Sustainability 12 01267 PDF

sustainability
Article
Entrepreneurship Education through Successful
Entrepreneurial Models in Higher
Education Institutions
Gabriela Boldureanu 1, *, Alina Măriuca Ionescu 1 , Ana-Maria Bercu 2 ,
Maria Viorica Bedrule-Grigorut, ă 1 and Daniel Boldureanu 3
1 Department of Management, Marketing and Business Administration, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of
Iasi, 700506 Iasi, Romania; [email protected] (A.M.I.); [email protected] (M.V.B.-G.)
2 Department of Finance, Money and Public Administration, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iasi,
700506 Iasi, Romania; [email protected]
3 Department of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Medical Bioengineering, Grigore T. Popa University of
Medicine and Pharmacy of Iasi, 700115 Iasi, Romania; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +40-745934720

Received: 25 October 2019; Accepted: 5 February 2020; Published: 10 February 2020
Abstract: In higher education institutions, entrepreneurship learning based on successful

entrepreneurial role models may promote education for sustainable development. Several theoretical
perspectives, such as the human capital theory, the entrepreneurial self-efficacy and self-determination
theory, argue that entrepreneurship education is positively correlated with entrepreneurial intentions
of students, as it provides adequate know-how and skills and motivates them to develop
their entrepreneurial careers. In entrepreneurship education programmes, exposure to successful
entrepreneurial models could be a significant factor for stimulating students’ confidence in their ability
to start a business and for improving their attitudes towards entrepreneurship. This study aims (i)
to identify characteristics viewed by students as being specific to a successful entrepreneur, (ii) to
establish the influence of exposure to successful entrepreneurial role models (chosen by students)
during entrepreneurship education classes on student entrepreneurial intentions, and (iii) to assess
how such exposure influences the attitudes of students towards entrepreneurship. For this purpose, the
authors ran a pilot experiment with 30 graduate students enrolled in a Business Creation course using
a research methodology that combined qualitative techniques with quantitative measures. Content
and statistical analyses were utilised to examine differences in student entrepreneurial intentions
and attitudes towards entrepreneurship after being exposed to successful entrepreneurial models.
Our study provides evidence that entrepreneurship education based on successful entrepreneurial
role models may positively influence the entrepreneurial attitudes and intentions of students and
could lead to higher orientation of student perception towards social benefits of entrepreneurship
(new jobs) compared to financial ones (high income). However, our findings stress that if educators
want to improve the efficiency of education focused on developing entrepreneurial skills, graduate
programmes should be designed differently for business and non-business students, since studying
successful entrepreneurial stories impacts these two groups differently.
Keywords: entrepreneurship education; entrepreneurial role model; entrepreneurial intention;

successful entrepreneurs
1. Introduction
Entrepreneurship is a key element for any country aiming to be competitive in the knowledge-based
global market due to the fact that it has been generally viewed as a method promoting economic
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1267; doi:10.3390/su12031267 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 1267 2 of 33
growth, creativity, and innovation. This view has led to a growing interest in developing educational
programmes that encourage and enhance entrepreneurship.
Although a consensus has not been reached on whether entrepreneurship can be encouraged
through education, a significant amount of literature on this issue [1–5] acknowledges the positive
contribution of entrepreneurship education on the development of people’s know-how, skills, as well
as on the enhancement of entrepreneurial attitude and intention.
As for the integration of entrepreneurship education into higher education, studies [6,7] stress
its importance, so that 21st century universities can become important engines of technological
development and economic growth.
Inclusion into academic programmes of specific disciplines dealing with company creation [8],
creation of self-employment support units and university seedbed development, or creativity and
entrepreneurship workshops are a few examples of initiatives developed within universities aimed to
encourage students to create companies [5]. Moreover, educational institutions make yearly efforts to
provide students with entrepreneurial role models in the classrooms [9].
In Romania, starting in 2002, the Ministry of Education and Research, mostly due to the pressure
of international programmes, introduced the discipline Entrepreneurial Education into secondary
education curricula, and later, in 2013, into higher education programmes when the EU adopted
the 2020 Entrepreneurship Action Plan [10], which, along with other provisions, streamlined the
development of entrepreneurship education and training.
In the last years, Romanian universities have taken significant steps to integrate entrepreneurship
education into academic programmes at all higher education insitutions. These measures mainly
include introduction of theoretical courses on entrepreneurship into the curricula for undergraduate
and graduate students, and organization of events promoting entrepreneurship. These events are
aimed to create and develop a pro-entrepreneurial attitude among students and to equip them with
knowledge on entrepreneurship to make them view entrepreneurship as a viable career option [11].
Communication with the business community and student involvement in this process have been
facilitated through business hub infrastructure. Student entrepreneurial associations and technology
transfer centres have been set up in several Romanian universities, but there are still only a few
such centres.
Even if there had been several initiatives employing different pedagogical designs for
entrepreneurship education, things have started to change quite recently, and few attempts have
been undertaken to assess how different teaching methods of entrepreneurship education influence
the attitude towards entrepreneurship and the entrepreneurial intentions of students in Romanian
universities. Even less studied is the degree to which pedagogical design of entrepreneurship
education within master’s programmes has similar or different effects on different BA degree graduates.
In fact, researchers identified the need of deeper investigation that directly links student/graduate
entrepreneurial outcomes to different pedagogical methods [12], as well as the need to consider how
the contextual factors, such as student background in entrepreneurship education, impact research [13].
This study fills this knowledge gap and describes a pilot experience that was carried out with
graduate students enrolled in a Business Creation course in a Romanian university, with the aim
to assess the influence of exposure to successful entrepreneurial models on students by taking into
consideration the views of students on entrepreneurial success. This way, each participant chooses his
or her own model, learning from it, but also learns from the role models chosen by their peers.
Individuals are attracted to role models they perceive as being similar to them in terms of their
characteristics, behaviour or goals (role aspect), and from whom they can learn specific skills or
competencies (model aspect) [9]. Therefore, a successful entrepreneur possessing such characteristics
could enable an individual to cope with the challenges and demands of the business environment.
Studies report that successful entrepreneurial models can have a positive impact on both the attitudes
of individuals towards entrepreneurship and on their entrepreneurial intentions [9,14–24].
Although the existence of entrepreneurial models has become a common practice, the influence
of these role models on entrepreneurial attitudes and intentions of students has not been researched
enough in the academic context.
The goals of our research are threefold: (i) to identify which characteristics students view as
being specific to a successful entrepreneur; (ii) to establish the influence that the exposure to successful
entrepreneurial role models (chosen by students) during entrepreneurship education classes has on
student entrepreneurial intentions; (iii) to establish how this exposure influences the attitudes of
students towards entrepreneurship.
For this purpose, we have designed several research steps. The study first presents the theoretical
framework that includes a literature review of successful entrepreneur profiling and the influence
of entrepreneurial role models on entrepreneurial intention and attitude towards entrepreneurship.
Then, the review is used to formulate the research questions and to streamline the role of student
exposure to successful entrepreneurial models in entrepreneurship education. The next section
describes the research methodology (sample and data collection, research steps, used methods).
Finally, we discuss the main results concerning student perceptions of successful entrepreneur profiles,
and present our findings on how student perceptions of entrepreneurship have changed due to their
exposure to successful entrepreneurial models.
2. Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses
2.1. Successful Entrepreneur Profile

Both researchers and experts in entrepreneurship have reported that establishment of new
companies is a key element in the process of development and growth [25], the entrepreneur being
defined as an individual undertaking risks, making plans, supervising and monitoring, organizing and
controlling the business [26], as well as maximizing business opportunities [27], taking the initiatives,
organizing the socio-economic mechanisms and accepting the risk of failure [28], being a leader and an
innovator [29].
William Gartner [30] conducted an extensive study comparing the main research on
entrepreneurship. Gartner’s study reported on a number of characteristics of entrepreneurs, such as
preference for risk, independence, optimism, creativity, initiative, leadership, desire for success, etc.
In more recent studies, there are found features outlining the profile of a classical entrepreneur,
namely, a developed sense of independence, the desire to take responsibility and run a business,
increased capacity for intense and lasting effort, preference for moderate risk-taking in business;
rapid reaction, prompt decisions in current activity, efficient organization of working time [31].
What distinguishes a classical entrepreneur from a modern one are the characteristics enabling an
entrepreneur cope with the ongoing challenges and demands of the business environment. A study
conducted in northeastern Thailand on a sample of 391 entrepreneurs identified a series of characteristics
of successful entrepreneurs: a spirit of business, proactivity, competitive advantage, sustainability,
orientation towards human capital and company performance [32]. Also, the characteristics of
successful entrepreneurs differ by stage of business development [33]. However, regardless of their
business development stage, the orientation towards the future and the less fatalistic perspective are
linked to greater success in entrepreneurship.
A more unconventional approach to successful entrepreneur profiling was suggested by
Jeremy Snepar [34], who contends that entrepreneurs feel comfortable with professional discomfort.
So, entrepreneurs risk their reputations and livelihoods to follow an unconventional or unpopular
approach to solving a problem [34] (p. 1521).
It seems that today resilience is one of the most important features of successful entrepreneurs.
Resilience enables entrepreneurs to overcome crises, critical situations, and to get over failures,
emerging even stronger than before. Entrepreneurial resilience is a less debated topic, the main two
lines of research being focused on behaviour and experience of parents and the two process-linked
factors (entrepreneurial learning and experience, as well as the entrepreneur’s professional attitude
and behaviour) [35].
2.2. Entrepreneurial Role Models

It has generally been accepted that the existence of an entrepreneurial role model is a key influence
factor in the entrepreneur’s decision to start a business. A significant part of the literature in the
field on the decision to start a business includes background or antecedent factors that underlie the
entrepreneurial decision, including the role model’s influence on the thinking process of the potential
entrepreneur [36].
The effect of role models is a sociological phenomenon that has been extensively studied [37,38].
In entrepreneurship research [21,39], it is used as an informal institutional factor that can act as an
incentive for entrepreneurial activity [23]. Fornahl [20] noted the positive role that entrepreneurial
examples play among the institutional factors influencing entrepreneurial activity.
Individual decisions to adopt certain behaviour are often influenced by the behaviour and opinions
of other individuals through the example provided and the identity they display [40]. This is also
the case with occupational choice [41], in general, and the choice of becoming an entrepreneur [18],
in particular, as many entrepreneurs declare that the decision to go into business and the way they
have developed their businesses have been influenced by the examples of other people who have
served as entrepreneurial models [21]. Role models refer to individuals who provide examples that
can be followed by others, and which may stimulate or inspire other individuals to make certain
decisions, including career-related decisions, and to reach certain goals [21]. Gibson [38,42] defined
the role model as a person whom an individual perceives as being, to a certain extent, similar to him-
or herself, and, because of this similarity, the individual wishes to imitate (or to avoid, in particular)
certain characteristics or behaviours of that person [43].
In his dissertation, McCullough [43] adopts a slightly modified version of Gibson’s definition,
describing the role model as a person with whom an individual identifies him- or herself to some
degree, and whom one may wish to emulate (or avoid). This definition enables the observer to select a
role model without recognizing the resemblance and, nevertheless, wishing to emulate the model in
whole or in part.
Gibson [38] (p. 136) clarifies the meaning of the role model expression on the basis of two
theoretical constructs, namely, ‘the concept of role and the tendency of individuals to identify with
other people . . . and the concept of modeling, the psychological matching of cognitive skills and
patterns of behavior between a person and an observing individual’. So individuals are attracted
to role models that are perceived as similar in terms of their characteristics, behaviour, or goals
(role aspect) and from whom they are able to learn certain skills or competencies (model aspect) [9].
In the literature [26,30], the phenomenon of role models is explained by the theory of identification
(role) and the theory of social learning.
As noted by Bosma et al. [9], role identification can be seen as a cognitive response to an
individual’s conviction that another person’s characteristics (the model) are close to their own
motivations and character [44], and that this model plays a desirable social role or occupies an attractive
position [45]. Bosma et al. [9] observed that identification of roles can be manifested by forming or
adapting individual preferences [46], through imitative behaviour [44], motivational and inspirational
effects [41], or legitimacy and encouragement [47–49].
Social learning theory and social cognitive theory [50,51] argue that individuals are attracted to role
models that can help them develop further by learning new tasks and skills [38]. Therefore, individuals
learn by following examples of people who perform well in an area in which they themselves want to
be involved or excel [9].
Entrepreneurial role models can range from people in the individual’s close circle (relatives, friends,
colleagues, acquaintances) to well-known national or international personalities, but with whom the
individual has not interacted personally, such as Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, for example. A role model
can be a real one, when an individual has a direct relationship with the role model, or it can be a virtual
role model, with no interaction, but who can be followed on TV, performing live, on radio, or reading
about it [43].
Role models can influence the entrepreneurial approaches of individuals in different stages
of the entrepreneurial process, fulfilling varied roles, such as facilitator in detecting opportunities
and generating business ideas in the innovation stage, stimulating in the event-triggering stage and
legitimizing during the implementation phase, as getting to know successful entrepreneurs makes the
act of becoming one yourself seem more credible [16]. People in close contact with an entrepreneurial
role model are more inclined to develop a desire and confidence to create their own businesss [23].
Also, the influence of entrepreneurial models can appear in various forms [23]:
• A greater likelihood for a person to adopt entrepreneurial intentions when he or she is personally
acquainted with individuals who have recently become entrepreneurs. The presence of an
entrepreneurial role model in the family or in close social environment can make a person
contemplate such a career alternative and/or shift cognitive attention towards the search for
possible entrepreneurial opportunities [19].
• A focus of the individual’s attention on specific opportunities inspired by activities of the role
model that modify his/her cognitive perceptions as to favour his/her decision to actively pursue
entrepreneurial activities aimed at creating his/her own business [21].
• Influence of assessing an option to set up a business through cognitive representation and
comparison with other existing entrepreneurs [20]. The final decision to actually start a new
business is most often based on the subjective assessment of the founding decision over other
alternative career and life options [38]. According to Fornahl [20], positive entrepreneurial
examples can lead to an increased likelihood for setting up a firm.
Bosma et al. [9] identified three main lines of research in the empirical literature exploring the link
between the presence of entrepreneurial models and the decision to become an entrepreneur: effect of
parental role models, influence of networks and peer groups, and regional perspective (or regions with
high levels of entrepreneurship).
The first line of research investigates the effect of parental role models, respectively, the existence
of a positive relationship between the decision to start a business and having parents who are, or have
been, entrepreneurs, a relationship explained especially through genetic inheritance, the possibility of
learning from the business and family, or having financial support. Studies on family background
pinpoint the positive relationship between the presence of role models in the family and the emergence
of entrepreneurs. Collins, Moore, and Unwalla [52] were the first who empirically verified whether the
influence to set up a new venture goes back to entrepreneur’s childhood and family circumstances [8].
Fayolle, Gailly, and Lassas-Clerc [2] stated that business creation intentions are stronger when the
degree of self-efficacy increases due to presence of entrepreneurial role models, and when influence
comes from several close relatives.
Parental role models can influence children in becoming entrepreneurs. According to Brennan,
Morris and Schindehutte [53], children of entrepreneurial mothers, who perceive their role models as
positive and successful, are prone to imitate these role models [54]. At the same time, many business
owners involve children in their businesses from an early age. This situation increases the likelihood
that a young potential entrepreneur will develop an affinity for entrepreneurship more or less
through osmosis and will absorb useful entrepreneurial knowledge and experience when entering the
entrepreneurial world by joining a family business, starting a new business, or buying a business [36].
The second line of research discusses the influence of networks and peer groups on the decision
to become an entrepreneur by offering entrepreneurial models and access to information.
Baucus and Human [55] studied retirees from companies included in the Fortune 500 who then
started their own businesses, and found three main factors that positively affect the entrepreneurial
process [36]: networking, vision of departure (voluntary vs. involuntary), and previous employment
experience, which included either owning a business or having an entrepreneurial role model.
Another way in which social networks and support groups contribute to stimulating
entrepreneurial actions is given by the fact that entrepreneurs use their social networks to search for
information about markets, industries, administrative regulations, and potential pitfalls [9].
The third line of research that focuses on the association between exposure to entrepreneurial
models and the decision to become an entrepreneur is one that adopts an aggregate, regional
perspective, in which regions with high levels of entrepreneurship can encourage the emergence of
new entrepreneurial initiatives by facilitating finding a suitable example or obtaining information or
resources from other entrepreneurs. At the same time, the presence of other entrepreneurs contributes
to the legitimation of aspirations and entrepreneurial actions [49].
Concerning the influence of role models on entrepreneurial career choice, Karimi et al. [56]
identified in the literature two hypotheses on the relationship between role models and career choice:
the first hypothesis is based on Social Cognitive Career Theory [57] and argues that career models serve
as contextual support, having a direct effect on the career decision-making process, which means that
the presence of role models or their knowledge directly influences entrepreneurial career intentions and
options [22]; the second hypothesis is based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour [15], and suggests that
role models, as exogenous factors, indirectly influence career-related intention through its antecedents,
and this means that role models affect entrepreneurial intention, but only if they affect the person’s
attitude [14,15] and perceived ability to succeed in a new business. Kolvereid [17] also concluded that
role models indirectly influence intentions by their effect on the antecedents of career choice intentions,
namely attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control [56].
2.3. Entrepreneurship Education of Students Using Successful Entrepreneurial Role Models

Watson [58] points out that education of an entrepreneur differs from simple employee training,
underlining the major role of education and study on final results.
As for entrepreneurial education of the young, especially in terms of entrepreneurial spirit
development among this category, the European Commission developed the Entrepreneurship Action
Plan 2020 [10], which is based on the following strategies: development of education and training
in the field of entrepreneurship; creation of proper business environment; models and involvement
of specific groups. Both educational institutions and successful entrepreneurs, who can be true
models in influencing one’s entrepreneurial attitude and intention, can play an important role in the
entrepreneurial education of the young [59,60].
Entrepreneurship education exposes students to examples of successful business planning, or to
proactive interaction with successful practitioners [61,62]. Bae et al. [63] argue that such pedagogical
elements provide coping strategies, which contribute to maintaining motivation and interest, leading to
higher expectations of success [64] and to increased entrepreneurial self-efficacy [65].
Gibson [38] (p. 149) observes that the importance of role models consists of three interdependent
functions: “to provide learning, to provide motivation and inspiration and to help individuals define
their self-concept”. Nauta and Kokaly [66] also argue that role models can provide to entrepreneurs
practical support and guidance, calling this component learning through support.
Bosma et al. [9] summarize the functions of entrepreneurial role models defined by Gibson [38]
and by Nauta and Kokaly [66] as four interdependent functions: (i) inspiration and motivation (the role
model creates awareness and motivates people to start), (ii) increasing self-efficacy (the role model
makes people confident that they can reach a certain goal); (iii) learning by example (the role model
provides guidance for action) and (iv) learning through support (the role model provides assistance or
practical advice). The authors argue that the first two functions result (indirectly) from the theory of
role identification, while the third and fourth are implied by the theory of social learning.
2.3.1. Entrepreneurship Education through Successful Entrepreneurial Models and Entrepreneurial

Intention
Bae et al. [63] discuss the two theoretical perspectives arguing that entrepreneurship education
is positively correlated with entrepreneurial intentions: the human capital theory [67] and the
entrepreneurial self-efficacy [68].
Recent empirical studies [69–71] confirm the link between human, financial, and social capital,
on the one hand, and entrepreneurship, on the other hand. In this context, entrepreneurial role models
can be seen as a possible source of relevant human or social capital.
Martin, McNally, and Kay [72] found a statistically significant relationship between
entrepreneurship education and human capital outcomes, such as knowledge and skills related
to entrepreneurship, a positive perception of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial intentions.
According to findings of Liñán and Fayolle [73] in their extensive systematic literature review on
entrepreneurial intentions, among the background factors that influence the entrepreneurial intentions
of individuals, it is the influence of role models that attracts the greatest attention. In this respect,
family role models seem to be more prominent [74], but other models also exert a positive effect [9,75].
Studies have shown that between 35–70% of entrepreneurs had entrepreneurial role models [14].
Informal surveys among students from entrepreneurship courses at universities support this claim.
The reasoning behind this vision is that business owners share their wisdom and practical knowledge
with students [36].
Educational institutions and media every year strive to provide students and the general public
with entrepreneurial role models in the classroom, on TV, and in the press [21].
Entrepreneurship education is also associated with entrepreneurial self-efficacy that can enhance
entrepreneurial intentions [65,76], as it refers to confidence in one’s ability to successfully perform
various roles and tasks related to entrepreneurship [63]. Role models, in particular, can stimulate
self-efficacy by providing vicarious experiences to students. They can also enhance individual
self-efficacy by providing encouragement and feedback, as well as by increasing positive emotional
reactions to entrepreneurship [56].
Recent studies approach the decision to enter and remain in entrepreneurship from the perspective
of individual motivation. The motivational approach to explaining an entrepreneurial behaviour is
based on the idea that a person needs to possess a favourable predisposition towards entrepreneurship
in order to create a business [77]. In this body of theory, Barba-Sánchez and Atienza-Sahuquillo [77] view
a significant contribution from the Expectancy Theory, since rational prioritization influences the effect
of individual intentions on the motivation–decision–action process. Accordingly, the motivation for
behaviour selection (the decision to behave or act in a certain way) is determined by the desirability of the
outcome (what is to be the expected result of that selected behaviour) [77,78]. Therefore, the Expectancy
Theory provides a framework for understanding why and how people choose to be entrepreneurs [79].
In their research, Barba-Sánchez and Atienza-Sahuquillo [77] found evidence that an individual’s
motivation to become self-employed is based on the subjective probability that his or her efforts will
be followed by a specific outcome and the attractiveness of that outcome. They also verified that the
attraction of being self-employed for a given person depends on his/her perception that it will lead to
desirable outcomes.
In the body of theory that studies the role of motivation in the formation of entrepreneurial
intentions, one line of research uses the self-determination theory to explain the motivational processes
involved in an entrepreneurial behaviour. Self-determination theory posits that people tend to move
toward activities that satisfy their inner resources of development and optimal functioning [80].
So, people can be intrinsically or extrinsically motivated, or both, to engage in entrepreneurial
activity [81].
Al-Jubari, Hassan, and Liñán [80] investigated the role of basic psychological needs of autonomy,
competence, and relatedness as conceptualized in self-determination theory in shaping university
student attitudes and intentions towards entrepreneurship. Their most relevant result was the
confirmation that both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations can lead to entrepreneurial intention and,
through it, to actually starting up new ventures.
The results reported by studies such as those of Barba-Sánchez and Atienza-Sahuquillo [77]
and Al-Jubari, Hassan, and Liñán [80] stress the significant role that schools and universities play in
motivating students in the development of their entrepreneurial career. In this regard, role models can
also have a motivational impact [75] on choosing to become an entrepreneur.
2.3.2. Entrepreneurship Education through Successful Entrepreneurial Models and Attitude towards
Entrepreneurship
Previous studies investigating the influence of entrepreneurial models on student perception of
entrepreneurship pay special attention to the exposure of students to local entrepreneurs.
Hartshorn and Parvin [82] suggested a training programme that includes mentorship provided
by local entrepreneurs. In this programme, a mentor is assigned to each student, enabling the student
to take part in all business decisions [83]. This type of training offers to students the opportunity to get
a more precise knowledge of what an entrepreneur is, as well as the opportunity to be introduced as a
potential future entrepreneur into a local business environment [84].
Another method suggested for enriching entrepreneurship knowledge with the help of local
entrepreneurs is by organizing ‘socialization’ seminars [85], where they will be invited along with
important stakeholders to the business community. These meetings give participants the opportunity
to learn who is who in the world of local business, to establish important contacts, to solve certain
doubts they may have, and to strengthen their motivation [83].
Byabashaija and Katono [86] believe that using case studies of local entrepreneurs in teaching
entrepreneurship can be instructive regarding the feasibility of entrepreneurship as a career option.
Van Auken, Fry and Stephens [87] studied the impact of specific activities, in which role models
and students, as potential entrepreneurs, might be involved in the students’ desires to own their
own businesses. They found the activities of role models related to the respondent’s involvement
in professional activities, employment in the business, and discussions about the business to be
significantly related to the interest in starting a business [54].
Karimi et al. [56] propose other ways to include local entrepreneurs in the entrepreneurial
education process, namely, teachers can invite entrepreneurs take part in question and answer sessions
with students, present their success stories, and share their experiences. Invited entrepreneurs can
provide real-life examples of how small businesses are created and run, giving students a clearer sense
of the real world of entrepreneurship and a better understanding of the challenges and opportunities
they may face as entrepreneurs.
According to Urbano et al. [88], universities are ideal scenarios for joining people with
entrepreneurial experience to those who want to create a new venture. Guerrero and Urbano [89]
recommend seminars, business meetings, and labs as places for the interaction between potential role
models and the university students.
The results of the study conducted by Karimi et al. [56] suggest that entrepreneurship education
programmes should consider including contact with entrepreneurial models as part of their curriculum
as these models can stimulate student confidence in their ability to start a business and improve their
attitude towards entrepreneurship.
On long-term, Urbano et al. [88] propose that scenarios where experienced entrepreneurs interact
with potential entrepreneurs should be created to enhance the entrepreneurial attitudes and motivation
toward entrepreneurship within the university community.
In light of the above and in line with our three-fold objective, the key research questions of this
paper are:
RQ1. Which are the characteristics that graduate students use the most to describe a
successful entrepreneur?
RQ2. Does exposure to successful entrepreneurial role models within entrepreneurship education
classes increase the entrepreneurial intentions of graduate students?
RQ3. Does exposure to successful entrepreneurial role models within entrepreneurship education
classes really influence the attitudes of graduate students towards entrepreneurship?
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Participants and Data Collection

This study is based on an experimental session conducted within a course of Business Creation
during one academic semester (15 February 2019–30 May 2019), in which first-year master’s students
enrolled in the Business Administration master’s programme took part. The number of participants was
30 graduates, representing 100% of the students enrolled in this programme. Experiment participants
had different undergraduate backgrounds (law, economics, sports, philosophy, etc.) and fell into
different age groups of graduate students interested in acquiring competences in entrepreneurship.
The sample comprised 53.33% of business-related and 46.67% of non-business related majors (10% Law,
6.67% Humanities, 6.67% Theology, 3.33% Pedagogy, 3.33% Psychology, 3.33% Food Science and
Engineering, 3.33% Medical Bioengineering, 3.33% Physical Education, 3.33% Architecture, 3.33%
Public Administration). It consisted of 9 male (30%) and 21 female students (70%). Most respondents
were aged between 21–25 (70%), with an average age of 26.23. The demographic characteristics of
study participants are shown in Appendix A.
The main reasons for including this group of graduates in the sample were their diverse
undergraduate backgrounds and the fact that they had chosen a master’s programme in business
administration, which made them eligible for becoming future entrepreneurs. Moreover, according to
Barba-Sanchez and Atienza-Sahuquillo [7], the use of student samples in research of entrepreneurial
intentions is adequate as such samples enable researchers to work with individuals currently involved
in real career-choice processes and to examine psychological processes prior to new venture creation as
an alternative to working for somebody else [90].
To reach the study objectives, the pilot experiment was divided into five phases, disaggregated
into the activities listed below:
1. At the beginning of the semester, students were given a questionnaire with closed questions
regarding their entrepreneurial intention and attitude towards entrepreneurship. It included
11 statements related to the following themes: Level of entrepreneurial intention (5 variables),
Personal attitude towards entrepreneurship—What do you associate entrepreneurship with and
to what extent? (6 variables).
2. In order to identify the profile of a successful entrepreneur in the students’ view, they were asked to
write a brief essay outlining what characteristics they consider to define a successful entrepreneur.
3. Each student then had to choose a successful entrepreneurial model, whose success story was
presented in class. Students could either conduct a detailed research about a specific entrepreneur
(and present it to their peers), or choose a successful entrepreneur who gave a presentation on his
or her success story in front of the class. After making presentations, in order to describe the profile
of the successful entrepreneurial model that each student chose, each of them filled in a record of
a successful entrepreneur, in which they provided data on the entrepreneur’s socio-demographic
characteristics and entrepreneurial behaviour (sources of business idea, reasons why he/she went
into business, main sources of funding of the initial business).
4. After exposure to successful entrepreneurial models, students answered a second questionnaire
to assess their entrepreneurial attitudes and intentions after being exposed to successful
entrepreneurial models. The final questionnaire included 11 statements related to the two
themes included in the initial questionnaire: Level of entrepreneurial intention (5 variables),
Personal attitude towards entrepreneurship—What do you associate with entrepreneurship and
to what extent? (6 variables).
5. To identify the students’ perceptions of the influence on their entrepreneurial intentions, they
were asked to write a short essay explaining how their entrepreneurial intentions and attitudes
had been influenced by exposure to successful entrepreneurial models.
3.2. Data Analysis

Following Blenker et al. [91] and Barba-Sanchez and Atienza-Sahuquillo [5], we adopted a research
methodology that integrated qualitative techniques with quantitative measures in order to get an
in-depth understanding of student perceptions of successful entrepreneur profiles and regarding the
dynamics of their attitudes towards entrepreneurship and of their entrepreneurial intentions after
being exposed to successful entrepreneurial role models. To better assess this experiment, we have used
primary sources, i.e., direct interaction with the first-year master’s students in Business Administration,
the target population of our study.
3.2.1. Instruments
Considering the characteristics of this population (graduate students) and the nature of needed
information (personal perceptions of entrepreneurship and evolution of entrepreneurial intentions),
we used a questionnaire in line with Barba-Sanchez and Atienza-Sahuquillo [5] or Romero, Petrescu,
and Balalia (Iosif) [92]. Therefore, we developed a questionnaire on the basis of the reference literature
and applied it to participating students both at the start of the study (February, 2019) to identify
the starting situation in terms of their entrepreneurial intentions and attitudes, and at the end of
the academic semester (May 2019) to analyse and assess the influence of the experiment on their
entrepreneurial intentions and attitudes towards entrepreneurship.
Given that intentions are complex cognitive features, capturing entrepreneurial intentions through
a direct question is not the most adequate option from a methodological standpoint. Following Liñán
and Chen [90] and Romero, Petrescu, and Balalia (Iosif) [92], graduates included in this study were
asked about their level of intention using a series of statements related to entrepreneurial activity.
The questions used were of seven-point Likert type (0 = not at all to 6 = total). The statement ‘I have
serious doubts that I’ll start a business one day’ was formulated in a reverse way in order to control for
the respondent’s accuracy when answering the questions. So, in this case, the lower level of agreement
with the statement also showed higher entrepreneurial intentions of the graduates.
In order to approach the attitudes of students towards entrepreneurship, in accordance with
Romero, Petrescu, and Balalia (Iosif) [92], a set of issues related to being an entrepreneur were presented
to the interviewed graduates to check as to what extent they personally associated these issues with
entrepreneurship. These characteristics were expressed through six statements: being an entrepreneur
implies ‘facing new challenges’, ‘creating jobs for other people’, ‘being creative and innovative’, ‘getting
a high income’, ‘taking calculated risks’ and ‘being independent’. These questions were also presented
as Likert-type scales with seven items (higher values standing for stronger association/attraction).
The questions were divided into two groups: student entrepreneurial intention (5 items) and
student personal attitude towards entrepreneurship (6 items). Both sets of used items were adapted
from the scales developed by Romero, Petrescu, and Balalia (Iosif) [92].
The consistency of items included in the two applied questionnaires was verified using the
Cronbach’s Alpha test (Table 1). The values of Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients range between 0.678 and
0.712 for each of the four sets of items, indicating a good reliability for these constructs. Some studies
view a Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient between 0.6 and 0.7 as showing an acceptable reliability. Still, as our
values were either below or very close to the generally accepted minimum of 0.70 [93], we performed
a principal components factor analysis to each set of items. Although it is adequate for continuous
variables, principal components analysis is also frequently used with ordinal data, such as Likert
scales. Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) Measures higher than 0.50 indicated that a factor analysis may
be useful with our data. The significance levels of Bartlett’s test of sphericity were less than 0.05,
showing significant relationships among variables in each of the four sets of items (Table 2).
Table 1. Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficients.
Cronbach’s Cronbach’s Alpha Based on

Construct No. of Items
Alpha Standardized Items
Entrepreneurial intention before
exposure to successful 5 0.712 0.756
entrepreneurial models
Entrepreneurial intention after
Attitude towards entrepreneurship
before exposure to successful 6 0.678 0.672
after exposure to successful 6 0.702 0.713
Table 2. Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) Measures and the Significance levels of Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity.
No. of Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sig. for Bartlett’s Test of

Construct
Items Sampling Adequacy Sphericity
Entrepreneurial intention before
Entrepreneurial intention after
before exposure to successful 6 0.844 0.000
after exposure to successful 6 0.674 0.000
We used essays as a research instrument in order to learn about student conceptions and to understand
their perceptions on the characteristics of successful entrepreneurs. In line with Mukoroli [94], to assure
the reliability of essays, the teacher sent an email to all the participants explaining the topic of the essay
and outlining the guidelines. The students were instructed to write a short essay of about 10–15 lines
explaining what successful entrepreneur they had chosen, what motivated their choice (taking into account
what criteria), and why they considered the chosen entrepreneur to be a successful one. Participants were
encouraged to ask questions in case of any uncertainty.
At the end of the pilot experiment, students were asked to write a final essay of 20–30 lines
explaining in what way they had been influenced by the presentations on successful entrepreneurs.
3.2.2. Content Analysis

As this was an experimental one-semester-long session within a course of Business Creation,
only the students participating in the course (30) were interviewed to assess the influence of their
exposure to successful entrepreneurial models on their entrepreneurial intentions, this being a new
method of teaching/learning in our institution. For a qualitative research, the sample of 30 respondents
was representative, exceeding the threshold of 12 interviewees required in a qualitative analysis as
suggested by Onwuegbuzie and Collins [95] and Guest, Bunce, and Johnson [96].
We used content analysis to examine student essays in order to identify the characteristics of a
successful entrepreneur in the student view and to assess their perceptions of how their entrepreneurial
intentions and attitudes were influenced by being exposed to successful entrepreneurial models.
The texts were examined minutely as to identify the words and statements describing
entrepreneurial success found in the initial essays. The list of these features is shown in Table 3. In the
case of final essays, the authors searched for the statements describing what students felt regarding the
influence of their participation in the project on their entrepreneurial intentions and attitudes. Citations
from student essays are presented and analysed in Section 4.4.
Table 3. The profile of a successful entrepreneur in the students’ view.
Student/Model Features of a Successful Entrepreneur Defined by Students

Seriousness, ambition, hard work and a continuous desire for improvement; focuses
S1/M1
on development and innovation.
S2/M2 Promotes such values as belief in truth and sincerity.
S3/M3 Power, courage, and wisdom in making business decisions.
S4/M4 Perseverance, morality and risk taking.
Puts the interest of customers and employees on the foreground ‘ . . . even if he has
S5/M5
sometimes lost’.
Paying attention to details, determination (‘started from the bottom, selling
S6/M6
newspapers and now has the largest Romanian restaurant group in the country’).
S7/M7 A leader, paying attention to current global issues.
S8/M8 Perseverance and altruism.
S9/M9 Honesty, fairness and trust in people he collaborates with.
S10/M10 Entrepreneurial spirit, philanthropy, emphasis on family values.
S11/M11 Responsible entrepreneur, meant to help humanity.
S12/M12 Perseverance, hard work, lifelong learning.
S13/M13 Entrepreneurial spirit and ambition.
S14/M14 Humanity, family values.
S15/M15 Makes the most of his talent, succeeds in exploiting every opportunity.
S16/M16 A complex person, a good manager; good balance of professional and personal life.
S17/M17 Desire to share with young people his experiences and to guide them.
S18/M18 Perseverance, determination, passion for own business.
S19/M19 A strong, persevering person who never gives up, always achieves his purpose.
S20/M20 Perseverance and entrepreneurial spirit.
S21/M21 Entrepreneurial spirit.
S22/M22 Revolutionizes the technology, ‘wanting to do things differently’.
Morality, common sense and perseverance. ‘It is a living example that anything is
S23/M23 possible when you set out to do something and try to do whatever it is necessary to
achieve your ideals’.
S24/M24 Makes you evolve and become better.
S25/M25 Family values and perseverance.
S26/M26 Self-confidence.
S27/M27 Modesty, self-confidence.
S28/M28 Successfully combined personal life with professional life.
S29/M29 Responsibility, sacrifice, sincerity, objectivity in the decision-making process.
S30/M30 Insight, civic spirit.
We also used content analysis to examine the content of successful entrepreneur records, in which
students provided data on entrepreneur socio-demographic characteristics and entrepreneurial
behaviour (sources of business ideas, reasons why he/she went into business, main sources of
funding of the initial business). Appendices B and C present the characteristics of each successful
entrepreneurial role model chosen by participants. To assure the correspondence between each student
and his entrepreneurial model, we coded student i with Si, and the role model with Mi.
In order to ensure the objectivity of content analysis, all essays and records were double-checked
by two authors.
3.2.3. Descriptive Statistics

The entrepreneurial intentions of participants and their attitudes towards entrepreneurship before
and after exposure to successful entrepreneurial models were assessed using descriptive statistics.
The minimum and maximum values, means, modes, and standard deviations were calculated for the
scores given by the respondents to each statement and were examined by each variable.
The differences between the distributions of student responses on their entrepreneurial intentions
and attitudes were examined comparing the boxplot diagrams corresponding to the two moments
considered in the study: before and after exposure to entrepreneurial models.
To observe the differences in the intention and in the attitude of students before and after exposure
to successful entrepreneurial models, a set of new variables was created, whose values represent the
differences between the scores given by the respondents after the exposure, and those given before the
exposure to statements describing entrepreneurial intention and attitude.
3.2.4. Statistical Testing for Differences

Despite the existence of nonparametric tests, such as Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test, suitable for
testing the equality of two means for paired samples, in this case, where the same sample was studied at
two different time moments, we decided not considering them. Due to a sample size of just 30 graduate
students, the use of statistical tests to test for the existence of significant differences between the values
corresponding to intention and attitude, recorded in the two moments considered in the analysis
(before and after the exposure to the entrepreneurial models), could have brought serious limitations
for interpreting and generalizing the results.
4. Results
4.1. Student Perception of Successful Entrepreneur Profile and Behaviour

Based on the content analysis of the students’ initial essays and the information they provided on
entrepreneurs in their records, we identified a set of features of successful entrepreneurs.
These features are shown in Table 3.
Generally, students mentioned the following qualities and common values of successful
entrepreneurs: perseverance, altruism, responsibility, morality and common sense, ‘ . . . is correct, with
very well defined principles, has morality, he is sincere and transparent and . . . he helps you to believe
that all good things happen. He is always open-minded to learn new things’ (S4 says about M4).
Some participants appreciated the creativity and innovation of a successful entrepreneur as he ‘
. . . revolutionized technology, wanting to do things differently’ (S22 about M22) and others noted the
focus of entrepreneurs on current global issues: ‘is a leader, attentive to current global issues, aiming
to improve people’s lives’ (S7 about M7), ‘is a responsible entrepreneur, meant to help humanity’
(S11 about M11). Other students noticed that their entrepreneurial role models showed a great
entrepreneurial spirit, for instance, giving up on a successful career in the political field to put their
skills into practice (S21 about M21), or a good work–life balance as they ‘managed to successfully
combine their personal and professional life’ (S28 about M28).
Another element, through which we shaped the profile of successful entrepreneurs, was the
entrepreneurial behaviour. In this study, it is analysed in terms of the following aspects: the source of
the business idea, the reason for entering the business environment, and the source of funding.
(a) The Source of Business Idea
Sasu [97] groups the sources of business ideas into categories that reflect either the macroeconomic
trends (demographic, social, technological, and business), or the microeconomic context. Based on the
analysis of entrepreneur files filled-in by students, frequently encountered sources of business ideas
for the chosen entrepreneurial role models were:
• Previous job (M1, M6).

• Opportunities (M2, M13, M14, M17, M19, M21, M23, M25).
• Passions and hobbies (M5, M15, M18, M23, M24, M25, M28, M30): ‘Passion for agriculture and
fish farming’ (M5), ‘Being passionate about sports’ (M24).
• Travels: ‘traveling to Australia, identifying a new lifestyle’ (M4), ‘a spiritual journey to India’
(M22), ‘a trip to Portugal’ (M26).
• Books: ‘Isaac Asimov’s books’ (M7), ‘Dale Carnegie’s book The Secrets of Success’ (M8), ‘Books read,
which influenced his ideas and perception towards life’ (M11).
• The family: the continuation of the family tradition in the entrepreneurial field (M3, M29),
‘The family, the skills acquired in childhood’ (M9), ‘ . . . the idea came from my family . . . from
my grandmother’s vegetable garden’ (M21), ‘the idea came from the family (mother), traveling
abroad and having a vision’ (M16).
• National traditions and culture (M30).
(b) The Reason for Entering the Business

Based on content analysis, we found that the entrepreneurial role models that students chose had
the following reasons for entering the business environment:
• Financial independence, family welfare (M5, M13, M14, M17, M21); ‘To help their family and parents
more’ (M1), ‘financial stability for the family’ (M21), ‘Out of the need and desire not to live from one
day to the next’ (M23), ‘escaping poverty and hunger helped him get into business’ (M24).
• Out of desire to overcome their social status (M15, M20, M27).
• From the desire to ‘change the world’: ‘entered the business to move science, technologies globally’ (M7).
• For social reasons: to create jobs (M5), ‘helping others’ (M16), to promote a healthy life (M9, M12).
• Based on beliefs: the model promoted by parents ‘ . . . never depend on a single income, have more
jobs’ (M10).
• Desire to dedicate themselves to their passions: ‘to do what he likes’ (M4), ‘giving up the previous job
and focusing on an area, where he can put his talents, passion and satisfaction into practice’ (M18),
‘He wanted his passion to become a reality, or to work for something he is passionate about’ (M11).
(c) The Source of Funding

The financing sources of the entrepreneurs chosen as models by the students were diverse
and depended either on the economic, social, and political contexts of the country from which the
entrepreneur came, or on the idea and the reason for entering the business.
Following the content analysis of the entrepreneur files filled-in by students, the following business
sources were identified:
• Money from their relatives (M1, M12, M17, M29).

• Own sources: personal savings (M4, M6, M10, M15, M16, M18, M25, M28), ‘wedding money’
(M21); ‘own funds made from the sale of some goods, land’ (M22), ‘little savings and free Internet
resources’ (M23), the money obtained from previous activities (M24).
• European funds, funding from other institutions (M2, M8, M9, M13, M14, M19, M20, M30).
• Loans (M5, M16).
• Previous ventures: they started the entrepreneurial activity with a small business that they sold
and this was the source of funding of another business (M7, M11, M27).
4.2. Results on Student Entrepreneurial Intentions and Attitudes towards Entrepreneurship before Exposure to
Successful Entrepreneurial Models
The descriptive statistics (Table 4) calculated for the variables describing the entrepreneurial
intentions of students before exposure to successful entrepreneurial models showed, for the considered
sample, a high intensity in entrepreneurial intention (average scores with values between 4.37 and 4.83,
and modal score 6 for variables I1, I2, I4, I5), and a low level of doubts regarding the achievement of
the entrepreneurial enterprise (average score of 1.30 and modal score 0 for variable I3).
Table 4. Student entrepreneurial intentions before exposure to successful entrepreneurial models

—descriptive statistics.
Std.
N Mean Mode Minimum Maximum
Deviation
It is very likely that one day I will start
30 4.83 6 1.315 1 6
a business (I1)
I am willing to make every effort to
30 4.80 6 1.270 1 6
become an entrepreneur (I2)
I have serious doubts that one day I
30 1.30 0 1.601 0 5
will end up creating a business (I3)
I am determined to create a business in
30 4.77 6 1.331 1 6
the future (I4)
My professional goal is to become an
30 4.37 6 1.426 1 6
entrepreneur (I5)
Concerning attitude towards entrepreneurship, descriptive statistics (Table 5) showed a

positive perception, students associating entrepreneurship especially with creativity and innovation
(average score of 5.17 and modal score of 6, minimum score of 3), taking calculated risks (average score
of 4.80 and minimum modal score of 4, minimum score of 3) and being independent/being own boss
(average score of 4.77 and modal score of 6). Respondents largely associated entrepreneurship with
facing new challenges, creating new jobs for other people and generating high income, all statements
having average scores higher than 4.
Table 5. Student attitudes towards entrepreneurship before exposure to successful entrepreneurial

models—descriptive indicators: What do you associate with entrepreneurship?
Std.
Deviation
Facing new challenges 30 4.50 5 1.196 2 6
Creating new jobs for other people 30 4.30 4 1.179 2 6
Creativity and innovation 30 5.17 6 0.986 3 6
High income 30 4.30 4 1.179 1 6
Assumption of calculated risks 30 4.80 4 0.925 3 6
To be independent/to be your own boss 30 4.77 6 1.194 2 6
4.3. Assessment of Entrepreneurship Attitudes and Entrepreneurial Intentions of Students after Exposure to
The descriptive statistical indicators (Table 6) calculated for the variables describing entrepreneurial
intentions of students after exposure to successful entrepreneurial models showed a higher average
intensity of the entrepreneurial intention (higher average scores, with values between 4.93 and 5.10,
for variables I1, I2, I4, I5), and an equally low average level of doubts towards developing an entrepreneurial
enterprise (average score of 1.30 for variable I3). The most important growth (of 0.30 points) was noted
for the variable ‘I am willing to make all the necessary efforts to become an entrepreneur’.
4.3. Assessment of Entrepreneurship Attitudes and Entrepreneurial Intentions of Students after Exposure to
The descriptive statistical indicators (Table 6) calculated for the variables describing
entrepreneurial intentions of students after exposure to successful entrepreneurial models showed a
higher2020,
Sustainability average intensity of the entrepreneurial intention (higher average scores, with values between
12, 1267 16 of 33
4.93 and 5.10, for variables I1, I2, I4, I5), and an equally low average level of doubts towards
developing an entrepreneurial enterprise (average score of 1.30 for variable I3). The most important
growth
Table 6. (of 0.30 entrepreneurial
Student points) was noted for the
intentions variable
after ‘I am
exposure willing toentrepreneurial
to successful make all the necessary efforts to
models—descriptive
become an entrepreneur’.
indicators.
Std. entrepreneurial models—

Table 6. Student entrepreneurial intentions after exposure to successful
descriptive indicators. Deviation
It is very likely that one day I will start a Std.
30 N5.00Mean 6Mode 1.050 Minimum
3 Maximum 6
business (I1)
Deviation
I am willing
It is to make
very every
likely thateffort to I will start
one day 30 305.105.00 6 6 0.923
1.050 3 3 6 6
become an entrepreneur
a business (I1) (I2)
I am doubts
I have serious willing that
to make
one dayevery
I willeffort to
30 301.305.10 1 6 1.368
0.923 3 0 6 5
end up creating
become aan business (I3) (I2)
entrepreneur
I have serious
I am determined doubts
to create that oneinday I will
a business
30 304.931.30 6 1 1.368
1.143 0 2 5 6
end up
the future (I4) creating a business (I3)
I am determined
My professional goal is to to create an
become a business in
30 304.504.93 5 6 1.143
1.333 2 1 6 6
the future
entrepreneur (I5) (I4)
My professional goal is to become an
30 4.50 5 1.333 1 6
entrepreneur (I5)
Analysis of box-plot diagrams of the values for the variables describing entrepreneurial intention
at the twoAnalysis
time points (before diagrams
of box-plot and after ofexposure) (Figure
the values 1) showed
for the variablesadescribing
similar form of the diagrams
entrepreneurial
intention
for high valuesat the
andtwo time points
a reduced (before
length of and
the after exposure)
diagram (Figurevalues
for lower 1) showed
(foravariables
similar formI1, of
I2,the
I4, I5).
diagrams
This fact couldforbehigh values and
interpreted asafollows:
reduced students
length of the
withdiagram
mediumfor lower values
and high (for variables
levels I1, I2,
of entrepreneurial
I4, I5).
intention This fact their
maintained couldintensity
be interpreted as follows:
of intention, whilestudents
those whowithdidmedium and high
not consider levels of
entrepreneurship
entrepreneurial intention maintained their intensity of intention, while those who did not consider
as an occupational option were willing, after exposure to entrepreneurial models, to take it into
entrepreneurship as an occupational option were willing, after exposure to entrepreneurial models,
consideration. In the case of variable I3, which expresses the level of doubt regarding the development
to take it into consideration. In the case of variable I3, which expresses the level of doubt regarding
of an the
entrepreneurial enterprise, the forms of the two diagrams were similar.
development of an entrepreneurial enterprise, the forms of the two diagrams were similar.
(a) (b) (c)
(d) (e)
Figure 1. Distribution of respondents by entrepreneurial intention before and after exposure to successful
entrepreneurial models: (a) It is very likely that one day I will create a business for myself ; (b) I am willing to
make every effort to become an entrepreneur; (c) I have serious doubts that one day I will end up creating a business;
(d) I am determined to create a business in the future; (e) My professional goal is to become an entrepreneur.
Table 7 presents distributions of the values of Difference variables for the statements describing
entrepreneurial intention. These values were determined as differences between the scores awarded
by students after and before their exposure to successful entrepreneurial models.
Table 7. Differences in student entrepreneurial intentions after exposure to successful entrepreneurial

models. ((The bold format in first column is used to emphasize the values of differences in scores.)
Difference: I
Difference: One Difference: I Difference: I Difference: My
Have Serious
day I Will Am Willing to Am Determined Professional
Doubts That
Probably Start Make Every to Create a Goal is to
One Day I Will
My Own Effort to Become Business in the Become an
End up Creating
Business an Entrepreneur Future Entrepreneur
a Business
Count % Count % Count % Count % Count %
−4 2 6.7
−3 2 6.7
−2 1 3.3 1 3.3 1 3.3 3 10.0
−1 5 16.7 5 16.7 3 10.0 6 20.0 5 16.7
0 19 63.3 14 46.7 11 36.7 15 50.0 12 40.0
1 4 13.3 6 20.0 7 23.3 5 16.7 7 23.3
2 1 3.3 3 10.0 2 6.7 2 6.7 2 6.7
3 1 3.3
4 1 3.3 1 3.3 1 3.3 1 3.3
5 1 3.3
Total 30 100 30 100 30 100 30 100 30 100
1. ‘It is very likely that one day I will start my own business’: The distribution of respondents by
their perceptions of the likelihood of starting a business showed that, after exposure to successful
entrepreneurial models, 5 students (16.7%) were less willing to start a business (difference equal to
−1), 19 (63.3%) were equally willing, their intention being unchanged (difference equal to 0), while
for 6 (20.0%) of the 30 respondents, the intensity of the intention to set up a business increased.
2. ‘I am willing to make every effort to become an entrepreneur’: After being exposed to successful
entrepreneurial models, 6 students (20.0%) were less willing to make an effort to become an
entrepreneur (the difference equal to −2 or −1), 14 students (46.7%) were equally willing, their
intention being unchanged (difference equal to 0), and for 9 of the 30 respondents (33.3%), the
intensity of the intention to make high efforts to become an entrepreneur increased.
3. Regarding the statement ‘I have serious doubts that one day I will get to create a company’, after
exposure to successful entrepreneurial models, 8 students (26.6%) experienced a higher level
of doubt that they will create an enterprise one day, for 11 students (36.7%) the level of doubt
remained unchanged, while for the remaining 11 students (36.7%), it decreased.
4. ‘I am determined to create a business in the future’: After exposure to successful entrepreneurial
models, 7 students (23.3%) were less determined to create a business in the future, 15 students
(50.0%) were sure, their intention being unchanged (difference equal to 0), while, for 8 of the 30
respondents (26.7%), the intensity of the decision to set up an enterprise in the future increased.
5. ‘My professional goal is to become an entrepreneur’: Following the exposure to successful
entrepreneurial models, 8 students (26.7%) agreed to a lesser degree that their professional
goal was to become an entrepreneur, 12 students (40%) had the same intensity of intention to
consider entrepreneurship as a professional goal, while 10 students (33.3%) had a higher degree
of agreement in relation to establishing entrepreneurship as a professional goal.
The box-plot diagrams showed changes in entrepreneurial intention, especially for the lower scores,
namely, an improvement in intention after exposure to successful entrepreneurial models in the cases
of students less interested or not interested in entrepreneurship.
Concerning attitude towards entrepreneurship, the descriptive statistics showed that the positive
perception was maintained after exposure to successful entrepreneurial models, too. In the final stage
of the study (Table 8), Creativity and innovation (average score of 5.13), Being independent/being own boss
(average score of 4.90) and Taking calculated risks (average score of 4.50) were still the main elements
with which students tended to associate entrepreneurship. There was an increase in the average scores
for the association of entrepreneurship with Being independent/being own boss and with Creating new
jobs for other people, while for the other statements there were slightly lower average scores. The most
important change in the perception of entrepreneurship was observed in its association with High
income (decrease of the average score from 4.30 to 3.90).
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 31
8. Student
Table 5. attitudesgoal
‘My professional towards entrepreneurship
is to become after Following
an entrepreneur’: exposure theto successful
exposure toentrepreneurial
successful
models—descriptive models,What
statistics:
entrepreneurial do you(26.7%)
8 students associate withtoentrepreneurship?
agreed a lesser degree that their professional goal
was to become an entrepreneur, 12 students (40%) had the same intensity of intention to consider
entrepreneurship as a professional Std. had a higher degree of
N goal, while 10
Mean students (33.3%)
Mode Minimum Maximum
Deviation
agreement in relation to establishing entrepreneurship as a professional goal.
Facing new challenges
The box-plot diagrams showed changes30 4.37 4
in entrepreneurial 1.033 especially for
intention, 2 the lower 6
Creating new jobs
scores, for other
namely, people
an improvement 30
in intention 4.40 exposure
after 5 to successful
1.070entrepreneurial
2 models in 6
Creativitythe
and innovation 30 5.13 6 1.008
cases of students less interested or not interested in entrepreneurship. 3 6
High income Concerning attitude towards entrepreneurship,
30 3.90 3 descriptive
the 1.242 1 that the
statistics showed 6
Assumption of calculated
positive perceptionrisks 30 exposure
was maintained after 4.50 to successful
5 0.900
entrepreneurial 3 too. In the
models, 6
To be independent/to
final stage of be the
yourstudy
own boss
(Table 8),30Creativity
4.90 and innovation
6 1.348 score of 15.13), Being
(average 6
independent/being own boss (average score of 4.90) and Taking calculated risks (average score of 4.50)
were still the main elements with which students tended to associate entrepreneurship. There was an
The analysis
increase inofthe
theaverage
box-plot diagrams
scores of the values
for the association for the variables
of entrepreneurship describing
with Being attitude
independent/being towards
entrepreneurship obtained in the two time points considered in the analysis (Figure
own boss and with Creating new jobs for other people, while for the other statements there were 2)
slightly showed
lower
the following: average scores. The most important change in the perception of entrepreneurship was
observed in its association with High income (decrease of the average score from 4.30 to 3.90).
• a similar form of the diagrams for the Creativity and innovation variable;
Table 8. Student attitudes towards entrepreneurship after exposure to successful entrepreneurial
• similar forms of the diagrams,
models—descriptive statistics:but
Whatwith
do you slight
associate changes in the concentration of the scores for the
with entrepreneurship?
variables: Confronting with new challenges (a lower median score), Std. Creating new jobs for other people
(a higher median score), Assuming calculated risks (lower numberDeviationof maximum scores) and Being
independent/being your own boss;
Facing new challenges 30 4.37 4 1.033 2 6
Creating new jobs for other people 30 4.40 5 1.070 2 6
• an extension of the chart to lower scores for the High income variable.
Creativity and innovation 30 5.13 6 1.008 3 6
High income 30 3.90 3 1.242 1 6
The results confirmed the high degree to which students associated entrepreneurship with Creativity
Assumption of calculated risks 30 4.50 5 0.900 3 6
and innovation,
To beasindependent/to
well as withbean occupation
your own boss allowing
30 4.90 them
6 to maintain
1.348 their
1 independence.
6 At the
same time, after the exposure to successful entrepreneurial models, we noticed a greater orientation of
The analysis of towards
the students’ perceptions the box-plot
thediagrams
socialofbenefits
the values
offor the variables describing
entrepreneurship attitude new
(Creating towards
jobs for other
entrepreneurship obtained in the two time points considered in the analysis (Figure 2) showed the
people) in comparison to financial ones (High income).
following:
(a) (b) (c)
(d) (e) (f)

Figure 2. Distribution
Figure 2. Distribution of respondents
of respondents by by attitude towards
attitude towards entrepreneurship
entrepreneurship beforebefore
and after exposure
and after exposure
to successful entrepreneurial models: (a) Confronting with new challenges; (b) Creating new jobs for other
to successful entrepreneurial models: (a) Confronting with new challenges; (b) Creating new jobs for
other people; (c) Creativity and innovation; (d) High income; (e) Assumption of calculated risks; (f) To be
independent/to be your own boss.
Table 9 presents the distributions of values for the Difference variables, matching statements
describing attitude towards entrepreneurship. These values were determined as differences between
the scores given by students after and before exposure to successful entrepreneurial models.
Table 9. Differences in student attitudes towards entrepreneurship after exposure to successful entrepreneurial
models. (The bold format in first column is used to emphasize the values of differences in scores.).
Difference: Difference: Difference:

Difference: Difference: Being
Creating Creativity Difference: Assuming
Facing New Independent/Being
New Jobs for and High Income Calculated
Challenges Your Own Boss
Other People Innovation Risks
Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count %
−3 1 3.3 1 3.3 1 3.3 1 3.3 1 3.3 1 3.3
−2 2 6.7 1 3.3 1 3.3 4 13.3 4 13.3 1 3.3
−1 11 36.7 7 23.3 2 6.7 7 23.3 9 30.0 5 16.7
0 7 23.3 10 33.3 21 70.0 15 50.0 9 30.0 10 33.3
1 5 16.7 8 26.7 4 13.3 1 3.3 4 13.3 12 40.0
2 3 10.0 2 6.7 1 3.3 1 3.3 2 6.7 1 3.3
3 1 3.3 1 3.3 1 3.3 1 3.3
Total 30 100 30 100 30 100 30 100 30 100 30 100
1. Facing new challenges: After exposure to successful entrepreneurial models, 15 students (46.7%)
associated entrepreneurship with new challenges to a lesser extent, 7 students (23.3%) had an
unchanged attitude (difference equal to 0), while 9 of the 30 respondents (30.0%), agreed to a
greater extent that entrepreneurship involved facing new challenges.
2. Creating new jobs for other people: Following exposure to successful entrepreneurial models,
9 students (30.0%) to a lesser extent associated entrepreneurship with the creation of new jobs for
other people, 10 students (33.3%) had an unchanged attitude, and 11 of the respondents (36.7%),
agreed to a greater extent that entrepreneurship meant creating new jobs for other people.
3. Creativity and innovation: The attitudes of most students, 21 (70.0%), remained unchanged after
exposure to successful entrepreneurial models, 4 students (13.3%) to a lesser extent associated
creativity and innovation with entrepreneurship, while 5 respondents (16.7%) associated the two
phenomena to a greater extent.
4. High income: After exposure to successful entrepreneurial models, 15 students (50.0%) maintained
the same attitude towards associating entrepreneurship with high income, 12 students agreed
less (40.0%) with this association, only 3 respondents (10.0%) claimed more strongly that
entrepreneurship involves high income.
5. Assumption of calculated risks: Following the exposure to successful entrepreneurial models,
14 students (46.7%) agreed to a lesser extent that entrepreneurship involved assuming calculated
risks, 9 students (30.0%) had the same attitude, while, for 7 of the 30 respondents (23.3%), the values of
the scores given to the association between entrepreneurship and the calculated risk-taking increased.
6. Being independent/being your own boss: Following exposure to successful entrepreneurial
models, most students, 13 (43.3%), associated entrepreneurship to a greater extent with an
occupation allowing being independent or being your own boss, 10 students (33.3%) maintained
the same attitude, while 7 respondents (23.3%) agreed to a lesser extent that entrepreneurship
implied being independent.
4.4. Student Perceptions of the Influence on Their Entrepreneurial Intentions Due to Exposure to Successful
Entrepreneurial Models
Content analysis of the mini-essays written by students on their perceptions of the ways in which
their entrepreneurial intentions and attitudes towards entrepreneurship have been influenced by their
exposure to successful entrepreneurial models showed that:
A high entrepreneurial intention existed before the applied experimental session. After the
exposure to successful entrepreneurial models, students felt they gained more confidence in
implementing their business ideas and strengthened their desires to become an entrepreneur:
• ‘I have to dare and believe that my business idea will work and it will be successful’ (S4).
• ‘Due to the success stories presented, the students gained more confidence in starting a business’ (S5).
• ‘The presentations made me become more optimistic and confident’ (S11).
• ‘Exposure to successful models has aroused my interest in getting into business at one point, they
have given me the urge to follow my desire to do what I want’ (S15).
• ‘The models gave me the courage to do what I want and not to be influenced by others who only
speak and do nothing. . . . I want to set up my own company!’ (S16).
For non-business students, the positive influence of exposure to successful entrepreneurial models
was more visible because, besides feeling more confident about their entrepreneurial skills and feeling a
greater self-efficacy, they mentioned that the experience of being exposed to successful entrepreneurial
role models brought them a better understanding of entrepreneurship and awakened or increased
their interest in becoming an entrepreneur.
• ‘It made me learn more from the experience of other entrepreneurs to better understand the
challenges of this job’ (S1—Law).
• ‘It has helped me to really discover entrepreneurship and that, having your own business is not
difficult, but keeping your business and making it prosper is difficult. It is important how you
make the decisions, I learned how to behave in a team and with clients’ (S3—Food Engineering).
• ‘You must never give up your ideas, but improve them and adapt them according to specific
opportunities or situations’ (S8—Philology).
• ‘Even though I had some ideas about entrepreneurship, I didn’t think I was suitable for being an
entrepreneur, but due to exposure to successful models I learned that if you have a well-defined
idea and you work hard enough you can set up a successful business’ (S9—Philology).
• ‘Each of us had something to learn from the successful models of entrepreneurs and I understood
how much work and perseverance a successful business requires. It has created in my mind a certain
entrepreneurial discipline that I did not have before and also built my own confidence’ (S12—Pedagogy).
• ‘There were very interesting success stories, and our entrepreneurial intentions were influenced
by the entrepreneur’s personality, his qualities and the way he acted. There have been cases of
entrepreneurs who . . . from being nobody became somebody. How can you not be influenced
and motivated by such a situation?!’ (S14—Psychology).
• ‘Attending this course has grown my interest to set up a family business. This type of business
creates a sense of security, especially when there are harmonious relationships within the family’
(S19—Theology).
• ‘Exposure to a successful entrepreneurial model had the role of developing my entrepreneurial
spirit. Each success story grew in us an entrepreneurial spirit’ (S23—Architecture).
• ‘Success stories have grown my interest in becoming an entrepreneur’ (S24—Physical education).
5. Discussion and Conclusions

Nowadays the economic and social changes in society show the importance of developing
entrepreneurship and creativity skills [98–100]. The universities, as mentors, and the successful
entrepreneurs, as role models for students, can play an important role in the entrepreneurial education
of the young and in enhancing their entrepreneurial spirit. From this perspective our study investigated
the role of successful entrepreneurial role models in influencing the entrepreneurial intentions of
students and their attitudes towards entrepreneurship.
The analysis of descriptions provided by students showed that they describe successful
entrepreneurs using characteristics similar to those reported in the literature, such as creativity [30,34]
and risk-taking [30,31,34]. Most students identified the following characteristics for defining successful
entrepreneurs: perseverance (8 of 30 respondents), orientation to people and desire to help others (7 of
30 respondents), and entrepreneurial spirit (5 of 30 respondents). The perseverance feature is in line
with the characteristic of increased capacity for intense and lasting effort found by Nastase [31]. Orientation
to people and desire to help others confirm the characteristic of orientation towards human capital identified
by Amornpinyo [32]. The entrepreneurial spirit feature was also found by Snepar [34], who describes
the entrepreneur as a person following an unconventional or unpopular approach to solving a problem.
By studying the entrepreneurial behaviour of successful role models, students learned about
sources of business ideas, contexts and reasons for starting a business, and the main funding sources.
The characteristics of entrepreneurial behaviour of successful entrepreneurs may represent a source of
inspiration and motivation for students to become entrepreneurs themselves.
The analysis of how exposure to successful entrepreneurial models influences student perceptions
of entrepreneurship provided evidence on the following issues.
Descriptive statistics of student entrepreneurial intentions before and after exposure to successful
entrepreneurial models indicate changes in intention, in both a positive and a negative sense.
The graphical analysis reflects changes in entrepreneurial intention, especially in the area of lower
scores, indicating an improvement in intention after exposure to successful entrepreneurial models for
students less interested or not interested in entrepreneurship.
In regards to the attitude towards entrepreneurship, descriptive statistical values show a positive
perception both before and after exposure to successful entrepreneurial models. In the final stage of
the study, we observed that such characteristics of attitude towards entrepreneurship as creativity and
innovation, being independent/being your own boss and taking calculated risks were still the main elements
the students tended to associate with entrepreneurship. In contrast, there was an increase in average
scores for the association of entrepreneurship with being independent/being their own boss and creating new
jobs for other people, while for the other statements there were slightly lower average scores. The most
important change in the perception of entrepreneurship was observed in its association with high
income. So, after exposure to successful entrepreneurial models, we were able to observe a greater
orientation of student perceptions towards the social benefits of entrepreneurship (creating new jobs)
rather than to financial ones (high income), proving that students have become more aware of this
dimension of entrepreneurship.
Our results show that exposing students to success stories of entrepreneurs, viewed by students
as role models, is a key influence factor in making the decision to start a business, contributing to the
improvement of entrepreneurial intention of less interested or not interested students in entrepreneurship.
In line with previous studies, such as Martin, McNally, and Kay [72], Wilson, Kickul, and
Marlino [76] or Zhao, Seibert, and Hills [65], our findings of content analysis and graphical distributions
of student perceptions show that learning entrepreneurship by exposure to successful entrepreneurial
role models is important in influencing student entrepreneurial intentions and in improving their
attitudes towards entrepreneurship. However, the impact of this teaching method is different for
graduate business and non-business students (such as literature, architecture, agronomic sciences,
psychology, pedagogy, theology, sports, and law).
For the first category of students, entrepreneurial intention might have been high right from
the start of the course, as they had already studied many concepts related to business environment
that made them more open to entrepreneurship. For these students, the most important consequence
of learning from successful entrepreneurship stories may reside in the fact that they felt they had
gained more confidence in implementing their business ideas and strengthened their desire to become
entrepreneurs. This consequence was observed for many of the students who comprised the sample,
irrespective of their degree.
Our results are in line with the study of Karimi, Biemans, Lans, Chizari, Mulder, and Mahdei [56]
which suggest that including contact with entrepreneurial models as part of the entrepreneurship
education curriculum can stimulate students’ confidence in their ability to start a business and improve
their attitude towards entrepreneurship. The findings of our study also support the approach of
Byabashaija and Katono [86], who suggest that using case studies of local entrepreneurs in teaching
entrepreneurship can be instructive regarding the feasibility of entrepreneurship as a career option.
The results of our study provide evidence for the theoretical perspective of entrepreneurial
self-efficacy [68], which argues that entrepreneurship education is associated with entrepreneurial
self-efficacy that can enhance entrepreneurial intentions [65,76]. Role models, in particular, can stimulate
individual self-efficacy by providing vicarious experiences to students and by increasing positive
emotional reactions to entrepreneurship [56].
As regards non-business students, the positive influence of exposure to successful entrepreneurial
models is more visible because, besides feeling more confident in their entrepreneurial capacities
and feeling a greater self-efficacy, they mentioned that the experience of being exposed to successful
entrepreneurial role models brought them a better understanding of entrepreneurship and awakened
or stirred their interest in becoming an entrepreneur.
These findings are in line with those of Bygrave [16], who found that knowing successful
entrepreneurs makes the act of becoming one oneself seem more credible, and with the findings of
Lafuente, Rialp, and Vaillant [23], who underline that contact with an entrepreneurial role model
makes people more inclined towards developing a desire and confidence to create their own businesses.
Our findings bring support to the human capital theory [67], a theoretical perspective arguing that
entrepreneurship education is positively correlated with entrepreneurial intentions.
Our study provides evidence that entrepreneurship education using successful entrepreneurial
role models may influence in a positive sense student entrepreneurial intentions and their attitudes
towards entrepreneurship and is in agreement with Hatten and Ruhland [101], who found that students
were more likely to become entrepreneurs after attending an entrepreneurship-related programme.
However, our findings show that in order to make this educational method more efficient,
entrepreneurship education programmes for master’s degrees should be designed differently for
business and non-business students. This need emerges from the fact that studying successful
entrepreneurial stories impacts the two categories of students differently. This conclusion complies
with Teixeira’s [102] recommendation that if a goal in designing entrepreneurial programmes is to
assist students within and outside the business school, it is important to understand the similarities
and differences between business school students and their non-business counterparts.
Our findings also support what Urbano et al. [88] suggest: that courses and curricula of
entrepreneurship should be designed so as to take into account the students’ profiles.
Although the idea of exploring role models as antecedents of student entrepreneurial intentions
is not new, our research adds to the existing literature by considering individuals’ (students’) own
perceptions of entrepreneurial success and their preferences for the chosen role models (the ones they
identify with or whom they admire).
This could be a valuable approach for entrepreneurship education as it incorporates higher
involvement and participation of students, while exposing them to different perspectives of
entrepreneurial success. This way students acquire more knowledge on entrepreneurship by becoming
more accustomed with various contexts in which individuals become entrepreneurs, learning about
the main sources for business ideas, discovering various business ideas and specific methods for their
implementation, and finding out about various methods for dealing with different obstacles that could
appear in their entrepreneurial experience.
Limitations and Future Research

Considering our results and the characteristics of the student sample, we should point out the
limitations of the study: first, the sample size comprised only 30 students; second, sample composition
favoured the students having a business degree; and third, the statistical analysis treated all sample
students equally, although they had different undergraduate degrees.
Integrating exposure to successful entrepreneurial models into entrepreneurship education

programmes for students can be a teaching–learning method with potential from the perspective of
sustainable development education as it develops students’ entrepreneurial capacities, increases their
entrepreneurial intentions and willingness to set up a business.
In order to improve entrepreneurship education as a driver to foster sustainable entrepreneurship
among students, more research should be done to identify the appropriate teaching methods for different
groups of students. Future studies should use an extended sample and compare various methods for
teaching entrepreneurship to students from different study areas. The outcomes of entrepreneurship
education might be different when different teaching methods that employ entrepreneurial role models
are used (for instance, learning from failure, not only from successful entrepreneurial stories; learning
by doing; or learning through support), so this should be further investigated in a future study.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, G.B., A.M.I.; data curation, G.B., D.B. and A.M.I.; formal analysis, G.B.,
A.M.I.; investigation, G.B., A.M.I., A.-M.B., D.B., and M.V.B.-G.; methodology, G.B., A.M.I.; resources, G.B., D.B.;
software, A.M.I., D.B.; supervision, G.B., A.M.I.; validation, G.B., A.M.I.; visualization, G.B., A.M.I., A.-M.B., D.B.
and M.V.B.-G.; writing—original draft, G.B., A.M.I., D.B. and M.V.B.-G.; Writing—review & editing, G.B., A.M.I.,
A.-M.B., D.B. and M.V.B.-G. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: This work was co-financed from the European Social Fund through Operational Programme
Human Capital 2014–2020, project number POCU/380/6/13/125015 ‘Development of entrepreneurial skills for
doctoral students and postdoctoral researchers in the field of economic sciences’. This paper also benefited from
the support of the Erasmus+ Programme of the European Union, Project Jean Monnet Sustainable Education
through European Studies for Young Researchers—SESYR, EACEA, Decision no. 2017-1893/0001-001, Project
Number 587359-EPP-1-2017-1-RO-EPPJMO-MODULE.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Table A1. Student identification data.
Student Gender Age Specialization of Graduate Studies

S1 Female 24 Law
S2 Female 22 Economic
S3 Female 23 Food science and engineering
S5 Male 22 Finance and Banking
S6 Female 22 Management
S7 Male 25 Economic
S8 Female 23 Humanist, Letters
S9 Female 22 Humanist, Letters
S10 Male 22 Economic
S11 Male 26 Economic
S12 Female 23 Pedagogical
S14 Female 25 Psychology
S15 Female 25 Law
S16 Female 39 Medical bioengineering
S17 Female 24 Economy
S19 Male 25 Theology
S23 Male 29 Architecture
S24 Male 36 Physical Education
S25 Female 40 Economic statistic
S27 Female 22 Public Administration
S28 Female 23 Law
S29 Male 22 Finance and Banking
S30 Male 46 Theology
Appendix B
Table A2. Identification data for successful entrepreneurial model: socio-demographic characteristics.
The Age at Which

Entrepreneurial
Gender No. of Children Current Age He/She Became Field of Studies Business Field Level of Studies
Model
an Entrepreneur
M1 Male 1 50 25 Math DIY Higher education
M2 Male 2 35 23 Economic Trade Higher education
M3 Female 0 35 26 Economic Trade Higher education
M4 Male 3 33 26 Economic Food Higher education
M5 Male 3 60 36 Economic Agriculture Higher education
M6 Male 0 48 - Engineering Restaurant Higher education
M7 Male 6 47 24 Engineering Informatics Higher education
M8 Male 1 40 20 Economic Informatics Higher education
M9 Female 2 32 26 Economic Food Higher education
M10 Male 3 89 - Economic Financial Higher education
M11 Male 6 47 24 Engineering Informatics Higher education
M12 Female 1 41 20 Medicine Sports Higher education
M13 Male 3 45 24 Economic Appliances Higher education
M14 Male 4 97 20 Economic Sales Higher education
Secondary
M15 Male 2 65 27 Without studies Cinematography
education
M16 Female 3 39 31 Medical Medical Higher education
M17 Male 3 35 - Economic Agriculture Higher education
Floral
M18 Female 1 45 40 Economic Higher education
arrangements
M19 Female 2 35 24 Economic European projects Higher education
Table A2. Cont.
The Age at Which

Entrepreneurial
Gender No. of Children Current Age He/She Became Field of Studies Business Field Level of Studies
Model
an Entrepreneur
M20 Male 2 65 31 Sports Coffee shops Higher education
M21 Male 1 28 24 Political Sciences Food Higher education
M22 Male 4 56 28 IT IT Higher education
Electronic
M23 Female 0 35 - Arts Higher education
commerce
M24 Male 3 80 40 Sports Sports, leasing Higher education
M25 Female 1 54 25 Medicine Fashion Higher education
M26 Female 0 35 29 Economic Trade in teas Higher education
Secondary
M27 Male 2 83 27 Without studies Textiles
education
Electrical
M28 Male 2 32 18 Engineering Higher education
installations
M29 Female 1 30 19 Medicine Translations Higher education
M30 Male 1 60 21 Agrarian Agriculture Higher education
Appendix C
Table A3. Aspects of entrepreneurial behaviour for the success model.
The Model Chosen by the Student Source for Business Idea Reason for Entering the Business Funding Source
M1 -previous job -to help their family and parents more -money from in-laws
-identification of a new niche;
M2 -to develop their leadership capabilities; -business idea funded by a big company
lack of a network of shops
-family; comes from a family of
M3 -continuing family tradition -own income and parental help
entrepreneurs
-travel to Australia and discovering a
M4 -personal satisfaction -personal savings
new lifestyle, nutrition
-financial independence but also for -personal and family savings; later, for
M5 -passion for agriculture and fish farming social reasons—providing jobs for business development he frequently
citizens resorted to bank loans and leasing
-being attracted by a business model
M6 -previous job -personal savings
discovered in a previous job
-entered the business to ‘move science -previous business, funded together with
M7 -books of Isaac Asimov
technologies globally’ some colleagues
-the post-communist period (the system
-Dale Carnegie’s book The Secrets of of social ordering);
M8 -bank loans
Success -books of psychology and personal
development
-family, skills acquired in childhood but
-the financing programme SRL-D but
M9 also awards won in food competitions -promoting healthy eating
also bank loans
gave him courage and confidence
Table A3. Cont.
-the model promoted by parents ‘ . . .
-a professor of finance and stock
M10 never depend on a single income, have -own sources
exchanges at the university
more jobs’
-he wanted his passion to become a -money used from the sale of the first
-read books influenced his ideas and
M11 reality, or to work for something he is business (financed with little money)
perception on life
passionate about was the source for another business
-desire to help as many people as -promoting sport combined with healthy
M12 -loan from relatives
possible, social context eating
M13 -opportunity -financial independence -bank loans
M14 -opportunity -responsibility to the family -bank loans
- desire to overcome their social
M15 -talent, passion -personal savings
condition
M16 -family (mother), travels abroad -helping others -own sources, but also bank loans
M17 -opportunity -determination, financial independence -relatives
-giving up his/her previous job and
focusing on an area where he can put
M18 -passion -own income
his/her talents, passion into practice and
bring satisfaction
-opportunities provided by European
M19 -it was his duty to help others -own funds, but also bank loans
integration
M20 -participation in a fair/exhibition -desire to overcome his condition -non-refundable European funds
-from family . . . ‘from the grandmother’s
M21 vegetable garden’; opportunity-new -financial stability for the family -the wedding money
concept on the market
Table A3. Cont.
-entered the business being influenced by
-the idea came after a spiritual journey to -own funds resulting from the sale of
M22 a friend, after which he discovered his
India goods
entrepreneurial spirit
-financial reasons; ‘from the need and
-few economies and free Internet
M23 -passion; opportunity desire not to live from one day to
resources
another’
-passion for sport; he obtained money -funds obtained through sports activities;
M24 from sport, then he did business in the -financial reasons, poverty alleviation -knowledge and connections created
sports field through sport
-desire to do what he likes; although he
completed his studies in another field, he
M25 -passion and opportunity -family income
chose to put his talents into practice, his
passion
M26 -trip to Portugal; opportunity -financial independence -European funds non-refundable
-from personal savings he opened a
-financial reasons; he wanted to smaller business then he sold it and with
M27 -previous job
overcome his condition the money obtained he set up another
business
M28 -passion -professional and financial independence -own income
-continuation of business inherited from
M29 -business inherited from parents -income of the inherited enterprise
the father
-Romanian traditions and culture;
M30 -financial independence -bank loans
passion
References
1. Barringer, B.; Jones, F.; Neubaum, D. A quantitative content analysis of the characteristics of rapid-Growth
firms and their founders. J. Bus. Ventur. 2005, 20, 663–687. [CrossRef]
2. Fayolle, A.; Gailly, B.; Lassas-Clerc, N. Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education programmes:
A new methodology. J. Eur. Ind. Train. 2006, 30, 701–720. [CrossRef]
3. Packham, G.; Jones, P.; Miller, C.; Pickernell, D.; Thomas, B. Attitudes towards entrepreneurship education:
A comparative analysis. Educ. Train. 2010, 52, 568–586. [CrossRef]
4. Mueller, S. Increasing entrepreneurial intention: Effective entrepreneurship course characteristics. Int. J.
Entrep. Small Bus. 2011, 13, 55–74. [CrossRef]
5. Barba-Sánchez, V.; Atienza-Sahuquillo, C. The development of entrepreneurship at school: The Spanish
experience. Educ. Train. 2016, 58, 783–796. [CrossRef]
6. Yemini, M.; Haddad, J. Engineer-Entrepreneur: Combining technical knowledge with entrepreneurship
education. The Israel case study. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 2010, 26, 1220–1229.
7. Barba-Sáncheza, V.; Atienza-Sahuquillo, C. Entrepreneurial intention among engineering students: The role
of entrepreneurship education. Eur. Res. Manag. Bus. Econ. 2018, 24, 53–61. [CrossRef]
8. Veciana, J.; Aponte, M.; Urbano, D. University Students’ Attitudes towards Entrepreneurship: A Two
Countries Comparison. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2005, 1, 165–182. [CrossRef]
9. Bosma, N.; Hessels, J.; Schutjens, V.; van Praag, M.; Verheul, I. Entrepreneurship and Role Models. J. Econ.
Psychol. 2012, 33, 410–424. [CrossRef]
10. European Commission. The Entrepreneurship 2020 Action. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/
smes/promoting-entrepreneurship/action-plan_en (accessed on 29 May 2019).
11. Lina, D.M.; Ionescu, A.M.; Bedrule-Grigorut, ă, M.V. Entrepreneurial orientation in Romanian Higher
Education. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies,
Palma, Spain, 1–3 July 2019; pp. 9864–9872. [CrossRef]
12. Pittaway, L.; Cope, J. Entrepreneurship education a systematic review of the evidence. Int. Small Bus. J.
2007, 25, 479–510. [CrossRef]
13. Nabi, G.; Liñán, F.; Fayolle, A.; Krueger, N.; Walmsley, A. The Impact of Entrepreneurship Education in
Higher Education: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 2017, 16, 277–299.
[CrossRef]
14. Scherer, R.F.; Adams, J.S.; Carley, S.S.; Wiebe, F.A. Role model performance effects on development of
entrepreneurial career preference. Entrep. Theory Pract. 1989, 13, 53–72. [CrossRef]
15. Krueger, N. The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of new venture feasibility and
desirability. Entrep. Theory Pract. 1993, 18, 5–21. [CrossRef]
16. Bygrave, W.D. Theory building in the entrepreneurship paradigm. In Entrepreneurship Perspectives on Theory
Building; Bull, I., Thomas, H., Willard, G., Eds.; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 1995; pp. 129–158.
17. Kolvereid, L. Prediction of employment status choice intentions. Entrep. Theory Pract. 1996, 21, 47–57.
[CrossRef]
18. Krueger, N.; Reilly, M.; Carsrud, A. Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. J. Bus. Ventur.
2000, 15, 411–432. [CrossRef]
19. Shane, S. Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organ. Sci. 2000, 11, 448–469.
[CrossRef]
20. Fornahl, D. Entrepreneurial activities in a regional context. In Cooperation, Networks, and Institutions in
Regional Innovations Systems; Fornahl, D., Brenner, T., Eds.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2003; pp. 38–57.
21. Venkataraman, S. Regional transformation through technological entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Ventur.
2004, 19, 153–167. [CrossRef]
22. Van Auken, H.; Stephens, P.; Fry, F.; Silva, J. Role model influences on entrepreneurial intentions: A
comparison between USA and Mexico. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2006, 2, 325–336. [CrossRef]
23. Lafuente, E.M.; Rialp, J.; Vaillant, Y. Regional differences in the influence of Role-Models: Comparing the
Entrepreneurial Process of Rural Catalonia. Reg. Stud. 2007, 41, 779–795. [CrossRef]
24. Asimakopoulos, G.; Hernández, V.; Peña Miguel, J. Entrepreneurial Intention of Engineering Students:
The Role of Social Norms and Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4314. [CrossRef]
25. Marian, L. The Entrepreneur and The Entrepreneurship; EFI ROM Press: Targu Mureş, Romania, 2007.
26. Viramgami, H.S. Fundamentals of entrepreneurship; A.P.H. Publishing Corporation: New Delhi, India, 2007.
27. Drucker, P.F. Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 1st ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2014. [CrossRef]
28. Shapero, A.; Sokol, L. The Social Dimensions of Entrepreneurship. Encycl. Entrep. 1982, 72–90. Available
online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1497759 (accessed on 6 February 2020).
29. Schumpeter, J.A. The Crisis in Economics-Fifty Years Ago. J. Econ. Lit. 1982, 20, 1049–1059.
30. Gartner, W. Who Is an Entrepreneur? Is the Wrong Question. Entrep. Theory Pract. 1989, 13. [CrossRef]
31. Nastase, C. Antreprenoriat s, i tehnici decizionale în afaceri internationale. 2012. Available online: http:
//www.seap.usv.ro (accessed on 28 May 2019).
32. Amornpinyo, N. The Characteristics of Entrepreneurs with Successful and Sustainable Small Businesses in
Northeastern Thailand. Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. Hum. 2018, 26, 113–128.
33. Przepiorka, A. What makes successful entrepreneurs different in temporal and goal-Commitment dimensions?
Time Soc. 2016, 25. [CrossRef]
34. Snepar, J.; Fishman, E.K.; Horton, K.M.; Johnson, P.T. Launching a Successful Startup: An Entrepreneur’s
Field Guide. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2018, 15, 1521–1522. [CrossRef]
35. Duchek, S. Entrepreneurial resilience: A biographical analysis of successful entrepreneurs. Int. Entrep.
Manag. J. 2018, 14, 429–455. [CrossRef]
36. Fry, F.L.; Van Auken, H. The Influence of Role Models in Entrepreneurial Intentions. J. Dev. Enterp.
2003, 11, 157–167. [CrossRef]
37. Shapiro, E.; Haseltine, F.; Rowe, M. Moving up: Role-Models, mentors, and the “patron-system”.
Sloan Manag. Rev. 1978, 19, 51–58.
38. Gibson, D.E. Role models in career development: New directions for theory and research. J. Vocat. Behav.
2004, 65, 134–156. [CrossRef]
39. Schein, E. Career Dynamics: Matching Individual and Organizational Needs; Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA,
USA, 1978.
40. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [CrossRef]
41. Krumboltz, J.; Mitchell, A.; Jones, G. A social learning theory of career selection. Couns. Psychol. 1976, 6, 71–80.
[CrossRef]
42. Gibson, D.E. Developing the professional self-Concept: Role model construals in early, middle, and late
career stages. Organ. Sci. 2003, 14, 591–610. [CrossRef]
43. McCullough, C.M. Do Role Models Matter? Exploring the Correlates of Motivational and Imitative Role
Modeling by Professionals. Doctoral Dissertation, Philosophy of Business Administration Faculty of the
Graduate School, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA, 2013.
44. Kagan, J. The concept of identification. Psychol. Rev. 1958, 65, 296–305. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
45. Bell, A. Role modelship and interaction in adolescence and young adulthood. Dev. Psychol. 1970, 2, 123–128.
[CrossRef]
46. Witt, U. Economics, sociobiology, and behavioral psychology on preferences. J. Econ. Psychol.
1991, 12, 557–573. [CrossRef]
47. Arenius, P.; De Clercq, D. A network-Based approach on opportunity recognition. Small Bus. Econ.
2005, 24, 249–265. [CrossRef]
48. Koellinger, P.; Minniti, M.; Schade, C. I think I can, I think I can: Overconfidence and entrepreneurial behavior.
J. Econ. Psychol. 2007, 28, 502–527. [CrossRef]
49. Mueller, P. Entrepreneurship in the region: Breeding ground for nascent entrepreneurs? Small Bus. Econ.
2006, 27, 41–58. [CrossRef]
50. Bandura, A. Social Learning Theory; General Learning Press: New York, NY, USA, 1971.
51. Bandura, A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. In The Health
Psychology Reader; Marks, D., Ed.; Sage Publications: London, UK, 1986; pp. 94–106.
52. Collins, O.F.; Moore, D.G.; Unwalla, D.B. The Enterprising Man; MSU Business Studies, Michigan State
University: East Lansing, MI, USA, 1964.
53. Brennan, C.; Morris, M.; Schindehutte, M. Entrepreneurs and motherhood: Impacts on their children in
South Africa and United States. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2003, 41, 1. [CrossRef]
54. Muofhe, N.J.; Du Toit, W.F. Entrepreneurial education’s and entrepreneurial role models’ influence on career
choice. SA J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2011, 9. [CrossRef]
55. Baucus, D.A.; Human, S.E. Second-Career entrepreneurs: A multiple case study analysis of entrepreneurial
processes and antecedent variables. Entrep. Theory Pract. 1995, 19, 41–71. [CrossRef]
56. Karimi, S.; Biemans, H.J.A.; Lans, T.; Chizari, M.; Mulder, M.; Mahdei, K.N. Understanding role models
and gender influences on entrepreneurial intentions among college students. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci.
2013, 93, 204–214. [CrossRef]
57. Lent, R.W.; Brown, S.D.; Hackett, G. Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic
interest, choice, and performance. J. Vocat. Behav. 1994, 45, 79–122. [CrossRef]
58. Watson, K.; Hogarth Scott, S.; Nicholas Wilson, N. Small Business start-Ups: Success factors and support
implication. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 1998, 14, 217–233. [CrossRef]
59. Boldureanu, G.; Lache, C.; Păduraru, T.; Boldureanu, D.; Niculescu, N. Students’ entrepreneurial competencies
and orientation. Current status and perspectives. Environ. Eng. Manag. J. 2013, 12, 2071–2077. [CrossRef]
60. Stoian (Bobâlcă), C.; T, ugulea, O.; Maha, L.G.; Ciobanu, C.I. What is Different about Volunteers? A Study on
Factors of Buying Decisions of Products with Recycled Content. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1631. [CrossRef]
61. Honig, B. Entrepreneurship education: Toward a model of contingency-based business planning. Acad. Manag.
Learn. Educ. 2004, 3, 258–273. [CrossRef]
62. Titrek, O.; Ilgin, I.; Ozturk, O.; Ozturk, A. Teachers’ Opinions on the Functionality of Educational Projects. In
Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Lifelong Learning and Leadership for all (ICLEL 2018),
Wroclaw, Poland, 3–5 July 2018; pp. 392–403.
63. Bae, T.J.; Qian, S.; Miao, C.; Fiet, J.O. The relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial
intentions: A meta-Analytic review. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2014, 38, 217–254. [CrossRef]
64. Stumpf, S.A.; Brief, A.P.; Hartman, K. Self-Efficacy expectations and coping with career-Related events.
J. Vocat. Behav. 1987, 31, 91–108. [CrossRef]
65. Zhao, H.; Seibert, S.E.; Hills, G.E. The mediating role of self-Efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial
intentions. J. Appl. Psychol. 2005, 90, 1265–1272. [CrossRef]
66. Nauta, M.M.; Kokaly, M.L. Assessing role model influence on students’ academic and vocational decisions.
J. Career Assess. 2001, 9, 81–99. [CrossRef]
67. Becker, G.S. Human Capital, 2nd ed.; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1975.
68. Chen, C.C.; Greene, P.G.; Crick, A. Does entrepreneurial self-Efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from
managers? J. Bus. Ventur. 1998, 13, 295–316. [CrossRef]
69. Davidsson, P.; Honig, B. The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. J. Bus. Ventur.
2003, 18, 301–331. [CrossRef]
70. Parker, S.; Van Praag, M. Schooling, capital constraints and entrepreneurial performance: The endogenous
triangle. J. Bus. Econ. Stat. 2006, 24, 416–431. [CrossRef]
71. Van Praag, M.; van Witteloostuijn, A.; van der Sluis, J. Returns for Entrepreneurs Versus Employees: The effect of
Education and Personal Control on the Relative Performance of Entrepreneurs; Discussion Paper TI 2009-111/3;
Tinbergen Institute: Amsterdam, Holland, 2009.
72. Martin, B.C.; McNally, J.J.; Kay, M.J. Examining the formation of human capital in entrepreneurship: A
meta-analysis of entrepreneurship education outcomes. J. Bus. Ventur. 2013, 28, 211–224. [CrossRef]
73. Liñán, F.; Fayolle, A. A systematic literature review on entrepreneurial intentions: Citation, thematic analyses,
and research agenda. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2015, 11, 907–933. [CrossRef]
74. Carr, J.C.; Sequeira, J.M. Prior family business exposure as intergenerational influence and entrepreneurial
intent: A theory of planned behavior approach. J. Bus. Res. 2007, 60, 1090–1098. [CrossRef]
75. Radu, M.; Loué, C. Motivational impact of role models as moderated by “ideal” vs. “ought selfguides”
identifications. J. Enterprising Cult. 2008, 16, 441–465. [CrossRef]
76. Wilson, F.; Kickul, J.; Marlino, D. Gender, entrepreneurial self-Efficacy, and entrepreneurial career intentions:
Implications for entrepreneurship education. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2007, 31, 387–406. [CrossRef]
77. Barba-Sánchez, V.; Atienza-Sahuquillo, C. Entrepreneurial motivation and self-Employment: Evidence from
expectancy theory. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2017, 13, 1097–1115. [CrossRef]
78. Lawler, E.E.; Suttle, J.L. Expectancy theory and job behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 1973, 9, 482–503.
[CrossRef]
79. Locke, E.A.; Baum, J.R. Entrepreneurial motivation. In The Psychology of Entrepreneurship; SIOP organizational
Frontiers series; Baum, J.R., Frese, M.R.A., Baron, R.A., Eds.; Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2007; pp. 93–112.
80. Al-Jubari, I.; Hassan, A.; Liñán, F. Entrepreneurial intention among University students in Malaysia:
Integrating self-Determination theory and the theory of planned behavior. Int. Entrep. Manag. J.
2019, 15, 1323–1342. [CrossRef]
81. Naffziger, D.W.; Hornsby, J.S.; Kuratko, D.F. A proposed research model of entrepreneurial motivation.
Entrep. Theory Pract. 1994, 18, 29–42. [CrossRef]
82. Hartshorn, C.; Parvin, W. Teaching entrepreneurship: Creating and implementing a naturalistic model. In
Proceedings of the International Conference EURO PME, Rennes, France, 30 September–2 October 1999.
83. Liñán, F.; Rodríguez-Cohard, J.C.; Rueda-Cantuche, J.M. Factors affecting entrepreneurial intention levels: A
role for education. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2011, 7, 195–218. [CrossRef]
84. Gibb, A.A. Entrepreneurial core capacities, competitiveness and management development in the 21st
century. In Proceedings of the IntEnt98-Conference, European Business School, Schloß Reichartshausen,
Frankfurt, Germany, 27–29 July 1998.
85. Kent, C.A. Entrepreneurship education at the collegiate level: A synopsis and evaluation. In Entrepreneurship
Education: Current Developments, Future Directions; Kent, C.A., Ed.; Quorum Books; Greenwood Publishing
Group: Westport, CT, USA, 1990.
86. Byabashaija, W.; Katono, I. The impact of college entrepreneurial education on entrepreneurial attitudes and
intention to start a business in Uganda. J. Dev. Entrep. 2011, 16, 127–144. [CrossRef]
87. Van Auken, H.; Fry, F.L.; Stephens, P. The Influence of Role Models on Entrepreneurial Intentions. J. Dev.
Entrepren. 2006, 11, 157–167. [CrossRef]
88. Urbano, D.; Aparicio, S.; Guerrero, M.; Noguera, M.; Torrent-Sellens, J. Institutional determinants of student
employer entrepreneurs at Catalan universities. Technol. Forecast. Soc. 2017, 123, 271–282. [CrossRef]
89. Guerrero, M.; Urbano, D. The development of an entrepreneurial university. J. Technol. Transf. 2012, 37, 43–74.
[CrossRef]
90. Liñán, F.; Chen, Y.W. Development and cross-Cultural application of a specific instrument to measure
entrepreneurial intentions. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2009, 33, 593–617. [CrossRef]
91. Blenker, P.; Elmholdt, S.T.; Frederiksen, S.H.; Korsgaard, S.; Wagner, K. Methods in entrepreneurship
education research: A review and integrative framework. Educ. Train. 2014, 56, 697–715. [CrossRef]
92. Romero, I.; Petrescu, R.M.; Balalia (Iosif), A.E. Universities as Suppliers of Entrepreneurship Education
Services. The Cases of The University of Seville and The Academy of Economic Studies in Bucharest.
Amfiteatru Econ. 2011, 13, 347–361.
93. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.; Pearson Education
Limited: Harlow, UK, 2014.
94. Mukoroli, J.N. An investigation of academic writing at the University of Namibia: Engendering an
Experiential, Meaningful and Critical Pedagogy for English for Academic Purposes. Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of
Education, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa, November 2016.
95. Onwuegbuzie, A.J.; Collins, K.M. A typology of mixed methods sampling designs in social science research.
Qual. Rep. 2007, 12, 281–316.
96. Guest, G.; Bunce, A.; Johnson, L. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation
and variability. Field Methods 2006, 18, 59–82. [CrossRef]
97. Sasu, C. Initierea si dezvoltarea afacerilor; Polirom: Bucarest, Romania, 2003.
98. Titrek, O. (Ed.) Entrepreneurship via Creativity for European Citizenship in Education; Lambert Academic
Publishing: Saarbrucken, Germany, 2015.
99. Titrek, O.; Celik, O. Relations between Self-Awareness and Transformational Leadership Skills of School
Managers. New Educ. Rev. 2011, 23, 355–369.
100. Titrek, O. The Level of Innovation Management of School Principals’ in Turkey. Antropologist 2015, 19, 449–456.
[CrossRef]
101. Hatten, T.S.; Ruhland, S.K. Student attitude toward entrepreneurship as affected by participation in an SBI
program. J. Educ. Bus. 1995, 70, 224–227. [CrossRef]
102. Teixeira, A.A.C. Entrepreneurial Potential in Engineering And Business Courses . . . Why Worry Now?
In Innovation in Manufacturing Networks. In Proceedings of the BASYS 2008, IFIP—The International
Federation for Information Processing, Porto, Portugal, 23–25 June 2008; Azevedo, A., Ed.; IFIP—The
International Federation for Information Processing. Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2008. [CrossRef]
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Sustainability 12 01267 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 12 01267 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 12 01267 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Abstract: In higher education institutions, entrepreneurship learning based on successful

Keywords: entrepreneurship education; entrepreneurial role model; entrepreneurial intention;

Sustainability 2020, 12, 1267; doi:10.3390/su12031267 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

2. Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses

2.1. Successful Entrepreneur Profile

2.2. Entrepreneurial Role Models

2.3. Entrepreneurship Education of Students Using Successful Entrepreneurial Role Models

2.3.1. Entrepreneurship Education through Successful Entrepreneurial Models and Entrepreneurial

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Participants and Data Collection

3.2. Data Analysis

Table 1. Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficients.

Cronbach’s Cronbach’s Alpha Based on

No. of Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sig. for Bartlett’s Test of

3.2.2. Content Analysis

Table 3. The profile of a successful entrepreneur in the students’ view.

Student/Model Features of a Successful Entrepreneur Defined by Students

3.2.3. Descriptive Statistics

3.2.4. Statistical Testing for Differences

4.1. Student Perception of Successful Entrepreneur Profile and Behaviour

• Previous job (M1, M6).

(b) The Reason for Entering the Business

(c) The Source of Funding

• Money from their relatives (M1, M12, M17, M29).

Table 4. Student entrepreneurial intentions before exposure to successful entrepreneurial models

Concerning attitude towards entrepreneurship, descriptive statistics (Table 5) showed a

Table 5. Student attitudes towards entrepreneurship before exposure to successful entrepreneurial

Std. entrepreneurial models—

(a) (b) (c)

Table 7. Differences in student entrepreneurial intentions after exposure to successful entrepreneurial

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

Difference: Difference: Difference:

5. Discussion and Conclusions

Limitations and Future Research

Integrating exposure to successful entrepreneurial models into entrepreneurship education

Table A1. Student identification data.

Student Gender Age Specialization of Graduate Studies

The Age at Which

Table A2. Cont.

The Age at Which

Table A3. Aspects of entrepreneurial behaviour for the success model.

Table A3. Cont.

Table A3. Cont.

You might also like