2018
DOI: 10.5267/j.msl.2018.4.014
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The effect of perceived barriers on social entrepreneurship intention in Malaysian universities: The moderating role of education

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

3
33
1
9

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 51 publications
(46 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
3
33
1
9
Order By: Relevance
“…Among those models are the Entrepreneurial Event Model (Shapero & Sokol, 1982); the Entrepreneurial Support Model (Turker & Selcuk, 2009); the Intentional Basic Model (Krueger & Carsrud, 1993); the Lüthje & Franke Model (Lüthje & Franke, 2003); the Entrepreneurial Potential Model (Krueger & Brazeal, 1994); the Individual Entrepreneurial Orientation Model (Langkamp Bolton & Lane, 2012); the Davidsson Model (Davidsson, 1995); and the Entrepreneurial Intention-Constraint Model (Trivedi, 2017). Fewer models have been proposed for understanding the social entrepreneurial intention of students (Bacq & Alt, 2018;Barton et al, 2018;Bloom & Smith, 2010;Corner & Ho, 2010;Hockerts, 2015Hockerts, , 2017Kirby & Ibrahim, 2011;Luc, 2018;Mair & Noboa, 2006;Salamzadeh et al, 2013;Shahverdi et al, 2018). One goal of this study was to fill that gap in the literature and propose a methodology grounded in theory that can help universities to design their educational and other interventions aimed at encouraging more students to consider social entrepreneurship as a viable career choice after graduation.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Among those models are the Entrepreneurial Event Model (Shapero & Sokol, 1982); the Entrepreneurial Support Model (Turker & Selcuk, 2009); the Intentional Basic Model (Krueger & Carsrud, 1993); the Lüthje & Franke Model (Lüthje & Franke, 2003); the Entrepreneurial Potential Model (Krueger & Brazeal, 1994); the Individual Entrepreneurial Orientation Model (Langkamp Bolton & Lane, 2012); the Davidsson Model (Davidsson, 1995); and the Entrepreneurial Intention-Constraint Model (Trivedi, 2017). Fewer models have been proposed for understanding the social entrepreneurial intention of students (Bacq & Alt, 2018;Barton et al, 2018;Bloom & Smith, 2010;Corner & Ho, 2010;Hockerts, 2015Hockerts, , 2017Kirby & Ibrahim, 2011;Luc, 2018;Mair & Noboa, 2006;Salamzadeh et al, 2013;Shahverdi et al, 2018). One goal of this study was to fill that gap in the literature and propose a methodology grounded in theory that can help universities to design their educational and other interventions aimed at encouraging more students to consider social entrepreneurship as a viable career choice after graduation.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…No "Perceived access to finance increases social entrepreneurship intention through the determinants of planned behaviour as mediator." Shahverdi, Ismail, & Qureshi (2018) "Lack of support has a negative effect on social entrepreneurial intention. "…”
Section: Nomentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Contrary to the research conclusions of most scholars, several researchers also showed that the positive effect of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intention is not obvious [1,41,42]. Some scholars use entrepreneurship education as a mediating variable to explain this situation [43]. Some scholars believe that entrepreneurship education and other factors, such as self-efficacy [44,45], cultural background [46], entrepreneurship cognition [47], and entrepreneurship role models [3], work together to influence entrepreneurial intentions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Another important aspect of the TMM is the relationship among the three indicators. In fact, most of the research on the entrepreneurship Page 4710 education revolves around entrepreneurial competencies, barriers and intention, but only a few have also explored their relationship [35,43,48]. What needs to be emphasized in this study is that the measurement model we developed pays more attention to the differences among the three indicators rather than the connections among them.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%