Editorial Board

A Refereed Monthly International Journal of Management

Entrepreneurship as Career Path: A Technical University Students’ Perspective

Abha P Shukla

Research Scholar

Delhi Technological University

Delhi

E-mail- abhapandeyshuk@gmail.com

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to investigate the perspective of Graduate and Post-graduate students of the university towards entrepreneurship as a career path.

Design/Methodology: Data were gathered from a sample of 350 Graduate & Post-graduate students from technical universities using a survey-based methodology. In this study, single cross-sectional descriptive research design was performed.

Findings: University students are more likely to be drawn to entrepreneurship if they are more mature and have more work experience. Graduate & postgraduate students confront a number of challenges that could thwart their entrepreneurial tendency, including a lack of funding, a fear of failure, and a lack of social networking. At the same time they get certain type of facilities which influence them to pursue career in entrepreneurship. In this study, Four impediments to entrepreneurship (Perceived behavioral control, fear of failure, lack of resources, lack of social networking) were seen by respondents, and their propensity for entrepreneurship was evaluated.

Limitations: Since this study solely included technical university students, its conclusions cannot be applied to non-technical university students and non-students populations. The quantitative method used was unable to unearth comprehensive data on the facilitators & different barriers.

Keywords: Entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial career path, barriers & facilitators

Introduction

More focus is being placed on entrepreneurship in the field of business research (Davidsson and Wiklund, 2000; Low, 2001; Shane and Vekataraman, 2000; Venkataraman, 1997). It is one of the catalysts for achieving economic growth and employment creation (Gorman et al., 1997 and Brockhaus, 1991). Entrepreneurship is a crucial path to economic progress for both established and emerging economies, according to policymakers, scholars, and researchers (Zelealem et al., 2004). Today's small businesses, especially the new ones, are the main forces behind entrepreneurship, promoting social cohesion and political stability in addition to economic growth (Thurik and Wennekers, 2004).The concept of entrepreneurship is a growing area with growing significance in the context of international business. Young people must be mentored and educated in the area of entrepreneurship so that, once they graduate from school, they are encouraged to create their own jobs rather than to look for employment. In terms of development, entrepreneurship education is viewed as a means of equipping people with the inventive enterprise abilities they need to recognise possibilities around them and helping aspiring entrepreneurs determine the pace for developing new entrepreneurial activities in the economy.Varying intents and willingness to pursue entrepreneurship as a career option are also correlated with different self-perceptions of entrepreneurial competencies. Entrepreneurs are those who are self-employed and have entrepreneurial talents. According to Ravasi and Turati (2015), business owners hold the key to the world's economic expansion.

Even though transitions from paid job to entrepreneurship, as well as back into paid employment, are fairly common, they have only just started to draw scholarly attention. According to Ferber and Waldfogel (1998), one-fourth of young males and one-fifth of young women in the United States have engaged in entrepreneurship,by the time they reach their mid-thirties.Many more people have thought about starting a new business (Reynolds & Curtin, 2008). The majority of business owners start their own companies after having had positions at well-known companies (Beckman & Burton, 2008; Srensen & Fassiotto, 2011). Additionally, whereas 15% to 30% of entrepreneurs are serial founders who launch one business after another (Hyytinen & Ilmakunnas, 2007), the rest entrepreneurs unavoidably undergo a different form of career shift.

To start their own firms or engage in self-employment is one way to address the issue of graduate unemployment. Studies have revealed that career trajectories are no longer characterized by stability and employment longevity (Fallows and Steven, 2000), and graduates are growing more interested in starting their own businesses as a result of the changing nature of career prospects in large corporations. The inability to secure a steady job, however, is not a strong enough motivator for graduates to start their own businesses. According to research on entrepreneurial behaviour, there are particular personality traits that set entrepreneurs apart from non-entrepreneurs.

An emphasis on the contextual aspect of entrepreneurship and how it contrasts with other employment-related options can be found from a careers viewpoint (Douglas & Shepherd, 2002). It is a career decision that can be examined in terms of pay, mobility, and skills. According to Astebro & Thompson (2011) and Blanchflower (2000), entrepreneurs seem to be drawn from both ends of the ability distribution.

Literature review

Like many other job and career possibilities, graduate students' intentions to start their own business depend on a variety of factors. The world over, entrepreneurship is thriving. It encourages a country's economic progress. It is crucial for growth, innovation, and the creation of new jobs. As a result, it is an engine that propels a country's economy. According to Scarborough (2012), A person who launches a new business in the face of danger and uncertainty with the goal of making money and growing through the recognition of opportunities, gathering the resources required to take advantage of them, and utilising them is known as an entrepreneur. He asserts that an entrepreneurial profile should include traits like a desire for responsibility, a preference for moderate risk, confidence in one's ability to succeed, a desire for immediate feedback, a high level of energy and an eye toward the future, organizational skills, and the understanding that success is more important to an entrepreneur than money. Reviews of the literature indicate that further research is needed to determine the elements that affect students' motivation to launch their own enterprises (Karimi et al., 2010, Souitaris et al., 2007). Entrepreneurial motivation is not the same as "uniquely entrepreneurial personality qualities," according to Carsrud and Brännback (2011). Public policy must prioritise developing and supporting student entrepreneurship to ensure their employability after graduation (Branchet et al., 2011). Understanding the entrepreneurial process depends on how intentions, ideas, and behaviour interact (Ajzen, 1991; Krueger and Carsrud 1993).According to Ajzen's (1991) theory of planned behaviour, a person's intent toward an activity is the best indicator of whether or not that particular future activity will really occur. Intention has been shown by Krueger et al. (2000) to be the best predictor of planned conduct.

Entrepreneurial motivation

Our daily existence depend on motivation. According to Ryan and Deci (2000), it is the foundation of biological, cognitive, and social regulation. This is due to the fact that motivation requires effort, focus, persistence, and intention. Human behaviour can be predicted in part by considering goals and reasons. This suggests that there is a connection between intents, motives, and conduct. We take actions because of motivation. The motivation's orientation is the cause of these activities. Although intentions have been emphasised as predictors of future action, Krueger and Carsrud (1993) addressed the critique of entrepreneurship intention research and claimed that there is a lack of basis to support the intention-activity linkage. The connection has been vaguely indicated or presumed. The link between intention and action is provided by motivation, they continued. According to Edelman et al. (2010), motivations may operate as the impetus to transform a latent intention that fuels entrepreneurship. They may also serve as the crucial link between intents and action. It suggests that entrepreneurial motivation should result from the underlying attitudes and objectives to the purpose of entrepreneurship. According to Edelman et al., there is not enough study being done in this area (2010).Therefore, more effort is required in the research related to entrepreneurship.

Behavioural Theory

A connecting mechanism between numerous process-oriented theories of entrepreneurial drive is established by Vroom's (1964) expectation model. According to his theory, a person would act in a way that results in the most preferable situation in order to make the best decision. As stated by  Ajzen (1991), motivational variables are the fundamental factors that affect behaviour. These motivating elements are thought to affect and mould the Behavioural intention. The Theory of Planned Conduct (TPB) model includes these elements: the individual's perspective on the behaviour, the subjective norm, and perceived control. Behavior-based beliefs form the basis of attitude. It is believed that someone who has a positive attitude about the behaviour will be more likely to participate in the monitored behaviour (Ajzen, 2002). Subjective norms are people's judgments of the values, opinions, and standards of significant others, such as family members, teachers, other business-people, and friends, who are viewed as vital to the person's desire to adhere to those standards. It was thought to have the power to influence how someone develops their intentions for business. According to Krueger et al. (2000), societal norms are less likely to predict intentions for those who have a high internal locus of control. Conduct control affects a person's intention to act based on their impression of how difficult it is to carry out a particular behaviour (Ajzen, 1991).

Entrepreneurial motivation, education and entrepreneurship career intentions

Malebana (2014) revealed that the majority of the students plan to launch a firm in the future after using the TPB model to explore their intention to become entrepreneurs while attending a rural South African institution. Therefore, the planned behaviour is the pertinent embedded theory that underpins the research on entrepreneurship intention (Garca-Rodrguez et al., 2013, Nishimura and Tristán, 2011, Krueger et al., 2000). Around the world, students are becoming more interested in starting their own businesses as a career alternative, while they are becoming less interested in typical professional work in large corporations (Brenner et al., 1991; Hart and Harrison, 1992; Fleming, 1994; Kolvereid, 1996). Numerous personal and contextual factors have an impact on the orientations and behaviours of students and recent graduates (Lüthje and Franke, 2003). According to empirical research, students are more likely to choose an entrepreneurial profession when there are entrepreneurship education programmes (ETPs) available and when entrepreneurs are viewed favourably inside the university. Johannisson (1991) and Autio et al. (1997) highlight the influence of students' perceptions of entrepreneurship on favourably impacting student attitudes towards entrepreneurial professions, coupled with the resources and other support mechanisms available in the university setting. Begley et.al (2007) study and the statistical relationship between the degree of entrepreneurial intention and the number of management courses taken by students enrolled in other programs both highlight the significance of the social standing of entrepreneurial activities and situations (Chen et. al., 1998). Both present behaviour and intentions are influenced by entrepreneurship education and training (Kolvereid and Moen, 1997; Tkachev and Kolvereid, 1999; Fayolle, 2002). In other words, students who have taken entrepreneurship classes are significantly different from those who have not.

Students from various groups have been made to compare their goals and/or behaviours. For instance, Varela and Jimenez (2001) selected groups of students from five programmes at three universities in Columbia for a longitudinal study. They discovered that the colleges with the greatest investments in entrepreneurship education and training for their students had the highest rates of entrepreneurship. Noel (2001) specifically examined how entrepreneurship training affected the emergence of entrepreneurial intention and self-efficacy perception. The sample's participants were all recent graduates in entrepreneurship, management, or another field who had all participated in entrepreneurship education programs. The findings of Noel's study (2001) at least partially corroborated the idea that graduates with entrepreneurship degrees were more likely than students in the other two groups to launch their own businesses and had higher levels of intention and a more developed feeling of self-efficacy.Other scholars have attempted to explain how entrepreneurial programs relate to personal traits as the need for achievement, locus of control, and self-efficacy perception (Hansemark, 1998)&(Ehrlich et.al., 2000). They discovered that entrepreneurship education improved these characteristics and the likelihood of future entrepreneurial action. However, factors connected to education have gotten less attention. Dilts et al. (1999) made this assertion in an effort to show that particular teaching methods (trainee-ships and field learning) are more successful than others at preparing students for an entrepreneurial career. As it relates to the capacity of technical students to engage in entrepreneurial behaviours, Lüthje and Franke (2003) address the significance of particular contextual features within the university system. Their findings corroborate those of Autio et al. (1997) and Fayolle (1996), who used similar samples to arrive at their conclusions.

Young people must be essential participants in this endeavour since entrepreneurship is essential to reviving the economy. Consequently, entrepreneurship training and business creation have a favourable impact on economic growth (Pittaway & Cope, 2007; Cheung, 2008). Recognizing that youth and students hold the key to a nation's future development, it is important to understand how students view entrepreneurship as a possible career path. Therefore based on above literature, the following hypothesis is established:

H1: Entrepreneurial education program positively influences attitude towards behaviour, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control and entrepreneurial intention.

Barriers of Entrepreneurship

The literature has discovered a number of ideas that explain the variables influencing entrepreneurial intention and impediments to entrepreneurship. Since each theory has a different focus and set of criteria, there is still very little agreement on which is the most complete. The psychological school of thinking emphasizes personality factors including the desire for success, sense of control, propensity for taking risks, etc. (Rotter, 1966; McClelland, 1987; Dyer, 1994). Numerous authors have used the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1987; Ajzen, 1991) to explain intents to become an entrepreneur (Krueger et al., 2000; Audet, 2002;Kolvereid, 1996; Tkachev and Kolvereid, 1999; Engle et al., 2010). TPB holds that entrepreneurial conduct is purposeful, or, to put it another way, that people's intentions can affect their behaviour in becoming an entrepreneur. Another intentionally based model is Shapero's (1982) Entrepreneur Event Model, but it is focused on how desirable and practical it is to act on opportunities (Shapero, 1982). People who have a strong desire to start their own business may ultimately decide against doing so due to potential obstacles. It is crucial to precisely define these obstacles. Another theory that explains entrepreneurship motives is institutional economic theory, which places equal emphasis on formal and informal factors like policies, laws, regulations, government support, culture, and so forth (Krueger and Brazeal, 1994). Informal factors include attitudes and behavioural norms (North, 1990). The literature on entrepreneurship has also covered a wide range of additional background variables related to social factors, including previous employment (Storey, 1982), family background (Scott and Twomey, 1988; Matthews and Moser, 1995), gender (Buttner and Rosen, 1989; Kolvereid et al., 1993), education (Storey, 1992), ethnic membership (Aldrich, 1980), and religion (Weber, 1930). Some people are more likely to be entrepreneurial candidates than others because to a mix of the 431 psychological qualities listed in Entrepreneurshipbarriers and unique background variables (Lofstrom, M., Bates, T., & Parker, S. C., 2014). Researchers who have focused on studying student populations have discovered that some characteristics, including education, have a greater impact on students than others (Wang et al., 2001; Scott and Twomey, 1988).

In conclusion, psychological issues including aversion to risk, fear of failure, dread of stress and hard labour are some of the most frequent obstacles faced by entrepreneurs. The institutional barriers, which come from the institutional school of thought and include things like a lack of funding from the government, are another factor. On the basis of the social networking hypothesis, a lack of social networking is yet another obstacle facing entrepreneurs (Taormina and Lao, 2007; Luo, 1997).We contend that obstacles faced by established entrepreneurs may differ from those encountered by aspiring entrepreneurs. According to prior studies, institutional hurdles, such as a lack of funding, infrastructure problems, inadequate training, unfavourable contract and property rules, and corruption, are the main challenges faced by real entrepreneurs (Kiggundu, 2002; Chu et al., 2007; Ivy, 1997; Benzing et al., 2009). However, the majority of the obstacles that aspiring entrepreneurs face are psychological (Taormina and Lao, 2007). The institutional, social networking, and psychological schools of thought all contributed barriers that were chosen for this investigation. The model also took into account demographic traits to make it more complete. In the following section, these factors are discussed in more detail.

Fear of failure

Entrepreneurship and failure go hand in hand. According to the Global Entrepreneurial Monitor, potential entrepreneurs worldwide cite fear of failure as the main deterrent to launching their own enterprises (Bosma et al., 2007). The biggest factor preventing most people from beginning their own enterprises is fear of failure (Business Venture Advice, 2007). Henderson and Robertson (1999) conducted additional research in a UK university and discovered that students who lacked an entrepreneurial spirit were terrified of failing. Given that the majority of postgraduate students in Malaysia are employed and may view failure as embarrassing, this is probably the case. Therefore, we can formulate following hypothesis  :

H2: Fear of failure has negative influence on entrepreneurial inclination of the students.

Lack of social networking and resources

The entrepreneurial process is greatly influenced by the availability of resources, according to entrepreneurship studies, even while motivation may persuade people to adopt the behaviours needed to start a business.According to several studies (Deakins et al., 1997; Basu, 1998; Ven et al., 2007; Szilagyi and Schweiger, 1984), financial capital, market access, and information accessibility are some of the crucial resources that influence the success of start-ups.

Ramayah and Harun (2005) claim that one of the most challenging barriers to the expansion of entrepreneurial initiatives is access to money. The challenges of obtaining funding and financing in a banking system where collateral and track records are required are faced by entrepreneurs starting new businesses (David and June, 2001; Cressey,2002). Additionally, when asked explicitly during interviews, potential business owners stated that their main challenge is raising financing (Blanchflower and Oswald, 1998). A challenge experienced by small and medium sized businesses is a shortage of funding, according to research conducted in Malaysia by Edward and Chooi in 2007.Lack of money is a barrier to entrepreneurship, in case of students (Turnbull et al., 2001; Lane, 2002; Henderson and Robertson, 1999; Robertson et al., 2003;  Li, 2007)

For new start-ups, social and organizational networks are equally crucial. A large amount of an entrepreneur's social capital comes from social networks, which also help to increase the return on human capital like intelligence and education (Burt, 1997). Findings that human and social capital have been demonstrated to affect small business performance in many nations, including transitioning economies like Bulgaria (Manev et al., 2005) and industrialized ones like Holland (Bosma et al., 2004), highlight the significance of these network relationships. Guanxi (social Entrepreneurship barriers 433) networking is crucial in China for establishing long-lasting business ties and lowering unexpected risk (Taormina and Lao, 2007; Luo, 1997; Luo, 2000; Yeung and Tung,1996).

However, a survey done with Chinese respondents revealed that "importance of favourable business environment" was more significant than social networking (Taormina and Lao, 2007). In the early stages of a start-up, when internal resources are typically quite limited, social networking may be very important (Jones and Jayawarna, 2010). We contend that social networking has a significant role in influencing entrepreneurial activities in developing nations like Malaysia. As a result, a lack of social networking can impede business goals. The following two hypotheses are established in light of these findings:

H3: Lack of resources has negative influence on the entrepreneurial inclination of the students.

H4: Lack of social networking has negative influence on the entrepreneurial inclination of the students.

Research Gaps

Successful research universities appear to encourage entrepreneurial activities among students, according to Luthje and Franke (2003). They argued that it is not well understood if the students' decision to pursue self-employment is motivated by personality attributes or environmental founding conditions. According to Scott and Twomey (1988), policymakers need to know which of the aforementioned elements should be extensively stressed in order to build effective programs. The findings of the Autio et al. (1997) study demonstrated that career inclinations and entrepreneurial conviction are influenced by the perception of entrepreneurship as a career option and the support received from the academic environment.

After four years of taking business courses, Whitlock and Masters (1996) discovered that the desire of business students in pursuing self-employment seems to wane. In continuation with this debate,This study assessed the levels of entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intention among university students as well as their views on pursuing entrepreneurship as a career. As a result, there is a clear research void in the literature.

Objectives of the study

The primary objective of this study is to find out the perspective of Graduate and Post-graduate students of the technical university towards entrepreneurship as a career path. Specific objectives are as follows:

• To analyse the variables that affect innovation and creativity in relation to entrepreneurship.
• To determine facilitators and barriers of adoption of entrepreneurship as a career.
• To examine the demographic and personality features of students interested in entrepreneurship.
• To suggest policy framework to increase awareness and adoption of entrepreneurial profession.

Research Methodology

The research started in May 2022, which took 5 months to complete. In this segment, methods and measures are explained which used to collect and analyse the data as explained below:

Research Design

In this study, both descriptive and quantitative research methods were used. The Data collection has been done through a questionnaire . These questionnaire has 21 questions  to understand  the respondent’s demographic profiles and their career choices and family background.

Data Sources

Primary Data Collection  was done through structured questionnaire. These questionnaire has 21 questions  to understand  the respondent’s demographic profiles and their career choices and family background.

This research was conducted through online survey by floating the questionnaire through email to the randomly selected sample size of 500 students of different streams students of the university .

Sample Design

This research was conducted though online survey by floating the questionnaire through email to the randomly selected sample size of  500 students of different streams students of the university .

This study is conducted through internet considering the best possible and feasible medium for data collection during covid-19 time and to save time and energy. A google form of the questionnaire was created and circulated through e-mail and various social media to collect the responses. Total 400 responses were received in 5 months, out of which 350 responses were found to be error-free and complete which means 70% of responses were collected complete and error -free.Therefore sample size of the study tends to be 350.

Tools & Techniques

The software IBM-SPSS Statistics 20 was used for data analysis . A reliability test and factor analysis were conducted for analyzing the data. The respondents were selected randomly from all the campuses of the university and were mixed of various demographic factors like gender,age ,family background,monthly income etc. Snow ball sampling and convenience sampling were used to collect the data.The 5-point Likert scale was used to rate questionnaire statement , where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is  strongly disagree.

Findings & Discussion

Profile of Respondents

The respondents profile are shown in table 1. The profiles are computed based on the respondents' economic and demographic characteristics. They were also questioned about any family enterprises they may have and the university degrees they had chosen

Table 1 showing respondents profile

Reliability Analysis

Wefound chronbach alpha value of each construct was more than 0.7, therefore scale used in this research was reliable.

Factor Analysis

KMOandBartlett’sSpherecityTest

We anticipated determining whether the model was appropriate for this type of examination before coordinating segment examination. In order to evaluate the sensitivity of the data for the factor examination, we used the Kaiser-Mayer Olkin's (KMO) extent of looking at adequacy test and Bartlett's assessment of sphericity. The final results of the KMO extent of reviewing adequacy and Bartlett's test show that the data meet the key requirements for factor analysis (Table 2). The model's link is notably smaller, as shown by the KMO extent of adequate looking at (0.684), a regard > 0.5, which suggests that factor analysis should produce precise and reliable components.The major association grid's status as a character structure is tested using the Bartlett measure. 

Table 2 showing KMO and Bartlett’s Test

Using SPSS, a factor analysis was conducted, and the extraction method employed was the important sections system. The Varmex thodology was used for extraction of factors to revamp the stacking component of everything on the separated portions, and only Eigenvalues more visible than one were held. Things with factor loading greater than or equivalent to 0.3 were kept, whereas those with factor loading lower than 0.3 were suppressed. Five components were included in the test, four of which were regarded as examples of verifiable checks while the fifth was deemed unimportant and removed from the factor set.

Following labels were assigned to,variables being grouped together:

1. Perceived Behavioral Control
2. Fear of failure
3. Lack of Social Networking
4. Lack of Resources

Table 3: Factor Loadings after Vaimax and their respective communalities

The components, their loadings, eigenvalues, and any relevant distinctions are shown in Table 3. The four segments appeared to have the option to explain a typical rate of 61.252% of the difference in leading aims, whilst the primary factor had the option to explain essentially 34.088% of the difference.The first factor was labelled as Perceived Behavioral Control which includes items like If I sought to launch a business firm,I would have a high probability of success, Starting a firm and keep I working would be easy for me, I am prepared to start a viable firm,I can control the creation process of a firm,I know the necessary practical details to start a firm,I know how to develop an entrepreneurial project, I am ready to do anything to be an entrepreneur,My professional goal is to become an entrepreneur,I will make every effort to start and run my own business,I am determined to create a firm in future, I have very serious thought of starting a firm,I have got the intention to start a firm some day. Factor loadings for each item was found to be greater than 0.5.

Second factor was Fearof failure which includes items like embarrassment from failing in business venture, fear of failure acts as a barrier, prefer job security than risky-business, business ventures are uncertain and risky,prefer income with risk of financial loss. Factor loadings for above mentioned items was found greater than 0.5.

Similarly, the third factor was Lack of social networking including items like lack of social networking makes it difficult to start, good social network increases the probability of success and social network is important for new business. Factor loading for these items was found to be greater than 0.5.

Fourth factor was Lack of resources which includes items like non-availability of funds deter you from starting your own venture and will start business only with easy access to funds. Factor loadings for each item was also found to be greater than 0.5.

Conclusion & Implications

Theoretical and policy implications are associated with this study. This study is conducted by survey of the challenges faced by the students which influence in their career decision to become an entrepreneur. Another objective was to find out the which influence students in their career decision towards entrepreneurship. To strengthen the validity of this research, many psychological, institutional, and demographic hurdles and facilities are included. The findings corroborate the literature and lead to the conclusion that the same obstacles to entrepreneurship that students and aspiring business. Aversion to risk was identified as a barrier for postgraduate students , which supports earlier research from other industrialized nations (Koh,1996; Wang and Wong, 2004; McClelland, 1987). Since they are considerably more mature and experienced and may have financial and familiar obligations, postgraduate students may be less willing to take risks.

Another significant barrier identified was fear of failure, which is supported by earlier research from the UK (Henderson and Robertson, 1999) and the Global Monitor Index 2007 (Bosma et al., 2008). This may be a more important factor for postgraduate students, the majority of whom were employed full-time at the time of this study, and for whom failure can be perceived as humiliating.  This result supports earlier studies among UK undergraduates (Henderson and Robertson, 1999).Regarding institutional elements, this study discovered that entrepreneurship was hampered by a lack of resources and social networks. This validates earlier study (Deakins et al., 1997; Basu, 1998; Burt, 1997; Manev et al., 2005 and Bosma et al., 2004) that looked at both students and aspiring entrepreneurs.

Managerial Implication Policy

This study  suggests the policymakers and academicians to increase the awareness among these educated people have the potential to grow into successful business owners and pave the path for the government to realize its goal of encouraging entrepreneurship among the populace. High entrepreneurial intentions alone might not be sufficient because the desirable needs to be translated into action. ThereforeIn order to encourage postgraduates to launch their own firms, the government must focus its efforts on reducing the psychological and personal barriers that stand in their way. This study also reveals the absence of social networking is the obstacle. Lack of resources is the next biggest obstacle to entrepreneurship, followed by aversion to risk, and fear of failure.

Limitations

This study was conducted on technical university students, therefore the conclusion cannot be applied to non-technical university students and non-students populations. Hence future researcher may look forward to target non-technical students and non-students.The quantitative method was used to which can be unable to ascertain comprehensive data on the facilitators and different barriers,therefore future researches may focus on qualitative approach which may be helpful to get more appropriate result .In this study, sample size was of  350 students which can be more extensive by future researcher.

References

1. Aneas, A. (2015). Transdisciplinary technology education: a characterisation and some ideas for implementation in the university. Studies in Higher Education, 40(9), 1715-1728.
2. Ahmad, S. Z., Xavier, S. R., & Bakar, A. R. A. (2014). Examining entrepreneurial intention through cognitive approach using Malaysia GEM data. Journal of Organizational Change Management.
3. Ajzen, I. (1987), “Attitudes, traits, and actions: dispositional prediction of behavior in personality and social psychology”, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 20, pp. 1-63.
4. Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50, pp. 179-211.
5. Aldrich, H. (1980), Organizations and Environments, Prentice-Hall Books, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
6. Audet, J. (2002), “A longitudinal study of the entrepreneurial intentions of university students”, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Babson Kaufmann Entrepreneurship Research Conference, Boulder, CO, June.
7. Entrepreneurship Barriers443Basu, A. (1998), “An exploration of entrepreneurial activity among Asian small businesses in Britain”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 10, pp. 313-26.
8. Bates, T. (1990), “Entrepreneur human capital inputs and small business longevity”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 4, pp. 551-9.
9. Begley, T.M. and Boyd, D.P. (1987), “Psychological characteristics associated with performance in entrepreneurial fifirms and smaller businesses”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 79-93.
10. Benzing, C., Chu, H.M. and Kara, O. (2009), “Entrepreneurs in Turkey: a factor analysis of motivations, success factors and problems”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 58-91.
11. Blanchflflower, D.G. and Oswald, A.J. (1998), “What makes an entrepreneur?”, Journal of Labor Economics, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 26-60.
12. Bosma, N., Van Praag, M., Thurik, R. and De Wit, G. (2004), “The value of human and social capital investments for the business performance of start-ups”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 227-41.
13. Brockhaus, R. (1980), “Risk-taking propensity of entrepreneurs”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 23, pp. 509-20.
14. Brockhaus, R.H. (1991), Entrepreneurship Education and Research outside North America, John F. Baugh Center for Entrepreneurship, Hankamer School of Business, Baylor University, Waco, TX.
15. Burt, R. (1997), “The contingent value of social capital”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42, pp. 339-65.
16. Busenitz, L.W. (1999), “Entrepreneurial risk and strategic decision making: it’s a matter of perspective”, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 325-40.
17. Business Venture Advice (2007), “Fear of failure”, available at: www.businessventureadvice.com/Fear-Failure/132/(accessed November 25, 2007).
18. Buttner, E.H. and Rosen, B. (1989), “Funding new business ventures: are decision makers biased against women entrepreneurs?”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 4, pp. 249-61.
19. Chu, H.M., Benzing, C. and McGee, C. (2007), “Ghanaian and Kenyan entrepreneurs: a comparative analysis of their motivations, success characteristics, and problems”, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 295-322.
20. Crant, M.J. (1996), “The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 42-9.
21. Cressey, R. (2002), “Funding gaps: a symposium”, The Economic Journal, Vol. 112, February, pp. 1-16.
22. David, W. and June, B. (2001), “The new economy, new opportunities and new structures”, Management Decision, Vol. 39 No. 10, pp. 818-34.
23. Davidsson, P. and Wiklund, J. (2000), “Levels of analysis in entrepreneurship research: current research practice and suggestions for the future”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 81-100.
24. De Pillis, E. and Reardon, K.K. (2007), “The inflfluence of personality traits and persuasive messages on entrepreneurial intention”, Career Development International, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 382-96.
25. Edward, R.C. and Chooi, L.W. (2007), “Malaysia vs Singapore; e-commerce supremacy in Asia”, Part 2, available at: available at: www.echenard.com/business/eaprt2.htm(accessed December 6, 2007).
26. Engle, R.L., Dimitriadi, N., Gavidia, J.V., Schlaegel, C., Delanoe, S., Alvarado, I., He, X., Buame, S. and Wolff, B. (2010),“Entrepreneurial intent: a twelve-country evaluation of Ajzen’s model of planned behavior”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour &Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 35-57.
27. Evans, D. and Leighton, L. (1989), “Some empirical aspects of entrepreneurship”, American Economic Review, Vol. 79, pp. 519-35.
28. Fallows, S. and Steven, C. (2000), “Building employability skills into the higher education curriculum: a university-wide initiative”, Education þ Training, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 75-82.
29. Farr-Wharton, R. and Brunetto, Y. (2007), “Women entrepreneurs, opportunity recognition and government-sponsored business networks”, Women in Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 187-207.
30. Gnoth, J. (2006), “Perceived motivations and barriers for entrepreneurshipamongst NZ students”, Proceedings of Understanding the Regulatory Climate for Entrepreneurship and SMEs, Rencontres de St-Gall 2006, Wildhaus, September 18-21, 2006, Vol. 2006.
31. Gorman, G., Hanlon, D. and King, W. (1997), “Some research perspectives on entrepreneurship education, enterprise education and education for small business management: a ten-year literature review”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 56-77.
32. Granovetter, M. (1992), “Problems of explanation in economic sociology”, in Nohria, N. and Eccles, R. (Eds), Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form, and Action, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, pp. 25-56.
33. Guerrero, M., Rialp, J. and Urbano, D. (2008), “The impact of desirability and feasibility on entrepreneurial intentions: a structural equation model”, The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 35-50.
34. Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R. and Black, W. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed., Prentice-Hall Publishers, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
35. Henderson, R. and Robertson, M. (1999), “Who wants to be an entrepreneur? Young attitudes to entrepreneurship as a career”, Education þ Training, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 236-45.
36. Hofstede, G. (1980), “National cultures in four dimensions: a research-based theory of cultural differences among nations”, International Studies of Management and Organization, Vol. 13 Nos 1/2, pp. 46-74.
37. Hofstede, G. and Bond, M.H. (1988), “The Confucius connection: from cultural roots to economic growth”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 5-21. Ivy, R.L. (1997), “Entrepreneurship strategies and problems in post-communist Europe: a survey of SMEs in Slovakia”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 93-8. Jones, O. and Jayawarna, D. (2010), “Resourcing new businesses: social networks, bootstrapping and fifirm performance”, Venture Capital, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 1-37.
38. Kiggundu, M.N. (2002), “Entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship in Africa: what is known and what needs to be done”, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 239-58.
39. Kim, G. (2008), “Entrepreneurship and self-employment: the state-of-the-art and directions for future research”, New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 39-52.
40. Koh, H.C. (1996), “Testing hypotheses of entrepreneurial characteristics: a study of Hong Kong MBA students”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 12-25. Kolvereid, L. (1996), “Organizational employment versus self-employment: reasons for career choice intentions”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 23-31.
41. Kolvereid, L., Shane, S. and Westhead, P. (1993), “Is it equally diffificult for female entrepreneurs to start businesses in all countries?”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 42-51.
42. Krueger, N. and Brazeal, D. (1994), “Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 91-104.
43. Krueger, N., Reilly, M. and Carsrud, A. (2000), “Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 15 Nos 5/6, pp. 411-532.
44. Lane, D. (2002), “Hopes and aspirations of young achievers on the Young Enterprise Programme”, working paper, Bristol Business School, Bristol.
45. Lee, S.M., Lim, S.B., Pathak, R.D., Chang, D. and Li, W. (2006), “Inflfluences on students’ attitudes toward entrepreneurship: a multi-country study”, Entrepreneurship Management, Vol. 2, pp. 351-66.
46. Li, W. (2007), “Ethnic entrepreneurship: studying Chinese and Indian students in the United States”, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 449-66.
47. Low, M. (2001), “The adolescence of entrepreneurship research: specifification of purpose”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 17-26.
48. Low, M.B. and MacMillan, I.C. (1988), “Entrepreneurship: past research and future challenges”, Journal of Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 139-61.
49. Lucas, R.E. (1978), “On the size distribution of business fifirms”, Bell Journal of Economics, Vol. 9, pp. 508-23.
50. Luo, Y. (1997), “Guanxi: principles, philosophies and implications”, Human Systems Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 43-52.
51. Luo, Y. (2000), Guanxi and Business, World Scientifific Publishing Co. Pte Ltd, Singapore.
52. McClelland, D.C. (1987), “Characteristics of successful entrepreneurs”, Journal of Creative Behaviour, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 219-33.
53. Manev, I.M., Gyoshev, B.S. and Manolova, T.S. (2005), “The role of human and social capital and entrepreneurial orientation for small business performance in a transitional economy”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, Vol. 5 Nos 3/4, pp. 298-318.
54. Matthews, C.H. and Moser, S.B. (1995), “The impact of family background and gender on interest in small fifirm ownership: a longitudinal study”, Proceedings of the ICSB 40th World Conference, Sydney, pp. 245-62.
55. Miles, M.P., Arnold, D.R. and Thompson, D.L. (1993), “The interrelationship between environmental hostility and entrepreneurial orientation”, Journal of Applied Business Research, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 12-24.
56. Miller, D. (1983), “The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of fifirms”, Management Science, Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 770-91.
57. Miller, R.A. (1984), “Job matching and occupational choice”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 92, pp. 1086-120. IJEBR 17,4 446
58. Mohar, Y., Sandhu, M.S. and Jain, K.K. (2006), “Entrepreneural inclination of university students: a case study at UNITAR”, Proceedings of the SME-Entrepreneurship, Competitiveness, Challenges and Prospects in the New Global Environment, Conference organized by Monash University, Malaysia, Malaysia, 17-18 October, 2006.
59. Neergaard, H., Shaw, E. and Carter, S. (2005), “The impact of gender, social capital and networks on business ownership: a research agenda”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 338-57.
60. Ngui, C.Y.K. (2005), “Getting to the root of graduate unemployment”, Malaysian Business, September 16. North, D.C. (1990), Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
61. Ramayah, T. and Harun, Z. (2005), “Entrepreneurial intention among the students of USM”, International Journal of Management and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 8-20.
62. Rees, H. and Shah, A. (1986), “An empirical analysis of self employment in the UK”, Journal of Applied Econometrics, Vol. 1, pp. 95-108.
63. Robertson, M. (2001), LMU Undergraduate Entrepreneurial Cultures, Backgrounds and Career Aspirations, Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds.
64. Robertson, M., Collins, A., Medeira, N. and Slater, J. (2003), “Barriers to start-up and their effects on aspirant entrepreneurs”, EducationþTraining, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 308-16.
65. Ronstadt, R.C. (1984), Entrepreneurship, Lord Publishing, Dover, MA.
66. Rotter, J.B. (1966), “Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement”, Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, Vol. 80 (whole No. 609).
67. Schiller, B.R. and Crewson, P.E. (1997), “Entrepreneurial origins: a longitudinal inquiry”, Economic Inquiry, Vol. 35, pp. 523-31.
68. Scott, M.G. and Twomey, D.F. (1988), “The long-term supply of entrepreneurs: students’ career aspirations in relation to entrepreneurship”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 5-13.
69. Segal, G., Borgia, D. and Schoenfeld, J. (2005), “The motivation to become an entrepreneur”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 42-57.
70. Sekaran, U. (2003), Research Methods for Business: A Skill-Building Approach, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Sexton, D. and Bowman, N. (1984), “Entrepreneurship education: suggestions for increasing effectiveness”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 18-25.
71. Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. (2000), “The promise of entrepreneurship as a fifield of research”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 217-26.
72. Shapero, A. (1982), Social Dimensions of Entrepreneurship, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Singh, R. (2000), Entrepreneurial Opportunity Recognition through Social Networks, Macmillan Education, Melbourne.
73. Singh, R., Hills, G. and Lumpkin, G. (1999), Opportunity Recognition through Social Network Characteristics of Entrepreneurs, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College, Wellesley, MA.
74. Sparks, K. and Cooper, C.L. (1999), “Occupational differences in the work-strain relationship: towards the use of situation-specifific models”, Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, Vol. 72, pp. 219-29.
75. Storey, D.J. (1982), Entrepreneurship and the New Firm, Routledge, London. Storey, J. (1992), Developments in the Management of Human Resources, Blackwell, Oxford