1. Entre Intentio - towards the impact evaluation of measures aimed at promoting entrepreneurship Elina Varamäki Ph.D. (Econ.) Research Manager, Adjunct Professor Seinäjoki University of Applied Sciences

2. Background In Finland and other countries, a large number of different actions are being used to promote entrepreneurship, but there is no systematic knowledge about the impact of these actions at the individual level –A need for an unambiguous and scientifically tested tool (=measure) for the evaluation of influences at the individual level The aim is to develop and to test a measure to identify individual-level changes in entrepreneurial intentions The measure is based on the Theory of Planned Behavior model, developed by Ajzenin (1991), in which intentions play a key role in explaining the behavior of the individual. In Finland the measure was developed further by the national-level FINPIN team of researchers led by Erno Tornikoski

3. Objectives of entrepreneurship tool The aim is to create and pilot a common measure for university sector, which will make it possible to a)Follow the impact of actions aimed at promoting entrepreneurship through a longitudinal study b)“Catch” the people most likely to embark on entrepreneurship, at whom special activities can be targeted during the studies c)Verify how students’ competencies and entrepreneurial skills improve through the application of different entrepreneurship-promoting actions –the knowledge of the impact of different promoting actions will help develop promoting actions d)Recognize good & working practices in promoting actions at different universities of applied sciences –By comparing the operations models, performance and results of different universities of applied sciences (and especially of the same educational field) nationally (and internationally) –If needed, may be of help in future, when degree programs are ranked based on entrepreneurial impacts

4. Theory of Planned Behavior Attitude toward the behavior Subjec- tive norm Perceived behavioral control Intention Behavior

5. Parts of the measure Part A: Entrepreneurial intentions –Intentions of establishing an enterprise Part B: Subjective norm –What do the others think about me embarking on entrepreneurship? Part C: Perceived behavioral control –Do I feel able to set out and work as an entrepreneur? Part D: Attitudes towards the career as an entrepreneur –What attitudes do I have towards entrepreneurship? Part E: Entrepreneurial skills –At what level do I consider my own entrepreneurial skills and competencies to be? –Is it natural for me to grasp business opportunities? Part F: Background data of the respondent Part G: Identification data of the degree program Part H: The university’s possible own questions

6. Piloting phases, autums 2008 and 2009, spring 2009 Collection of the data –2 230 replies in autumn 2008 –3070 replies in autumn 2009 –550 replies in spring 2009 Participating universities of applied sciences (numbers of degree programs and respondents in parentheses): 1.Seinäjoki (7 degree programs, 616 responses) 2.Vaasa (5 degree programs, 373 responses) 3.Hämeenlinna (5 degree programs, 347 responses) 4.Rovaniemi (4 degree programs, 107 responses) 5.Satakunta (3 degree programs, 269 responses) 6.Pirkanmaa (2 degree programs, 169 responses) 7.Oulu(1 degree program, 143 responses) 8.Tampere (1 degree program, responses) 9.Keski-Pohjanmaa (1 degree program, responses) 10.Turku (1 degree program, 45 responses)

7. Comparisons between different fields of study An internal comparison between the fields of study at one university A comparison between universities by fields of study A comparison between groups of different study years A follow up of the same group from the beginning of studies to graduating phase Comparisosn between different countries and cultures Updated 28 01 2009 What analyses can be made on the basis of the measurement?

8. Updated 28 01 2009 Statistically significant differences : *** p ≤ 0,001, ** 0,001 < p ≤ 0,01, * 0,01 < p ≤ 0,05

9. Updated 28 01 2009 Statistically significant differences : *** p ≤ 0,001, ** 0,001 < p ≤ 0,01, * 0,01 < p ≤ 0,05

10. Updated 28 01 2009 Statistically significant differences : *** p ≤ 0,001, ** 0,001 < p ≤ 0,01, * 0,01 < p ≤ 0,05

11. Updated 28 01 2009 Statistically significant differences : *** p ≤ 0,001, ** 0,001 < p ≤ 0,01, * 0,01 < p ≤ 0,05

12. Updated 28 01 2009 Statistically significant differences : *** p ≤ 0,001, ** 0,001 < p ≤ 0,01, * 0,01 < p ≤ 0,05

13. Updated 28 01 2009 Statistically significant differences : *** p ≤ 0,001, ** 0,001 < p ≤ 0,01, * 0,01 < p ≤ 0,05

14. Updated 28 01 2009 Statistically significant differences : *** p ≤ 0,001, ** 0,001 < p ≤ 0,01, * 0,01 < p ≤ 0,05

15. Updated 28 01 2009 Statistically significant differences : *** p ≤ 0,001, ** 0,001 < p ≤ 0,01, * 0,01 < p ≤ 0,05

16. Pilot international comparison Participating universities (respondents in parentheses): –Finland (662 respondents) –Germany (101 respondents) –Spain (858 respondents) More data is coming at least from –Italy –France –Argentina –USA (probably)

17. Updated 28 01 2009

21. Future plans The next follow-up in the autumn 2010 (for the 2nd and 3rd year students –The same student (young students at Bachelor level) will be followed up 3,5 years, i.e. the whole studying time The main contribution of this study will be in the longitudinal nature At SeAMK the tool has been utilized in the following way: –The tool allows us to identify, as early as their first year of study, those students who have high entrepreneurial intentions –They will be invited to personal discussions concerning options that we can offer them to follow ”entrepreneurial paths” An easy way to collect joint research data among international partners –Good opportunity to international benchmarking and comparisons