An Investigation of Students’ Social Entrepreneurial Intentions in Syria: An Empirical Test

Medyanik, Olga; Al-Jawni, Farid

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-54419-9_5

Olga Medyanik⁵ &
Farid Al-Jawni⁶

Part of the book series: Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics ((SPBE))

522 Accesses
5 Citations

Abstract

This paper is a contribution to the developing field of so-called fit models, person—entrepreneurship fit model among them. Such models aim at revealing factors that predict a person’s future being involved in social enterprises and his/her success in them. No work of this kind has been conducted in Syria previously. Here, we present our test of Mair and Noboa’s model (published in 2006, see J. Mair, J. Robinson, & K. Hockerts (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship. New York: Palgrave MacMillan) recently extended by Hockerts (Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 2017) which identifies altogether five antecedents determining young people’s SEI: prior experience. empathy, moral obligation, social entrepreneurial self-efficacy and perceived social support. In the test, the empirical data collected from approximately 300 students of Syrian universities business and economics faculties was used.

Several hypotheses were tested in course of the study: those described by K. Hockerts and some other authors. It is well known that, on one hand, social entrepreneurship is a matter of importance especially for women and, on the other hand, that one’s understanding of the significance of social activities (as well as one’s estimating of own opportunities and preferences) is developing gradually with age. Besides, social as well as business innovative ventures are launched usually by younger people. Our results support the common wisdom that gender and year of studying are important factors affecting students’ decision to launch a social venture in future. An important aspect of the study is also comparing the SEI of students of Syrian private and state universities in order to find out if there are any behavioral differences between the two groups. No special teaching courses with a social entrepreneurial profile are being taught yet in Syria neither at private nor at the state universities, so no hypotheses about relation between selecting such courses and students’ SEI is included in the study; but the results of our research call for introducing such teaching courses.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 129.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 169.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 169.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
Article Google Scholar
Al Asadi R., & Abdelrahim A. (2007). Critical analysis and modeling of small business performance (Case study: Syria). Journal of Asia Entrepreneurship and Sustainability, 3(2), ISSN: 1176-8592.
Google Scholar
Bielefeld, W. (2015). Issues in social enterprise and social entrepreneurship. Journal of Public Affairs Education, JPAE, 15(1), 69–86. Indiana University.
Google Scholar
Clarke, D., & Kumar, N. (2015). Microinsurance decisions: Gendered evidence from rural Bangladesh (Discussion paper 01465). Poverty, Health and nutrition division of International Food Policy Research Institute.
Google Scholar
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. B. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malability. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 183–211.
Google Scholar
Haines, R., Street, M. D., & Haines, D. (2008). The influence of perceived importance of an ethical issue on moral judgment, moral obligation, and moral intent. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(2), 387–399.
Article Google Scholar
Hemingway, C. A. (2005). Personal values as a catalyst for corporate social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 60(3), 233–249.
Article Google Scholar
Henderson, A., & Robertson, M. (2000). Who wants to be an entrepreneur? Young adults attitudes to entrepreneurship as a career. Career Development International, 5(N6), 279–287.
Article Google Scholar
Hockerts, K. (2015). Antecedents of social entrepreneurship intentions: A validation study. Social Enterprise Journal, 11(3).
Google Scholar
Hockerts, K. (2017). Determinants of social entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(1), 105–130.
Article Google Scholar
Kaiser, F. G. (2006). A moral extention of the theory of planned behavior: Norms and anticipated feelings of regret in conservationism. Personality and Individual Differences, 41(1), 71–81.
Article Google Scholar
Kashina, M. A., & Utkina, N. Y. (2015). Social entrepreneurship as the “relevant” business for women. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2671872
Kautonenen, T., Van Gelderen, N., & Fink, M. (2013). Robustness of the theory of planned behavior in predicting entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. doi: 10.1111/etap.12056.
Kuratko, D. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends and challenges. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 577–597.
Article Google Scholar
Light, P. (2005, November). Searching for social entrepreneurs: Who they might be, where they might be found, what they do. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action, Washington, DC, pp. 17–19.
Google Scholar
Linñán, F. (2004). Intention-based models of entrepreneurship education. Piccola Impresa/Small Business, N3, 11–35.
Google Scholar
Linñán, F., & Fayolle, A. (2015). A systematic literature review on entrepreneurial intentions: Citation, thematic analyses, and research agenda. New York: Springer Science Business Media.
Google Scholar
Mair, J., & Noboa, E. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: How intentions to create a social venture get formed. In J. Mair, J. Robinson, & K. Hockerts (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship (pp. 121–136). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Chapter Google Scholar
Markman, G. D., & Baron, R. A. (2003). Person-entrepreneurship fit: Why some people are more successful as entrepreneurs than others. Human Resource Management Review, 13, 281–301.
Article Google Scholar
Massarsky, S. (2005, November). Ten characteristics that define social movements in the nonprofit sector. Handout at the session colloquy: Emerging Issues in Social Entrepreneurship Research, at the annual meetings of the Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action, Washington, DC, pp. 17–19.
Google Scholar
Miller, T. L., Grimes, M. G., Mcmullen, J. S., & Vogus, T. J. (2012). Venturing for others with heart and head: How compassion encourages cosial entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Review, 37(4), 616–640.
Article Google Scholar
Naman, J. L., & Slevin, D. P. (1993). Entrepreneurship and the concept of fit: A model and empirical tests. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 137–153.
Article Google Scholar
Ngugi, J. K., Gakure, R. W., Waithaka, S. M., & Kiwara, A. N. (2010). Application of Shapiro’s model in explaining entrepreneurial intentions among university students in Kenya. International Journal of Business and Social Research.
Google Scholar
Nicholls, A. (Ed.). (2004). Social entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable social change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Shapero, A., & Sokol, L. (1982). The social dimentions of entrepreneurship. In C. Kent, D. Sexton, & K. H. Vesper (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship (pp. 72–90). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Google Scholar
Turker, D., & Selcuk, S. S. (2009). Which factors affect entrepreneurial intention of university students? Journal of European Industrial Training, 33(2).
Google Scholar
Weisbrod, B. (1988). The nonprofit economy. Cambridge, MA: Harward University Press.
Google Scholar
Yunus, M., Moingeon, B., & Lehmann-Ortega, L. (2010). Building social business models: Lessons from the Grameen experience. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 308–325.
Article Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Faculty of Business Administration, International University for Science and Technology (IUST), Damascus, Syria
Olga Medyanik
Faculty of Commerce, Applied Statistics Department, State University of Damascus, Damascus, Syria
Farid Al-Jawni

Authors

Olga Medyanik
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Farid Al-Jawni
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olga Medyanik .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Department of Computing Science, University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany
Jorge Marx Gómez
Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Lebanese University, Beirut, Lebanon
Marie K. Aboujaoude
Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Lebanese University, Beirut, Lebanon
Khalil Feghali
Department of Computing Science, University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany
Tariq Mahmoud

Appendices

Appendix 1 1.1 Appendix 1A

1.2 Appendix 1B

Appendix 2: Descriptive Statistics

Table 3 GENDER = Male

Full size table

Appendix 3: T-test

Table 13 Independent samples test—significance levels of a t-test for equality of means

	Significance levels (2-taled) for variable
	GENDER	STATE/PRIVATE	PROVINCE
Questions 1, 3, 5
Equal variances assumed	0.854	0.002	0.001
Equal variances not assumed	0.858	0.005	0.003
Questions 7, 8, 9, 10
Equal variances assumed	0.171	0.037	0.048
Equal variances not assumed	0.191	0.068	0.080
Questions 11, 12, 13
Equal variances assumed	0.735	0.003	0.003
Equal variances not assumed	0.741	0.008	0.006
Questions 15, 16, 17
Equal variances assumed	0.436	0.034	0.035
Equal variances not assumed	0.454	0.043	0.042
Questions 19, 20, 21
Equal variances assumed	0.969	0.132	0.095
Equal variances not assumed	0.969	0.151	0.109

Table 14 T-Test: GENDER

Group statistics
	GENDER	N	Mean	Std. deviation	Std. error mean
25-Questions 1, 3, 5	Male	48	4.2257	0.68459	0.09881
25-Questions 1, 3, 5	Female	64	4.2474	0.55871	0.06984
25-Questions 7, 8, 9, 10	Male	48	4.1163	0.81952	0.11829
25-Questions 7, 8, 9, 10	Female	64	4.3008	0.59920	0.07490
25-Questions 11, 12, 13	Male	48	3.9549	0.67086	0.09683
25-Questions 11, 12, 13	Female	64	3.9948	0.57426	0.07178
25-Questions 15, 16, 17	Male	48	3.6007	0.88642	0.12794
25-Questions 15, 16, 17	Female	64	3.7161	0.67826	0.08478
25-Questions 19, 20, 21	Male	48	3.2188	0.70221	0.10135
25-Questions 19, 20, 21	Female	64	3.2135	0.68652	0.08582

Table 15 T-test: STATE/PRIVATE

Group statistics
	State/private	N	Mean	Std. deviation	Std. error mean
25-Questions 1, 3, 5	Private university	41	4.0000	0.69921	0.10920
25-Questions 1, 3, 5	State university	75	4.3600	0.52565	0.06070
25-Questions 7, 8, 9, 10	Private university	41	4.0447	0.88958	0.13893
25-Questions 7, 8, 9, 10	State university	75	4.3300	0.56394	0.06512
25-Questions 11, 12, 13	Private university	41	3.7317	0.73492	0.11478
25-Questions 11, 12, 13	State university	75	4.0867	0.52301	0.06039
25-Questions 15, 16, 17	Private university	41	3.4309	0.84736	0.13234
25-Questions 15, 16, 17	State university	75	3.7556	0.74047	0.08550
25-Questions 19, 20, 21	Private university	41	3.0732	0.74354	0.11612
25-Questions 19, 20, 21	State university	75	3.2733	0.64296	0.07424

Table 16 T-test: PROVINCE

Group statistics
	PROVINCE	N	Mean	Std. deviation	Std. error mean
25-Questions 1, 3, 5	Dera	71	4.3803	0.50252	0.05964
25-Questions 1, 3, 5	Damascus	41	4.0000	0.69921	0.10920
25-Questions 7, 8, 9, 10	Dera	71	4.3204	0.57055	0.06771
25-Questions 7, 8, 9, 10	Damascus	41	4.0447	0.88958	0.13893
25-Questions 11, 12, 13	Dera	71	4.1009	0.53265	0.06321
25-Questions 11, 12, 13	Damascus	41	3.7317	0.73492	0.11478
25-Questions 15, 16, 17	Dera	71	3.7606	0.74840	0.08882
25-Questions 15, 16, 17	Damascus	41	3.4309	0.84736	0.13234
25-Questions 19, 20, 21	Dera	71	3.2981	0.64113	0.07609
25-Questions 19, 20, 21	Damascus	41	3.0732	0.74354	0.11612

Appendix 4: Anova One-Way Analysis

ANOVA
		Sum of squares	df	Mean square	F	Sig.
25-Questions 1, 3, 5	Between groups	5.651	5	1.130	3.390	0.007
	Within groups	35.340	106	0.333
	Total	40.991	111
25-Questions 7, 8, 9, 10	Between groups	4.108	5	0.822	1.665	0.149
	Within groups	52.308	106	0.493
	Total	56.417	111
25-Questions 11, 12, 13	Between groups	4.953	5	0.991	2.622	0.028
	Within groups	40.054	106	0.378
	Total	45.008	111
25-Questions 15, 16, 17	Between groups	6.677	5	1.335	2.209	0.059
	Within groups	64.076	106	0.604
	Total	70.753	111
25-Questions 19, 20, 21	Between groups	5.653	5	1.131	2.575	0.031
	Within groups	46.549	106	0.439
	Total	52.202	111

Appendix 5: Post Hoc Tests

Table 17 One-way ANOVA for empathy

ANOVA
25-Questions 1, 3, 5
	Sum of squares	df	Mean square	F	Sig.
Between groups	5.651	5	1.130	3.390	0.007
Within groups	35.340	106	0.333
Total	40.991	111

Table 18 Multiple comparisons for empathy

Multiple comparisons
Dependent variable: 25-Questions 1, 3, 5
LSD
(I) FACULTY	(J) FACULTY	Mean difference (I-J)	Std. error	Sig.	95% Confidence interval
(I) FACULTY	(J) FACULTY	Mean difference (I-J)	Std. error	Sig.	Lower bound	Upper bound
Accounting	Law	0.0740	0.15799	0.641	−0.2392	0.3872
	ط § Business	0.6588*	0.17897	0.000	0.3040	1.0137
	Sciences	−0.0078	0.20771	0.970	−0.4197	0.4040
	Humanitarian	−0.1412	0.27656	0.611	−0.6895	0.4071
	Finance	0.2383	0.15043	0.116	−0.0599	0.5365
Law	Accounting	−0.0740	0.15799	0.641	−0.3872	0.2392
	ط §Business	0.5848*	0.19334	0.003	0.2015	0.9682
	Sciences	−0.0818	0.22021	0.711	−0.5184	0.3548
	Humanitarian	−0.2152	0.28606	0.454	−0.7823	0.3520
	Finance	0.1643	0.16726	0.328	−0.1673	0.4960
ط §Business	Accounting	−0.6588*	0.17897	0.000	−1.0137	−0.3040
	Law	−0.5848*	0.19334	0.003	−0.9682	−0.2015
	Sciences	−0.6667*	0.23572	0.006	−1.1340	−0.1993
	Humanitarian	−0.8000*	0.29817	0.008	−1.3911	−0.2089
	Finance	−0.4205*	0.18721	0.027	−0.7917	−0.0493
Sciences	Accounting	0.0078	0.20771	0.970	−0.4040	0.4197
	Law	0.0818	0.22021	0.711	−0.3548	0.5184
	ط §Business	0.6667*	0.23572	0.006	0.1993	1.1340
	Humanitarian	−0.1333	0.31626	0.674	−0.7603	0.4937
	Finance	0.2462	0.21485	0.255	−0.1798	0.6721
Humanitarian	Accounting	0.1412	0.27656	0.611	−0.4071	0.6895
	Law	0.2152	0.28606	0.454	−0.3520	0.7823
	ط§Business	0.8000*	0.29817	0.008	0.2089	1.3911
	Sciences	0.1333	0.31626	0.674	−0.4937	0.7603
	Finance	0.3795	0.28196	0.181	−0.1795	0.9385
Finance	Accounting	−0.2383	0.15043	0.116	−0.5365	0.0599
	Law	−0.1643	0.16726	0.328	−0.4960	0.1673
	ط §Business	0.4205*	0.18721	0.027	0.0493	0.7917
	Sciences	−0.2462	0.21485	0.255	−0.6721	0.1798
	Humanitarian	−0.3795	0.28196	0.181	−0.9385	0.1795

*The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level

Table 19 One-way ANOVA for moral obligation

ANOVA
25-Questions 7, 8, 9, 10
	Sum of squares	df	Mean square	F	Sig.
Between groups	4.108	5	0.822	1.665	0.149
Within groups	52.308	106	0.493
Total	56.417	111

Table 20 One-way ANOVA for SE self-efficacy

ANOVA
25-Questions 11, 12, 13
	Sum of squares	df	Mean square	F	Sig.
Between groups	4.953	5	0.991	2.622	0.028
Within groups	40.054	106	0.378
Total	45.008	111

Table 21 One-way ANOVA for perceived social support

ANOVA
25-Questions 15, 16, 17
	Sum of squares	df	Mean square	F	Sig.
Between groups	6.677	5	1.335	2.209	0.059
Within groups	64.076	106	0.604
Total	70.753	111

Table 22 One-way ANOVA for social entrepreneurial intentions

ANOVA
25-Questions 19, 20, 21
	Sum of squares	df	Mean square	F	Sig.
Between groups	5.653	5	1.131	2.575	0.031
Within groups	46.549	106	0.439
Total	52.202	111

Appendix 6: Means Plots

Appendix 7: Bilateral Correlations Between Variables

Variables’ interpretation:

“Questions 1, 3, 5”—Empathy; “Questions 7, 8, 9, 10”—Moral obligation;
“Questions 11, 12, 13”—Social entrepreneurial self-efficacy; “Questions 15, 16, 17”—Perceived social support;
“Questions 19, 20, 21”—Social entrepreneurial intentions

Correlation
		25-Questions 1, 3, 5	25-Questions 7, 8, 9, 10	25-Questions 11, 12, 13	25-Questions 15, 16, 17	25-Questions 19, 20, 21
25-Questions 1, 3, 5	Pearson correlation	1	0.540**	0.528**	0.302**	0.275**
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.	0.000	0.000	0.001	0.003
	N	116	116	116	116	116
25-Questions 7, 8, 9, 10	Pearson correlation	0.540**	1	0.621**	0.383**	0.179
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000	.	0.000	0.000	0.055
	N	116	116	116	116	116
25-Questions 11, 12, 13	Pearson correlation	0.528**	0.621**	1	0.339**	0.266**
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.001	0.000	0.000	.	0.009
	N	116	116	116	116	116
25-Questions 15, 16, 17	Pearson correlation	0.302**	0.383**	0.339**	1	0.243**
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.001	0.000	0.000	.	0.009
	N	116	116	116	116	116
25-Questions 19, 20, 21	Pearson correlation	0.275**	0.179	0.266**	0.243**	1
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.003	0.055	0.004	0.009	.
	N	116	116	116	116	116

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this paper

Cite this paper

Medyanik, O., Al-Jawni, F. (2017). An Investigation of Students’ Social Entrepreneurial Intentions in Syria: An Empirical Test. In: Marx Gómez, J., Aboujaoude, M., Feghali, K., Mahmoud, T. (eds) Modernizing Academic Teaching and Research in Business and Economics. Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54419-9_5

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54419-9_5
Published: 26 April 2017
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-54418-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-54419-9
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics