Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Women STEM faculty’s intentions to engage in entrepreneurship education programs

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recognizing the socioeconomic importance of STEM-based entrepreneurial initiatives, several entrepreneurship education programs (EEPs) have been initiated to foster and incentivize the translational of academic scientific and technological research into commercially offered products. However, STEM-focused entrepreneurship continues to be challenged by diversity, equity, and inclusion issues, with limited research examining women STEM faculty’s perspectives in regard with EEPs. We argue that to develop EEPs that are inclusive to women, one of the foremost needs is to better understand their intentions behind engagement in EEPs. The purpose of this qualitative study is to investigate women STEM faculty’s intentions to engage in entrepreneurship education programs. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 32 self-identified women STEM faculty who have (n = 13), and have not participated (n = 19) in EEPs. The participants represented different STEM fields and were situated across multiple institutions in the USA. Five core themes emerged from analyzing the qualitative interviews using first and second cycle coding methods. These themes identify different intentions behind women STEM faculty’s engagement in entrepreneurship programming—translation intent, innovation intent, intent to engage students, personal intent, and entrepreneurial intent. Overall, the findings suggest that the singular “venture-creation” focus in EEPs does not sufficiently capture the varied intentions that inform women STEM faculty’s engagement in EEPs. Implications of the findings in regard with improving inclusivity in entrepreneurship program development and implementation, and entrepreneurship education research are discussed. We call for further research that examines how women STEM faculty navigate academic entrepreneurial pathways that include broader issues within the mainstream entrepreneurial ecosystems. We anticipate that continued research efforts paired with administrative implementations will assist in addressing systemic issues and contribute to the broadening participation of STEM women faculty in EEPs.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abreu, M., & Grinevich, V. (2013). The nature of academic entrepreneurship in the UK: Widening the focus on entrepreneurial activities. Research Policy, 42(2), 408–422.

  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (2020). The theory of planned behavior: Frequently asked questions. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(4), 314–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armuña, C., Ramos, S., Juan, J., Feijóo, C., & Arenal, A. (2020). From stand-up to start-up: Exploring entrepreneurship competences and STEM women’s intention. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 16, 69–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ASEE Entrepreneurship Engineering Innovation Division (2023) ASEE Entrepreneurship & Engineering Innovation Division. https://sites.asee.org/ent/

  • Bae, T. J., Qian, S., Miao, C., & Fiet, J. O. (2014). The relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions: A meta–analytic review. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(2), 217–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy. Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, A., Chetty, R., Jaravel, X., Petkova, N., & Van Reenen, J. (2019). Who becomes an inventor in America? The importance of exposure to innovation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 134(2), 647–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birks, M., Chapman, Y., & Francis, K. (2008). Memoing in qualitative research: Probing data and processes. Journal of Research in Nursing, 13(1), 68–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cairns, K. (2013). Ethnographic locations: The geographies of feminist post-structural ethnography. Ethnography and Education, 8(3), 323–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, S., Greenwood, M., Prior, S., Shearer, T., Walkem, K., Young, S., Bywaters, D., & Walker, K. (2020). Purposive sampling: complex or simple? Research case examples. Journal of Research in Nursing, 25(8), 652–661.

  • Case, J. M., & Light, G. (2011). Emerging research methodologies in engineering education research. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(1), 186–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark Blickenstaff, J. (2005). Women and science careers: Leaky pipeline or gender filter? Gender and Education, 17(4), 369–386.

  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203224342

  • Conner, M. (2015). Extending not retiring the theory of planned behaviour: A commentary on Sniehotta. Presseau and Araújo-Soares. Health Psychology Review, 9(2), 141–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conner, M., & Abraham, C. (2001). Conscientiousness and the theory of planned behavior: Toward a more complete model of the antecedents of intentions and behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(11), 1547–1561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, S., & Lucas, W. A. (2006). Developing self-efficacy for innovation and entrepreneurship: An educational approach. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 4, 141–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Paola, N. (2021). Pathways to academic entrepreneurship: The determinants of female scholars’ entrepreneurial intentions. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 46(5), 1417–1441.

  • Downey, L., Lawrence, E., Pyles, M., & Lee, D. (2020). Power, hegemony, and world society theory: A critical evaluation. Socius, 6, 2378023120920059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duval-Couetil, N., & Dyrenfurth, M. (2012). Teaching students to be innovators: Examining competencies and approaches across disciplines. International Journal of Innovation Science, 4(3), 143–154.

  • Engineering Unleashed. https://engineeringunleashed.com/

  • Engle, R., Schlaegel, C., & Delanoë-Gueguen, S. (2011). Social influence, gender, and entrepreneurial intent: A 14 country study. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 24, 471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fayolle, A., & Liñán, F. (2014). The future of research on entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Research, 67(5), 663–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fouad, N. A., Kozlowski, M. B., Singh, R., Linneman, N. G., Schams, S. S., & Weber, K. N. (2020). Exploring the odds: Gender differences in departing the engineering profession. Journal of Career Assessment, 28(3), 446–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilmartin, S. K., Thompson, M. E., Morton, E., Jin, Q., Chen, H. L., Colby, A., & Sheppard, S. D. (2019). Entrepreneurial intent of engineering and business undergraduate students. Journal of Engineering Education, 108(3), 316–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. (2010). Handbook of emergent methods. New York: Guilford Press.

  • Huang-Saad, A. Y., Morton, C. S., & Libarkin, J. C. (2018). Entrepreneurship assessment in higher education: A research review for engineering education researchers. Journal of Engineering Education, 107(2), 263–290.

  • Iglesias-Sánchez, P. P., Jambrino-Maldonado, C., Velasco, A. P., & Kokash, H. (2016). Impact of entrepreneurship programmes on university students. Education+ Training, 58(2), 209–228.

  • Ismail, K., Anuar, M. A., Omar, W. W., Aziz, A., Seohod, K., & Akhtar, C. S. (2015). Entrepreneurial intention, entrepreneurial orientation of faculty and students towards commercialization. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 181, 349–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, T. P. (2014). Snowball sampling: Introduction. Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118445112.stat05720

  • Krueger, N. F., Jr., Reilly, M. D., & Carsrud, A. L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5-6), 411–432.

  • Kurup, P. M., Li, X., Powell, G., & Brown, M. (2019). Building future primary teachers’ capacity in STEM: Based on a platform of beliefs, understandings and intentions. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liñán, F. (2004). Intention-based models of entrepreneurship education. Piccolla Impresa/small Business, 3(1), 11–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liñán, F., Urbano, D., & Guerrero, M. (2011). Regional variations in entrepreneurial cognitions: Start-up intentions of university students in Spain. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 23(3–4), 187–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maheshwari, G., Kha, K. L., & Arokiasamy, A. R. A. (2022). Factors affecting students’ entrepreneurial intentions: A systematic review (2005–2022) for future directions in theory and practice. Management Review Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-022-00289-2

  • Maresch, D., Harms, R., Kailer, N., & Wimmer-Wurm, B. (2016). The impact of entrepreneurship education on the entrepreneurial intention of students in science and engineering versus business studies university programs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 104, 172–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marlow, S., & Swail, J. (2014). Gender, risk and finance: Why can’t a woman be more like a man? Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 26(1–2), 80–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2013.860484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matherne, C. F., III, Bendickson, J. S., Santos, S. C., & Taylor, E. C. (2020). Making sense of entrepreneurial intent: a look at gender and entrepreneurial personal theory. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 26(5), 989–1009.

  • Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2018). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage Publications.

  • Mueller, S. (2011). Increasing entrepreneurial intention: Effective entrepreneurship course characteristics. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 13(1), 55–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, F., & Graham, L. (2007). Buying science and selling science: Gender differences in the market for commercial science. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 657–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neves, S., & Brito, C. (2020). Academic entrepreneurship intentions: A systematic literature review. Journal of Management Development, 39(5), 645–704. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-11-2019-0451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nikou, S., Brännback, M., Carsrud, A. L., & Brush, C. G. (2019). Entrepreneurial intentions and gender: Pathways to start-up. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 11(3), 348–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunkoo, R., & Ramkissoon, H. (2010). Modeling community support for a proposed integrated resort project. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(2), 257–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1609406919899220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papacharisis, V., Simou, K., & Goudas, M. (2003). The relationship between intrinsic motivation and intention towards exercise. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 45(4), 377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitts, J., Sanders-Funnye, S., & Lukenchuk, A. (2014). The promise of hope: A study of educational opportunities for marginalized students of color. Journal of Transformative Education, 12(4), 323–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piva, E., & Rovelli, P. (2022). Mind the gender gap: The impact of university education on the entrepreneurial entry of female and male STEM graduates. Small Business Economics, 59(1), 143–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poggesi, S., Mari, M., & De Vita, L. (2016). What’s new in female entrepreneurship research? Answers from the literature. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(3), 735–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poggesi, S., Mari, M., De Vita, L., & Foss, L. (2020). Women entrepreneurship in STEM fields: Literature review and future research avenues. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 16(1), 17–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramadani, V., Rahman, M. M., Salamzadeh, A., Rahaman, M. S., & Abazi-Alili, H. (2022). Entrepreneurship education and graduates’ entrepreneurial intentions: Does gender matter? A multi-group analysis using AMOS. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 180, 121693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riley, D. (2013). Hidden in plain view: Feminists doing engineering ethics, engineers doing feminist ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(1), 189–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riley, D., Slaton, A. E., Pawley, A. L., Johri, A., & Olds, B. M. (2014). Social justice and inclusion: Women and minorities in engineering (pp. 335–356). Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research.

  • Robinson, S., & Stubberud, H. A. (2014). Elements of entrepreneurial orientation and their relationship to entrepreneurial intent. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 17(2), 1–12.

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (pp. 1–440). Arizona State University.

  • Santos, F. J., Roomi, M. A., & Liñán, F. (2016). About gender differences and the social environment in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Small Business Management, 54(1), 49–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, E., & Carter, S. (2007). Social entrepreneurship: Theoretical antecedents and empirical analysis of entrepreneurial processes and outcomes. Journal of Small Business And Enterprise Development, 14(3), 418–434.

  • Sekliuckiene, J., & Kisielius, E. (2015). Development of social entrepreneurship initiatives: A theoretical framework. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 213, 1015–1019.

  • Schlaegel, C., & Koenig, M. (2014). Determinants of entrepreneurial intent: A meta–analytic test and integration of competing models. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(2), 291–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapero, A., Sokol, L., & The Social Dimensions of Entrepreneurship. (1982). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1497759

  • Shekhar, P., Saad, A. H., & Libarkin, J. (2018). Understanding student participation in entrepreneurship education programs: A critical review. The International Journal of Engineering Education, 34(3), 1060–1072.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shekhar, P., & Huang-Saad, A. (2021). Examining engineering students’ participation in entrepreneurship education programs: Implications for practice. International Journal of STEM Education, 8, 1–15.

  • Sinell, A., Müller-Wieland, R., & Muschner, A. (2018). Gender-specific constraints on academic entrepreneurship and engagement in knowledge and technology transfer. Technology Innovation Management Review, 8(2).

  • Singh, R., Fouad, N. A., Fitzpatrick, M. E., Liu, J. P., Cappaert, K. J., & Figuereido, C. (2013). Stemming the tide: Predicting women engineers’ intentions to leave. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(3), 281–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sniehotta, F. F., Presseau, J., & Araújo-Soares, V. (2014). Time to retire the theory of planned behaviour. Health Psychology Review, 8(1), 1–7.

  • Tinkler, J. E., Whittington, K. B., Ku, M. C., & Davies, A. R. (2015). Gender and venture capital decision-making: The effects of technical background and social capital on entrepreneurial evaluations. Social Science Research, 51, 1–16.

  • Treanor, L. (2022). Gender, STEM women and entrepreneurship: A review and future research directions. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 14(4), 499–520.

  • Turner, S. L., Joeng, J. R., Sims, M. D., Dade, S. N., & Reid, M. F. (2019). SES, gender, and STEM career interests, goals, and actions: A test of SCCT. Journal of Career Assessment, 27(1), 134–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Ewijk, A. R., & Belghiti-Mahut, S. (2019). Context, gender and entrepreneurial intentions: How entrepreneurship education changes the equation. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 11(1), 75–98.

  • VentureWell. https://venturewell.org/

  • Weeks, J. (2007). The 2016 state of women-owned businesses report (p. 2016). Commissioned by American Express OPEN.

  • Weilerstein, P., & Byers, T. (2016). Guest editorial: Entrepreneurship and innovation in engineering education. Advances in Engineering Education, 5(1), 1–9.

  • Zhang, P., Wang, D. D., & Owen, C. L. (2015). A study of entrepreneurial intention of university students. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 5(1), 61–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful to Dr. Aileen Huang-Saad for her support and guidance in envisioning this project.

Funding

This work is supported by the US National Science Foundation through grant number 2126978. The opinions are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. New Jersey Institute of Technology, 323 Dr Martin Luther King Jr Blvd, Newark, NJ, 07102, USA

    Prateek Shekhar, Jacqueline Handley & Aida Lopez Ruiz

  2. Purdue University, 401 Grant St, West Lafayette, IN, 47906, USA

    Lisa Bosman

Authors
  1. Prateek Shekhar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jacqueline Handley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Aida Lopez Ruiz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lisa Bosman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Prateek Shekhar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Appendix

Appendix

Theme

Constituent codes

Entrepreneurial intent

Business success; promising business

Intent to engage students

Students interest in entrepreneurship; teaching students

Personal intent

Family

Translation intent

Application; impact; real world connection; translation; and things people need/use

Innovation intent

Engaging in innovation

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shekhar, P., Handley, J., Ruiz, A.L. et al. Women STEM faculty’s intentions to engage in entrepreneurship education programs. High Educ 87, 1865–1884 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01095-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01095-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation