psychology in administration, and sociology in administration. The minimal curriculum establishes also some optional courses. Entrepreneurship is not a course of the minimal curriculum in Brazil, but it is normally offered by universities as an optional choice.

LIMA ET AL.

7

Liñán and Chen 2009), and a shortened scale on personal motives for career choice (Carter et al. 2003). It was made available on a website and answered online.3 This was the first time the survey has been done in Brazil. Professors, teachers, and program coordinators/directors were contacted by email and telephone and invited to help as research partners. They then either solicited student participation personally, by email, and/or made the link to the online questionnaire available on the Internet/intranet sites of their schools. Data processing included frequency analysis of responses as the sample was configured as statistically infinite (Levy and Lemesshow 1999). The methodological procedure also employed the ANOVA parametrical test of hypotheses because the independent variables distribution considered could be understood as normal according to the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. In addition, the homogeneity tests of variance (Levene tests; p > .05) for the same independent variables were also favorable to the use of ANOVA (Everitt 2006). The independent variables were prepared using exploratory factor analysis with single factor VARIMAX rotation to agglutinate in single scores the scales used in our questionnaire and calculate regression values (Hair et al. 2010). Although the sample was not randomly drawn, because of its large size, it is likely reasonably representative of the perceptions of Brazilian students. Both data collection and

processing followed the GUESSS international standard, which is favorable to comparison of results between countries and between universities from one or more countries. The survey included 37 Brazilian colleges and universities4 resulting in a total of 29,186 questionnaires answered. Of these, the 25,867 that responded in 15 minutes or more were considered usable. Response tests have shown problems in quality for responses returned under this time. Based on the information provided by the research partners, the estimated total number of students who received the Internet link to answer the questionnaire was 250,000. Thus, the response rate was 10.3 percent, which exceeds the 6.3 percent international response rate (Sieger, Fueglistaller, and Zellweger 2011). One hundred sixteen respondents were foreign students. The last adjustment eliminated their responses. As such, the sample considered was established at 25,751 Brazilian students. As a reference for better understanding the Brazilian statistics and better fulfilling our research objective, frequencies obtained from Brazilian data were compared with those of the international GUESSS sample from 2011 (Sieger, Fueglistaller, and Zellweger 2011), which is a panel study involving 26 countries, whose students produced 93,265 responses, including Brazil. Due to its characteristics, the study allows comparison and benchmarking between different universities, regions, and countries. Without the total Brazilian sample of

3

Different works were already prepared based on GUESSS, like national and international reports (see http://www.guesssurvey.org) and more academic texts (e.g., Bergmann 2012; Zellweger, Sieger, and Halter 2011). 4 Colleges and universities that participated in the Brazilian GUESSS 2011, contributing with five or more questionnaires answered: CEUT—Centro de Ensino Unificado de Teresina, ESADE—Laureate International Universities, ESPM—Escola Superior de Propaganda e Marketing, Faculdade Dom Pedro II, FACCAMP— Faculdade Campo Limpo Paulista, Facesm—Fac. de Ciências Sociais Aplicadas do Sul de Minas, FAE—Centro Universitário, Fatec—Faculdade de Tecnologia de Pindamonhangaba, Fatec—Faculdade de Tecnologia de São Sebastião, FGV-SP—Fundação Getúlio Vargas, Faculdade R Sá, FURB—Universidade Regional de Blumenau, Grupo Uniasselvi, IFPI-Picos—Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia do Piauí, IFSP—Inst. Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia em Caraguatatuba, Insper—Instituto de Ensino e Pesquisa, UDESC—Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina, UEL—Universidade Estadual de Londrina, UFBA— Universidade Federal da Bahia, UFGD—Universidade Federal da Grande Dourados, Unifei—Universidade Federal de Itajubá, UFMA—Universidade Federal do Maranhão, UFMS—Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso do Sul, UFMT—Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso, UFPR—Universidade Federal do Paraná, UFS— Universidade Federal de Sergipe, UFSC—Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, UFSJ—Universidade Federal de São João del-Rei, UFV—Universidade Federal de Viçosa, UNIFACS—Universidade Salvador, UNIME— União Metropolitana de Educação e Cultura, Universidade Nove de Julho (UNINOVE), Univás—Universidade do Vale do Sapucaí, Univates, Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie, Universidade São Francisco, USP— Universidade de São Paulo.

8


Figure 2 Distribution of Respondents by Field of Study (Percent) Interna onal

Brazil

Other Art, science of art Agricultural science, forestry, and nutri on science

14,1 1,7 1,2 1,1

Computer sciences/informa cs

5,6

7,2 12,0 12,5

Engineering sciences (including architecture)

2,0

Mathema cs and natural sciences Other social sciences (e.g., sociology, poli cal science)

1,7

5,6 4,5

Management/business administra on Economics

20,2 1,5

Law

4,5

7,1

Medicine and health science Sports

7,6

0,8 0,7

Educa on/pedagogy

2,1

Cultural studies (including religion, philosophy, psychology) Linguis cs

21,5

0,5

0,9

26,5

9,9 11,3

3,6 4,38 4,83

2,89

29,186 responses, 64,079 responses from the international sample were used for comparison in our study.5 The following are some of the characteristics from the two samples6:

The respondents’ fields of study for the two samples are detailed in Figure 2. The “other” category in the figure includes those students who did not define their field of study in the response.

• Age: Fifty-five percent of the Brazilian respondents were in the “under 25” range, 17.3 percent in the “between 25 and 30” range, and 27.8 percent in the “above 30” range. The percentages for the international sample were respectively 65.7, 25.4, and 8.9 percent. • Gender: Brazilian and international samples presented similar percentages and a predominance of women—55.4 percent of the Brazilian respondents, which is approximately 10 percent more than men. • Study level: Ninety-five percent of the students were undergraduates; 1.2 percent, M.A. students; 3.4 percent, M.B.A. students; 0.4 percent, Ph.D. students; and 0.4 percent, postdoctorate students; for the international sample, the figures were 71.4, 23.7, 1.3, 3.3, and 0.3 percent, respectively.

Future Work Intentions The questionnaire asked students which career option they expected to choose immediately after and five years after graduation. In the responses to “immediately after studies,” Brazilian students show 30.3 percent of preference for working in companies with more than 250 employees. When asked about working in micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises, they are 11.4 percent. Their preference for public sector employment is 14.6 percent, for creating their own business is 8.4 percent, for acquiring companies not controlled by their families is 3.0 percent, and for maintaining companies they have already founded is 3.0 percent. The nonparametric Mann–Whitney U test indicated that these percentages have not a statistically significant difference compared with their homologous in the international

5

Differences can be observed between international frequencies presented in this paper compared with those presented in the Brazilian GUESSS report and in the international GUESSS report because the international sample considered in both reports (available on http://www.guesssurvey.org) is n = 93,265, including all the Brazilian data. 6 Statistical tests (U test, t-test, and/or Cramér’s V test) were not performed for this point until the end of the section because the presentation of frequencies here is only descriptive, not comparative.

LIMA ET AL.

9

sample (p > .05). This test was used because the data compared have not symmetric distributions. Figure 3 describes the degree of change in career intentions for the transition between the “immediately after studies” and “five years after studies” periods. A sharp decline in intention to be an employee in favor of one to create a business or take over a family enterprise is clear. The “others” category—which includes the answer options “other options,” “do not know yet,” and “do not have a professional career”—presents a slight increase in both samples. As seen in Figure 3, entrepreneurial intention nearly doubles in the interim between the two periods. This variation is essentially associated with a drop to almost half in the “employee” category.

Becoming Entrepreneurs The following figure reports the percentages of responses to the question asked to all the sample of how seriously the students have thought about being their own bosses with one or more companies and what concrete steps they may have taken in this regard. Figure 4 shows that Brazil’s results for those who have already considered or already begun creating businesses are equal to or higher than international results for all items except the two at the bottom of the figure. The answers for “never” indicate that a greater percentage of Brazilian students have considered or done something about creating businesses. Thus, Brazilian students present a greater strength of entrepreneurial intention than the international sample, and this is confirmed by other Brazilian results in the figure.

Figure 3 Degree of Change in Career Intention (Percent)* Employee

BRAZIL directly after studies

International 5 years after studies

Successor

Others

62,0

International directly after studies

BRAZIL 5 years after studies

Founder

16,4

8,8 2,7

70,6

30,1

41,6

6,3

40,5

12,3

32,2

7,3

15,3

17,9

17,1

18,9

*The differences in answers from the same respondents for “Brazil directly after studies” and “Brazil five years after studies” are significant. The Wilcoxon signed-rank tests showed p < .05 for those differences in the Brazilian sample. Differences among the two samples (U tests): not significant for the category “employee” directly after studies and five years after studies; not significant for the category “founder” directly after studies and significant for five years after studies; not significant for the category “successor” directly after studies and five years after studies; not significant for the category “other” directly after studies and significant for five years after studies.

10


Figure 4 Strength of Entrepreneurial Intention (Percent)* Interna onal I have already founded more than one company, and am ac ve in at least one of them

Brazil 0,6 0,6

I am already self-employed in my own founded firm

2,1 1,9

I have already started with the realiza on

2,0 2,1

I have a concrete me plan when to do the diﬀerent steps for founding I have made an explicit decision to found a company

3,8 2,3 6,2 5,4

Rela vely concrete

14,7

8,5

22,0 22,1

Repeatedly

36,8 39,4

Sketchily 11,8

Never

17,6

*The frequencies presented here have significant differences according to the Cramér’s V test (V < 0.10). In Figure 4, excepting the respondents of the two first answer options at the top (active founders) and those of the two last ones at the bottom (nonfounders), the students were considered intentional founders. They were invited to answer the questions that originated the following figure concerning the steps they took to create their businesses. For Brazil, they are 48.9 percent of the sample. Figure 5 clarifies that nationally and internationally, the majority of intentional founders (around 65 percent) already have ideas about the businesses they would like to create. It should be noted that questionnaire respondents were able to choose more than one option for the responses listed in the figure. The group that has done nothing represents 21.8 percent of Brazilians and 29.1 percent of the international sample. In general, Brazilians are in the same condition or more advanced than the international sample concerning their preparations to have their own businesses— mainly in opportunity identification and developing business plans. Brazil is behind the international sample only in making loan applications to financial institutions and looking for possible partners.

Student Demand When asked about which courses and activities they had not taken or did not know if their

colleges or universities offered, students were invited to express their level of interest in taking the courses and activities shown in Table 1. In comparison with the international sample, Brazilian students are significantly more motivated to take the courses and activities in Table 1. This is clearly shown by comparing the “I would like it” column for Brazilian students (marked in bold) with their counterparts in the international sample. These results suggest that efforts to improve offerings in Brazilian colleges and universities could emphasize the courses and activities shown in Table 1. Considering Table 1, special attention should be given to the Social Entrepreneurship course. Its demand is one of the highest (85.4 percent), and it presents the highest difference in comparison with international results (36.5 points). This level of demand is compatible with Brazilians’ elevated interest in the third sector of the economy over recent decades. Clearly, social entrepreneurship is a necessity in developing countries, such as Brazil, where governmental actions present a considerable gap in meeting population’s needs. The percentage of Brazilian students who believe the courses and activities are not necessary is low. This is encouraging and propitious for improving entrepreneurship education.

LIMA ET AL.

11

Figure 5 Steps Taken to Start Businesses* Interna onal (n = 25,922) Decided on date of founda on

3,9 3,5

Asked financial ins tu ons for funding

1,7 3,6

Discussed with poten al customers

18,1

11,1 10,1 9,4

Worked on product development Purchased equipment

Brazil (n = 12,604)

6,4 5,1 25,2

Looked for poten al partners

29,3

Iden fied market opportunity Formulated business plan

30,9

41,2

25,6

15,3

65,5 64,9

Thought of first business ideas Nothing done so far

21,8

29,1

*The frequencies presented here have significant differences according to the Cramér’s V test (V < 0.10).

We used Cramér’s V tests of demand for the entrepreneurship education courses and activities listed in Table 1, cross tabulated by gender for Brazilian respondents. The tests confirm the statistical difference between the results for the two genders (excepting “social entrepreneurship”) and the independence of variables (all values were below 0.140; for all tests, p < .05). Women have higher percentages than men in the response options “I would like it” (54.8 percent on average; mean n = 11,232.07 with mean standard deviation [S.D.] = 3,728.17) and “I do not need it” (63.3 percent on average; mean n = 4,155.27 with mean S.D. = 2,209.08) regarding their interest in taking the courses and activities. It is important to note that the mean n (men + women = 11,232.07) for “I would like it” is almost three times the mean n for “I do not need it.” Clearly, many more respondents, both men and women, are interested in taking the courses and activities than those who respond that they “do not need it.” These results show that, for the Brazilian sample, more women than men answered in a previous question that they had not yet taken those courses and activities. Only respondents who gave this answer were asked if they would like to take or believe unnecessary the courses

12

and activities. Considering the female predominance with the response “I would like it,” a complementary study to learn the specificities of their demand and needs would be useful, especially as female entrepreneurship is significant in Brazil; GEM indicates that women account for 49.3 percent of the entrepreneurs responsible for new business in the country (Greco et al. 2010). The higher percentage of women who responded “I do not need it” might seem contradictory at first glance, but those responses were not made by the same people who answered “I would like it.” One possible explanation for the women’s (and men’s) answering “I do not need it” is that they may not have an idea of the potential contribution of courses and activities in entrepreneurship for their career and/or enough information about the offers related to it.

Results of the Tests of Hypothesis H1, H2, and H3 based on the literature presented at the beginning of this paper were not supported. The contrary results were found. The tests show that entrepreneurship education has a significant negative effect on entrepreneurial intention and also on perceived


Table 1 Demand for Courses and Activities* Type of Offer

Courses

Activities

Item

Brazil

Entrepreneurship in general Business planning Entrepreneurial marketing Innovation and idea generation Financing entrepreneurial ventures Social entrepreneurship Technology entrepreneurship Family firm Workshops/networking with experienced entrepreneurs Mentoring and coaching programs for entrepreneurs Business plan contests or workshops Contact point for entrepreneurial issues Contact platforms with potential investors

International (without Brazil)

I Would Like It (percent)

I Do Not Need It (percent)

I Would Like It (percent)

I Do Not Need It (percent)

75.4 81.4 73.4 85.4 75.8

24.6 18.6 26.6 14.6 24.2

60.3 60.8 46.3 64.9 60,5

39.7 39.2 53.7 35.1 59,5

85.4 71.5 60.7 75.9

14.6 28.5 39.3 24.1

48.9 42.3 35.7 68,7

51,1 57.7 64.3 31.3

70.9

29.1

61.4

38.6

73.8

26.2

52.3

47.7

80.8

19.2

62.4

37.6

76.1

23.9

61,9

38.1

*The frequencies presented here have significant differences according to the Cramér’s V test (V < 0.10). Values in bold for “I would like it”, when compared to their cunterparts in the international sample, show that Brazilian students are more motivated to take the courses and activities described in the table. entrepreneurial self-efficacy, although the level of satisfaction with entrepreneurship education tends toward satisfaction on a five-point scale (mean satisfaction = 3.73; mean n = 6,439.12; mean S.D. = 1). The international level of satisfaction is very similar. Additionally, there is a significant negative effect of entrepreneurial intention on students’ demand for entrepreneurship education. The results for H1 and H2 reinforce the second stream of results characterized at the beginning of this paper. In other words, they converge with the idea of diminishing effects of entrepreneurship education on students’ perceived entrepreneurial intention and selfefficacy. The results depict a possible mediating role of the students’ perceived entrepreneurial

self-efficacy in the relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intention. This mediating role is sustained by Rae and Carswell (2000) and Zhao, Seibert, and Hills (2005). Considering the large dimension and variety of the Brazilian empirical data set, and also intuition gleaned from our personal experience working in entrepreneurship education and education in general, we have explored some propositions that could help to detail or explain the tests of hypothesis. The methods used to explore the propositions were the same as those employed to test the hypotheses. The first proposition concerns the possibility of the mediating role of the perceived entrepreneurial self-efficacy as follows:

LIMA ET AL.

13

P1: The perception of the level of entrepreneurship education’s contribution to entrepreneurial self-efficacy is related to entrepreneurial intention. The results indicate that the greater the former, the lesser the latter (p < .05). This makes the mediating role for the Brazilian sample impossible. The reason of this would be an interesting theme for future research. Other possibilities were explored. Some studies indicating that the formal educational system is not particularly propitious to the development of entrepreneurship and might even extinguish entrepreneurial traits (Chamard 1989; Kourilsky 1980; Whitlock and Masters 1996) raise another proposition. Accepting that more entrepreneurship education implies more time studying, the confirmation of the following proposition should reinforce the result of the test of H2—entrepreneurship education has a significant negative effect on perceived entrepreneurial self-efficacy. P2: Students who study for longer periods in the same college or university perceive a lower contribution level of entrepreneurship education to their entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Exploratory analysis confirmed P2, as it did with P3 that follows. Similarly, assuming also that more entrepreneurship education implies a greater age for the students, confirmation of P3 seems to reinforce the H2 test. P3: The older the students, the lower they perceive the contribution level of entrepreneurship education to their entrepreneurial self-efficacy. However, to better understand the effects of time of study and age on perceived self-efficacy and the possible connections of these three constructs with entrepreneurial intention in Brazil, complementary research should be done.

Discussion The focus of this paper is practical. Based on empirical research and a moderate review of the literature, its objective is to generate contributions for enhancing Brazilian entrepreneurship education. The analysis of entrepreneurial intention and students’ demand, including the tests of

14

the three hypotheses, is intermediary to attaining this goal. For Brazil, the results clearly show high entrepreneurial intention and demand for entrepreneurship education at universities and colleges. Both are considerably higher compared with the international results. These results are complementary to and convergent with the Brazilian 13.38 percent average for the GEM index of entrepreneurial activity for the period from 2002 to 2010, which is higher than the international average for the same period (Greco et al. 2010). Curiously, the tests of hypotheses suggest that entrepreneurial intention negatively affects the demand. Nevertheless, one must remember a fact demonstrated by Figures 4 and 5: the lower the entrepreneurial intention, the greater the number of students. In other words, the highest level of demand in Brazil primarily comes from nonpotential entrepreneurs, from the 51.1 percent of the respondents not included in Figure 4, and from the 10.8 percent of the total sample who answered “nothing done so far” (this percentage is considered in Figure 4). As Liñán (2007) sustains, for this majority of students, “entrepreneurship education should integrate substantial ‘awareness’ contents” (p. 244). Education for starting-up, based predominantly on business planning, should be directed to “individuals already having a high level of intention, and having identified a viable business opportunity, to take the specific steps to start their venture” (p. 244). Combined with the high and much diversified student demand—not restricted to business planning— this highlights a considerable gap in Brazilian entrepreneurship education, which has always been concentrated on business planning (Degen 2009; Guerra and Grazziotin 2010). Thus, this also underscores the importance of increasing and diversifying entrepreneurship education beyond business planning (Challenges 1 and 5). For Liñán (2007), “Only then would the supply of potential entrepreneurs in a society be significantly increased” (p. 244). Table 1 shows that diversification in offerings is a student demand (convergent with Challenge 5), as is greater proximity to and contact with entrepreneurs and their reality (convergent with Challenge 3). This aligns with Neck and Greene’s (2011) criticism of the current emphasis on prediction and business planning for new businesses. For them, the


priority must be learning a method of entrepreneurship, which primarily depends on practical activities (convergent with Challenge 4). The importance of overcoming the challenges of fostering learning through practice and relations—apparently the main one among those presented here—is also emphasized by other authors (European Commission 2008; McCoshan et al. 2010; Surlemont and Kearney 2009). In a future project to reach this desirable mode of entrepreneurship education in Brazil, much would be needed to train more professors and teachers (Challenge 2), as sustained by Lima and Rodrigues (2008). According to them, Brazil has made an important advancement in the first phase of developing entrepreneurship education—its insertion and diffusion in the country. However, training professors/ teachers, as well as improving Brazilian studies on entrepreneurship, is still a challenge to be overcome. If these challenges cause some concern, the problem can be intensified when considering the countereffects of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intention and perceived entrepreneurial self-efficacy (results of the test of H1 and H2) in spite of students’ good evaluations of education quality. However, the effects are not necessarily harmful. A possible explanation for these results is a sorting process, in which entrepreneurship education makes students more conscious about what an entrepreneurial career is and what it would demand of them. This consciousness could help them determine more clearly the attractiveness of having a business. The fact that Brazil has a higher entrepreneurial intention among students in comparison with other countries may possibly cause a greater need for adjustment of their career intentions to a more realistic perspective. This is another possible explanation for entrepreneurship education’s countereffects in Brazil, whereas studies of other countries tend to show positive effects. In the end, the informative signals students may receive from entrepreneurship education about their entrepreneurial aptitude, even if diminishing entrepreneurial intention, can be beneficial for students and society (von Graevenitz, Harhoff, and Weber 2010). Surely, as sustained by these last authors, entrepreneurship education should not convince those not suited to having a business to choose an entrepreneurial career.

Nevertheless, it is important to understand precisely what determines results such as those of the test of H1 and H2 and if the determinants in question are beneficial or not. To do so in future studies, some questions should be answered: Specifically which courses and activities in entrepreneurship are students taking? What are their contents, pedagogical approaches, and pedagogical methods? What are the effects of each one? Considering Lautenschläger and Haase’s (2011) criticism of the current rational-oriented entrepreneurship education, are their contents, pedagogical approaches, and pedagogical methods appropriate for the students? What are the specificities of Brazil and its universities and their impact on entrepreneurial intention and selfefficacy? These questions bring to mind the complex nature of entrepreneurship education, whose characteristics include a great variety of approaches and practices rather than uniformity. This complexity is one of the main difficulties for research in the field and seems to be an important determinant for the existence of the two inconclusive streams of research results presented in this paper.

Conclusions and Implications More Brazilian students have declared that they have considered or have begun creating their own businesses. Universities and colleges can always do more to provide quality assistance in fomenting students’ entrepreneurial intention and good career choice, in general. As sustained by contemporary literature, the ideal would be to offer an experiential context to test entrepreneurial ideas with the support of professors and teachers, practitioners, and other well-prepared collaborators. One of the students’ demands points to this type of improvement. The 66.5 percent of Brazilian students who have already developed their first entrepreneurial ideas could benefit particularly from this type of initiative. Instead of the imprecisions about the nature and consequences of the aforementioned countereffects, some opportunities drafted in this paper could facilitate the task of overcoming the challenges to improve entrepreneurship education: • The propitiousness of students’ positive attitudes and high demand for entrepreneurship education; such an opportunity seems especially attractive to private colleges and

LIMA ET AL.

15

universities, more directly dependent on meeting the demands of their tuition-paying students. • The improvement potential offered by the growing dynamic academic context and professor/teacher interactions, which foments frequent conferences, meetings, and studies dedicated to entrepreneurship and small business, as described in the first pages. • The possibility of improving entrepreneurship education through the exchange of experience between higher education professors, teachers, and directors in conferences, such as REE Satellite Brazil, especially conceived for this. Taking advantage of these opportunities to overcome the five challenges cited could have a positive impact on the careers of many students. Over the medium and long terms, they could even have beneficial impacts on the development of the country, as suggested by the UNCTAD Secretariat Report (UNCTAD Secretariat 2011). Given the potential benefits of the opportunities, their exploitation deserves the attention of students, teachers, professors, researchers, university directors, the government, entrepreneurs, and society in general. For example, these opportunities could be of interest to directors of universities looking to improve higher education by offering courses and activities such as those in Table 1. Our study presents a number of helpful elements to be taken in consideration for this. Entrepreneurship centers have an important role to play at colleges and universities in improving entrepreneurship-related offerings and other activities. One fundamental reason is that their purpose is to promote interest in the theme through lectures, workshops, and other strategies, and also provide practical activities and relationship networks to fortify entrepreneurship among students, professors, and teachers. In fact, it is common for these centers to have links with business incubators and established entrepreneurs to take their role even further. Thus, the idea of creating or improving such centers seems attractive. Some suggestions can also be made for new studies in the field: • More studies focused on comparing institutions, both nationally and internationally,

16

could identify and promote the use of best practices. • More in-depth studies of one or a few institutions could recommend contextualized precise improvements for them. This suggestion is not limited to Brazil. • A complementary study is needed on the specific demands and requirements of women, especially considering the high level of women entrepreneurs in Brazil—49.3 percent of all entrepreneurs responsible for new businesses in the country (Greco et al. 2010)—and the fact that they present a high demand for courses and activities in entrepreneurship. • Further academic research on precisely what it means to be an entrepreneur in Brazil and what is required to be a successful entrepreneur in Brazil would help align educational offerings with the national, economic, social, and cultural contexts. Finally, entrepreneurship and business creation are closely related to the administration of micro and small businesses. After all, the requirements for creating a business are inextricably linked with business management—a task that many believe would be facilitated by improving education with special attention to micro and small businesses (CFA 2006). Thus, expanding and improving course and activity offerings related to entrepreneurship in higher education needs to include micro and smallbusiness administration, as the literature and the students’ demand also indicate.

References Ackerman, D., B. L. Gross, and F. Vigneron (2009). “Peer Observation Reports and Student Evaluations of Teaching: Who Are the Experts?,” The Alberta Journal of Educational Research 55(1), 18–39. Ajzen, I. (1991). Organization Behavioral and Human Decision Process. Chicago, IL: Dorsey Press. ——— (2002). “Perceived Behavioral Control, Self-Efficacy, Locus of Control, and the Theory of Planned Behavior,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 32(1), 1–20. Alvarez, S. A., and L. W. Busenitz (2004). “The Entrepreneurship of Resource-Based Theory,” Journal of Management 27, 755– 775. Anjos, G. C. B., G. F. Fechine, and A. L. Nóbrega (2005). “Percepção Empreendedora


dos Estudantes de Graduação: Um Estudo de Caso no Curso de Administração da UFCG (Univ. Federal de Campina Grande),” paper presented at the annual meeting SEMEAD— Seminários em Administração, FEA-USP, São Paulo, Brazil. http://www.ead.fea.usp.br/ semead/8semead/resultado/trabalhosPDF/ 381.pdf. Accessed on June 10, 2012. Bergmann, H. (2012). “OpportunityRecognition Beliefs among Student Entrepreneurs—Spotting a Business Opportunity from the Ivory Tower,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Boston, MA. Carter, N. M., W. B. Gartner, K. G. Shaver, and E. Gatewood (2003). “The Career Reasons of Nascent Entrepreneurs,” Journal of Business Venturing 18(1), 13–39. CFA (2006). “Pesquisa Nacional 2006: Perfil, Formação, Atuação e Oportunidades de Trabalho do Administrador,” Conselho Federal de Administração (CFA), Brasília, Brazil. Chamard, J. (1989). “Public Education: Its Effect on Entrepreneurial Characteristics,” Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneruship 6(2), 23–30. Chen, C., P. G. Greene, and A. Crick (1998). “Does Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy Distinguish Entrepreneurs from Managers?,” Journal of Business Venturing 13, 295–316. Degen, R. J. (2009). Empreendedor. São Paulo: Pearson. Edström, K. (2008). “Doing Course Evaluation as if Learning Matters Most,” Higher Education Research and Development 27(2), 95–106. European Commission (2008). “Survey of Entrepreneurship in Higher Education in Europe: Main Report. Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry.” http://ec .europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/files/ support_measures/training_education/ highedsurvey_en.pdf. Accessed on June 10, 2012. Everitt, B. S. (2006). The Cambridge Dictionary of Statistics, 3th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fayolle, A., B. Gailly, and N. Lassas-Clerc (2006). “Effect and Counter-effect of Entrepreneurship Education and Social Context on Student’s Intentions,” Estudios de Economia Aplicada 24(2), 509–523. Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior. An Introduc-

tion to Theory and Research. New York: Addison-Wesley. Flores, D. C., M. Hoeltgebaum, and A. Silveira (2008). “O Ensino do Empreendedorismo nos Cursos de Pós-Graduação em Administração no Brasil,” Revista de Negócios 13(2), 93– 104. Franke, N., and C. Luthje (2004). “Entrepreneurial Intentions of Business Students: A Benchmark Study,” International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management 1(3), 269–288. Gasse, Y., and M. Tremblay (2011). “Entrepreneurial Beliefs and Intentions: A CrossCultural Study of University Students in Seven Countries,” International Journal of Business 16(4), 303–314. Goldstein, G., and V. Benassi (2006). “Students’ and Instructors’ Beliefs about Excellent Lecturers and Discussion Leaders,” Research in Higher Education 47(6), 685–707. Greco, S. M. S. S., P. A. Bastos, Jr., J. P. Machado, J. C. Felix, R. G. M. Silvestre, C. A. K. Passos, M. Schlemm, M. L. F. G. Meza, C. R. Rissete, S. K. Cunha, Y. L. M. Bulgacov, D. Camargo, and M. X. Réa (2009). “Empreendedorismo no Brasil: 2008 (GEM 2008),” IBQP: Curitiba, Brazil. Greco, S. M. S. S., R. H. Friedlaender, Jr., E. C. V. G. Duarte, C. R. Rissete, J. C. Felix, M. M. Macedo, and G. Paladino (2010). “Empreendedorismo no Brasil (GEM 2010),” IBQP: Curitiba, Brazil. http://www.sebrae .com.br/customizado/estudos-e-pesquisas/ temas-estrategicos/empreendedorismo/ livro_gem_2010.pdf. Accessed on June 10, 2012 Guerra, M. J., and Z. J. Grazziotin (2010). “Educação Empreendedora nas Universidades Brasileiras,” in Educação Empreendedora: Conceitos, Modelos e Práticas. Ed. R. M. A. Lopes. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier, 67–91. Hair, J. F., R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham, and W. C. Black (2010). Multivariate Data Analisys, 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kourilsky, M. L. (1980). “Predictors of Entrepreneurship in a Simulated Economy,” The Journal of Creative Behavior 14(3), 175– 199. Kourilsky, M. L., and W. B. Walstad (1998). “Entrepreneurship and Female Youth: Knowledge, Attitudes, Gender Differences and Educational Practices,” Journal of Business Venturing 13(1), 77–88.

LIMA ET AL.

17

Krueger, N. F., M. D. Reilly, and A. L. Carsrud (2000). “Competing Models of Entrepreneurial Intentions,” Journal of Business Venturing 15(5–6), 411–432. Lam, T. C. (2006). “Group Problem-Solving among Teachers: A Case Study of How to Improve a Colleague’s Teaching,” Social Psychology of Education 9, 273–299. Lanero, A., J. L. Vázquez, P. Gutiérrez, and M. P. García (2011). “The Impact of Entrepreneurship Education in European Universities: An Intention-Based Approach Analyzed in the Spanish Area,” International Review on Public and Non-Profit Marketing 8(2), 111–130. Lautenschläger, A., and H. Haase (2011). “The Myth of Entrepreneurship Education: Seven Arguments against Teaching Business Creation at Universities,” Journal of Entrepreneurship Education 14, 147–161. Levenson, H. (1973). “Multidimensional Locus of Control in Psychiatric Patients,” Journal of Consulting and Cinical Psychology 41(3), 397–404. Levy, P. S., and S. Lemesshow (1999). Sampling of Populations: Methods and Applications. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Liguori, E., D. Winkel, and J. Vanevenhoven (2010). “The Impact of Entrepreneurial Education: Introducing the Entrepreneurship Education Project,” paper presented at the annual ICSB World Conference, Cincinnati, OH. Lima, E., and L. C. Rodrigues (2008). “Comment Évolue L’entrepreneuriat Dans L’éducation Universitaire Brésilienne?,” in Université et entrepreneuriat. Ed. C. Schmitt. Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy, 107–122. Lima, E., R. M. A. Lopes, V. M. J. Nassif, and D. Silva (2011). “Intenções e Atividades Empreendedoras dos Estudantes Universitários —Relatório do Estudo GUESSS Brasil 2011,” Working Paper, no. 2011-01. Grupo APOE— Grupo de Estudo sobre Administração de Pequenas Organizações e Empreendedorismo, PMDA-UNINOVE, UNINOVE, São Paulo. http://grupoapoe.wordpress.com/ nossos-cadernos-de-pesquisa/. Accessed on November 14, 2012. Liñán, F. (2007). “The Role of Entrepreneurship Education in the Entrepreneurial Process,” in Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education, v. 1: A General Perspective. Ed. A. Fayolle. Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar.

18

Liñán, F., and Y. W. Chen (2009). “Development and Cross-Cultural Application of a Specific Instrument to Measure Entrepreneurial Intentions,” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 33(3), 593–617. Lopes, R. M. A. (Ed.) (2010). Educação Empreendedora: Conceitos, Modelos e Práticas. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier, São Paulo: Sebrae. McCoshan, A., P. Lloyd, M. Blakemore, D. Gluck, J. Betts, M. Lepropre, and N. McDonald (2010). “Towards Greater Cooperation and Coherence in Entrepreneurship Education,” European Commission, Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry. http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/ sme/promoting-entrepreneurship/education -training-entrepreneurship/reflection-panels/ files/entr_education_panel_en.pdf. Accessed on June 10, 2012. Miller, B., J. Bell, M. Palmer, A. Gonzalez, and P. Petroleum (2009). “Predictors of Entrepreneurial Intentions: A Quasi-Experiment Comparing Students Enrolled in Introductory Management and Entrepreneurship Classes,” Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship 21(2), 39–62. Neck, H., and P. G. Greene (2011). “Entrepreneurship Education: Known Worlds and New Frontiers,” Journal of Small Business Management 49(1), 55–70. Oosterbeek, H., M. van Praag, and A. Ijsselstein (2010). “The Impact of Entrepreneurship Education on Entrepreneurship Skills and Motivation,” European Economic Review 54(3), 442–454. Perrin, D. G. (2009). “The Future of Curriculum (Editorial),” International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning 6(7), 1–2. Peterman, N. E., and J. Kennedy (2003). “Enterprise Education: Influencing Students’ Perceptions of Entrepreneurship,” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 28(2), 129– 144. Pihie, Z. A. L. (2009). “Entrepreneurship as a Career Choice: An Analysis of Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy and Intention of University Students,” European Journal of Social Sciences 9(2), 338–349. Provençal, J. (2012). “Simon Fraser University Project on Student Evaluation of Teaching and Courses—Report on Key Research Findings.” http://www.sfu.ca/content/dam/ sfu/teachevalproject/SCUTL_report1_revised


May2012.pdf. Accessed on November 7, 2012. Rae, D., and M. Carswell (2000). “Using a Lifestory Approach in Entrepreneurial Learning: The Development of a Conceptual Model and its Implications in the Design of Learning Experiences,” Education + Training 42(4/5), 220–227. Rauch, A., and M. Frese (2000). “Psychological Approaches to Entrepreneurial Success: A General Model and an Overview of Findings,” in International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Ed. Cooper, C. L. and I. T. Robertson. Chichester: Wiley, 101–142. Segal, G., D. Borgia, and J. Schoenfeld (2005). “The Motivation to Become an Entrepreneur,” International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research 11(1), 42–57. Sieger, P., U. Fueglistaller, and T. Zellweger (2011). “Entrepreneurial Intentions and Activities of Students Across the World. International Report of the GUESSS Project 2011,” St.Gallen: Swiss Research Institute of Small Business and Entrepreneurship at the University of St.Gallen (KMU-HSG). http://www .guesssurvey.org/PDF/2011/GUESSS_INT _2011_FINAL.pdf. Accessed on June 10, 2012. Souitaris, V., S. Zerbinati, and A. Al-Laham (2007). “Do Entrepreneurship Programs Raise Entrepreneurial Intention of Science and Engineering Students? The Effect of Learning, Inspiration and Resources,” Journal of Business Venturing 22, 566– 591. Suedekum, G., and A. Miller (2011). “Empreendedorismo nas Universidades Brasileiras,” Endeavor Brasil, São Paulo. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6ZW664B 0pZWdGIwNE9UVWJRZFNWaUVZUllrcmY5 dw/edit?pli=1. Accessed on June 10, 2012.

Surlemont, B., and P. Kearney (2009). Pédagogie et esprit d’entreprendre. Brussels: De Boeck. Tran, V.-T. (2011). “La Perception de la Carrière Entrepreneuriale des Étudiants Vietnamiens,” paper presented at the International Conference—Contributions of Social Sciences—Humanity in Economic and Social ˆ´ c teˆ´, ¯Dóng góp Development (Ho ˆ· i tha? o quo ? ˆ· i—nhân va˘n trong phát cua khoa ho·c xã ho ? ˆ· i), Hanoi. trieˆn kinh teˆ´—xã ho UNCTAD Secretariat (2011). “Entrepreneurship Education, Innovation and CapacityBuilding in Developing Countries,” United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Geneva. http://unctad .org/en/docs/ciimem1d9_en.pdf. Accessed on June 10, 2012. Von Graevenitz, G., D. Harhoff, and R. Weber (2010). “The Effects of Entrepreneurship Education,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 76(1), 90–112. Whitlock, D. M., and R. J. Masters (1996). “Influences on Business Students’ Decisions to Pursue Entrepreneurial Opportunities or Traditional Career Path,” San Diego, CA: Small Business Institute Director’s Association. Wilson, F., J. Kickul, and D. Marlino (2007). “Gender, Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy, and Entrepreneurial Career Intentions: Implications for Entrepreneurship Education,” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 31(3), 387–406. Zellweger, T., P. Sieger, and F. Halter (2011). “Should I Stay or Should I Go? Career Choice Intentions of Students with Family Business Background,” Journal of Business Venturing 26(5), 521–536. Zhao, H., S. E. Seibert, and G. E. Hills (2005). “The Mediating Role of Self-efficacy in the Development of Entrepreneurial Intentions,” Journal of Applied Psychology 90(6), 1265– 1272.

LIMA ET AL.

19