Investigating the Potential of Entrepreneurship and its Related Social Factors (Case Study: Tabriz University)

علوم اجتماعی دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

Article 2, Volume 14, Issue 1 - Serial Number 29, September 2017, Pages 33-61   

Document Type: Scientific-Research

DOI: 10.22067/jss.v14i1.41906

Authors

Hossien Mirzaei^{* 1}; Mojtaba Mirzaie¹; Mahnaz Katebi²

¹Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

²Tabriz University

Abstract

Extended Abstract
1. Introduction
Entrepreneurship as one of the most influential circles in development is a method for solving the problem of unemployment in many societies. Entrepreneurs provides opportunities through the proper recognition of these opportunities and using static capital. Through organizing and managing resources, they can operate their ideas and thus help to market activeness. In Iran, in the last century, efforts have been made to develop economic and industrial development, but success has not been so impressive. In the context of the economic growth of society and the issue of unemployment, the unemployment of college graduates is a fundamental issue in our society, and thus conducting relevant research and identifying this critical issue is crucial. One of the most important hypotheses about university graduates' unemployment is the weakness of the entrepreneurial mood and the lack of academic applied training in this context. Accordingly, in this research, we will try to, first, assess the entrepreneurial potential among university students, secondly, identify some factors related to the entrepreneurial potential of the sample, and finally provide the necessary strategies to increase the entrepreneurial potential of the studied society according to empirical results.
2. Theoretical Framework
The term entrepreneurship comes from the French word entreprendre and means commitment. In the Webster University Dictionary, an entrepreneur is someone who organizes, manages, and accepts the dangers of an economic activity. Entrepreneurship has been considered for its importance by various disciplines, as the idea of entrepreneurship was first introduced in economic schools, then, in psychology and sociology schools. Today, the term entrepreneur is presented for various activities and in different perspectives. But theoretical and experimental development of this concept is due to the efforts of thinkers such as Schumpeter (1943), McClelland (1963), and Drucker (1986). In this research, various factors have been used to explain sociological factors influencing entrepreneurship. This research has four hypotheses: 1.There is a meaningful relationship between parents’ parenting and entrepreneurial potential. 2. There is a direct relationship between positive attitude towards self-employment and entrepreneurship potential. 3. Positive assessment of social mobility increases entrepreneurial potential of people 4. Positive attitude toward work and business improves entrepreneurship potential.
3. Methodology
This study is a survey study in terms of content and control conditions. It is cross sectional in terms of time, and applied in terms of goal and is micro in terms of range, mainly because its units are students. Statistical population consists of undergraduate and postgraduate students of Tabriz University in 2013. Total number of undergraduate and graduate students at Tabriz University in 2013 was 15,720. To estimate the sample size, Cochran formula was used, which was estimated to be 321. A random stratified sampling method was used to select the samples. In this study, to determine the measuring tool, formal validity was applied. After initial test and modification, the questionnaire was distributed among management and social science researchers and scholars to standardize questions in order to reach face validity of questionnaire. Alpha Cronbach method was used to assess the reliability of the data collection tool.
4. Results
Based on the average results, the students' entrepreneurial potential score (70.28) was moderate and among the dimensions of the entrepreneurship potential variable, success request (77.30) had the highest score. Also, Pearson correlation showed that there is a significant and direct correlation between entrepreneurial potential and independent variables of research, namely parenting education methods, attitude towards self-employment, assessment of social mobility and attitude to work. In other words, it became clear that with a more positive evaluation of students' attitudes towards self-employment, work and social mobility, their entrepreneurial potential score have been improved. On the other hand, democratic education has strengthened students' entrepreneurship. In regression analysis, it was found that the potential of entrepreneurial sample was more influenced by the attitude toward self-employment (0.34), and that, parents' educational method (0.26), evaluation of social mobility (0.20) and attitude toward work (0.13) have the most significant role in explaining variation of the dependent variable.
5- Conclusion
In this research, the theoretical framework of the research was set by referring to most theoretical perspectives and empirical sources and by using the results obtained from their review. To analyze the social factors affecting entrepreneurial potential, hypothesis research was presented and tested. The results of the research hypothesis showed that the investigated social factors were effective in enhancing the entrepreneurial potential of the students and increasing it. In this regard, we can consider positive changes for the potential of entrepreneurship among students through reinforcing each investigated variable, too. These results confirmed the views of McClelland (1963), Parsons (1998), Joseph McGuire (1962) and other scholars of the field, who emphasized on the effect of these factors on people's entrepreneurship. In terms of empirical research, the results of the present study are consistent with the results of Alborzie (2011) and Zahiri (2006).

Keywords

Entrepreneurial potential; Self-employed; Upbringing style; Social mobility; Attitude to work

References

1. احمدپور، م. (1389). مبانی کارآفرینی. تهران، انتشارات فراندیش.

2. احمدپور داریانی، م. (1379). کارآفرینی (تعاریف، نظریات، الگوها). چاپ اول. تهران: نشر شرکت پردیس.

3. احمدپور داریانی، م. و رضائیان، ع. (1377). سیر تکامل کارآفرینی مفهوم، دیدگاه‌ها، فرآیند و آموزش. مدرس، (6)، 140-120.

4. اخوان، پ. (1386). بررسی عوامل مربوط به پتانسیل کارآفرینی و ارائۀ یک رویکرد چند وجهی (مطالعۀ موردی (صنعت قطعه‌سازی خودرو). مطالعات مدیریت صنعتی، 6 (17)، 133-107.

5. اسعدی، م. (1385). رابطۀ پس‌زمینۀ اجتماعی‌فرهنگی با شیوۀ تربیتی والدین، موفقیت تحصیلی و سبک یادگیری فرزندان. اندیشه و رفتار، 12 (1)، 28-21.

6. اکبری، ک. (1387). توسعۀ کارآفرینی (رویکرد آموزشی). چاپ سوم. تهران: انتشارات جهاد دانشگاهی.

7. باقری، م. (1384). تأثیر بعد خانوار بر تحرک اجتماعی. مطالعات علوم اجتماعی ایران، پیش‌شمارۀ 3، 47-22.

8. جزنی، ن. (1386). کارآفرینی دانش آموختگان دانشگاهی. چاپ اول. تهران: انتشارات پژوهشکده مطالعات فرهنگی و اجتماعی.

9. حسینی، م. و عزیزی، ب. (1386). بررسی عوامل مؤثر در توسعۀ روحیه و مهارت‌های کارآفرینی در میان دانشجویان سال آخر دانشکدۀ کشاورزی دانشگاه تهران. علوم کشاورزی ایران، (2)، 251-241.

10. حیدری، ن. (1388)، بررسی رابطۀ مؤلفه‌های ویژگی‌های روان‌شناختی با کارآفرینی ماه‌نامۀ اجتماعی، اقتصادی، علمی، فرهنگی، (109)، 47-41.

11. خانجانی، ز. (1387). رابطۀ ویژگی‌های کم‌دامنۀ شخصیت با استعداد و عملکرد کارآفرینی دانشجویان دانشگاه تبریز. مطالعات روا‌ن‌شناسی، 4 (1)، 69-47.

12. ربیعی، ع. و صادق‌زاده، ح. (1390). بررسی رابطۀ سرمایۀ اجتماعی بر کارآفرینی. رفاه اجتماعی، 11 (41)، 221-191.

13. رحمانی، ف. (1385). ارتباط شیوۀ تربیتی والدین با میزان مشکلات رفتاری دانش‌آموزان. روان‌پزشکی و روان‌شناسی بالینی ایران، 12 (4)، 370-365.

14. سعیدی کیا، م. (1388). اصول و مبانی کارآفرینی. چاپ سیزدهم. تهران: انتشارات کیا.

15. سلیمی، ج. و عبدی، ع. (1387). کارآفرینی، اصول و مبانی، روش‌های آموزش و نقش دانشگاه در آموزش آن. ماه‌نامۀ اجتماعی، اقتصادی، علمی، فرهنگی، (109)، 59-52.

16. ظهیری، ه. (1385). سنجش پتانسیل کارآفرینی جوانان تحصیل‌کرده تهرانی و عوامل اجتماعی مؤثر بر آن، کار و جامعه، 1 (1)، 73-57.

17. فیض، د. (1388). بررسی تأثیر جنسیت بر ویژگی‌های شخصیتی کارآفرینانۀ دانشجویان (دانشگاه سمنان). مطالعات اجتماعی‌روان‌شناختی زنان، 7 (2)، 44-25.

18. قوامی، ه. (1382)، بررسی خوداشتغالی در مقایسه با اشتغال دستمزدی. تحقیقات اقتصادی، (63)، 172-151.

19. کاظمی‌پور، ش. (1378). الگویی در تعیین پایگاه اجتماعی-اقتصادی افراد و سنجش تحرک اجتماعی با تکیه بر مطالعۀ موردی در شهر تهران. نامۀ علوم اجتماعی، (14)، 172-139.

20. مقصودی، ع. ا. (1379). بررسی تعامل نگرش به کار و وجدان کار. تعاون (110). 46-42.

21. مقیمی، م. (1377). سازمان و مدیریت، رویکرد پژوهشی. تهران: نشر ترمه.

22. مهرآرا، ا. (1387). اخلاق کارآفرینی ضرورتی برای توسعۀ کارآفرینی در آموزش عالی. ماهنامه اجتماعی، اقتصادی، علمی، فرهنگی، (99 و 98)، 47-38.

23. نظری، م. ر. (1389). کارآفرینی. چاپ دوم. تهران: نشر پیام پویا.

24. ویسی، ر. و کریم‌زاده، پ. (1389). توسعۀ روحیۀ کارآفرینی؛ عوامل و راهکارها (مطالعۀ موردی: دانشگاه پیام نور استان مازندران). برنامه و بودجه، (111)، 182-159.

25. هزارجریبی، ج. (1382)،. توسعۀ کارآفرینی و دانش‌آموختگان. پژوهش و برنامه‌ریزی در آموزش عالی، (30)، 177-159.

26. هزارجریبی، ج. و ابراهیمی، م. (1389). بررسی و مقایسۀ رابطۀ بین ویژگی‌های کارآفرینی شاغلین سازمانی (مرد و زن) و رضایت شغلی. جامعه‌شناسی کاربردی، 21 (4)، 18-1.

27. هزارجریبی، ج. (1384). کارآفرینی. چاپ اول. تهران: انتشارات پژوهشکده اقتصادی.

28. Askun, B., & Yıldırım, N. (2011). Insights on entrepreneurship education in public universities in Turkey: creating entrepreneurs or not?. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24, 663-676.

29. Binks, M., Starkey, K., & Mahon, C. L. (2006). Entrepreneurship education and the business school. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 18(1), 1-18.

30. Blackburn, R. M. (1999). The vicious circle of competitive unemployment. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 19(1), 1-26.

31. Carrasco, R. (1999). Transitions to and from self-employment in Spain: An empirical analysis. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61(3), 315-341.

32. Masuda, T. (2006). The determinants of latent entrepreneurship in Japan. Small Business Economics, 26, 227-240.

33. Raichaudhuri, A. (2005). Issues in entrepreneurship education. Decision, 32(2), 73-84.

34. Rasmussen, R. A., & Sorheim, R. (2006). Action-based entrepreneurship education. Technovation, 26(2), 185-194.

35. Reynolds, P., Storey, D. J., & Westhead, P. (1994). Cross national comparisons of the variation in new firm formation rates. Regional Studies, 28, 443–456.

36. Van Praag, M., & Versloot, P. (2007). What is the value of entrepreneurship? A review of recent research. Small Business Economics, 29, 351-382.

37. van Stel, A. J., Carree, M. A., & Thurik, A. R. (2004). The effect of entrepreneurship on national economic growth: An analysis using the GEM database (No. 3404). Papers on entrepreneurship, growth and public policy.