Girişimcilik Eğitimlerinin Girişimcilik Motivasyonuna Katkısı: Üç Boyutta Tek Yönlü Varyans Analizi

Amaç – Bu çalışmanın amacı rastgele seçilen 1000 kişinin cinsiyet, çalışma durumu ve mali durumu dikkate alınarak, belirlenen kişilere 5 sene boyunca girişimcilik eğitimleri verildikten sonra girişimcilik motivasyonu ve girişimci davranışlarında olumlu bir değişim olup olmadığı gözlemlemektir. Yöntem – Çalışmada ilişkiyi test etmek amacıyla, Türkiye’de OECD ve EUROSTAT tarafından 2008 yılında uygulanmaya başlayan Girişimcilik Göstergeleri Programı (GGP) veri setinin 2008- 2016 yılları arasındaki verileri SPSS 18.0 istatistik analiz programı Tek Yönlü Varyans Analizi (ANOVA) ile analiz edilmiştir. Nicel araştırma yöntemi kullanılan çalışmada, tek gruplu "ön test-son test" tipi "ön deneysel" araştırma tasarımı uygulanmıştır. Bulgular – Çalışmada girişimcilik eğitimi ile girişimcilik motivasyonunun ilişkisini etkilediği düşünülen üç alt değişken; cinsiyet, çalışma durumu ve mali durum arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir ilişki olduğu gözlenmiştir. Çalışma bulguları, cinsiyet baz alındığında kadınların erkeklere kıyasla, eğitimden sonra daha çok girişimde bulunduğunu göstermiştir. Çalışma durumu göz önüne alındığında ise, çalışanların çalışmayanlara kıyasla eğitimden sonra daha az girişim yaptığı görülmektedir. Bulgular aynı zamanda, mali durumu çok iyi olan bireylerin ise mali durumu kötü olanlara kıyasla eğitimden sonra, daha az girişim yaptığını ve mali durumu iyi olanların ise mali durumu kötü olanlara göre eğitimden sonra daha fazla girişim yaptığını göstermektedir. Tartışma – Özetle çalışmada, girişimcilik eğitimin bütün değişkenler (cinsiyet, çalışma durumu, mali durum) göz önüne alındığında büyük çoğunlukla girişimde bulunmaya olumlu katkısı olduğu sonucuna varılmaktadır. Tek Yönlü Varyans Analizi (ANOVA) sonucunda, girişimcilik eğitimlerinin girişimcilik motivasyonu sağlamada önemini vurgulayan dikkate değer bulgulara ulaşıldığı düşünülmektedir.

The Contribution of Entrepreneurship Trainings on Entrepreneurial Motivation: One Way Anova Test of Three Dimensions (Gender, Employment Status, Financial Status

Purpose – In this study, randomly selected 144 out of 1000 individuals will be observed regarding three main dimensions; gender, employment status and financial status. The aim of this study is searching whether or not a positive change in entrepreneurial motivation and behavior would be observed after giving sundry entrepreneurship training to this sample of individuals. Design/methodology/approach – In this study, quantitative research method is used and single group "pre-test-post-test" type "pre-experimental" research design was applied. In order to test the relationship between variables, Entrepreneurship Development Program (GGP) data set which has been implemented by OECD and EUROSTAT since 2008 and Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) data set between (2008-2016) was analyzed by SPSS 18.0 statistical analysis program by using One Way ANOVA Test Approach. Findings – In this study, it was observed that there was a statistically significant relationship between entrepreneurship training and entrepreneurship motivation considering three sub-dimensions (gender, employment status and financial status). The findings of the study showed that regarding gender dimension, women make more entrepreneurial attempts after entrepreneurship trainings compared to men. Considering the employment status, employees attempt less entrepreneurial activities after entrepreneurship trainings compared to people who do not work. The findings of this study also show that wealthy individuals have fewer entrepreneurial facilities after being educated compared to people with poor financial standing, and those with high financial standing have more interventions after education than those with low financial standing. Discussion – In summary, the study concludes that entrepreneurial trainings have a positive impact on entrepreneurship motivation, mostly regarding the dimensions of gender, employment status, financial status. As a result of One Way ANOVA test, the remarkable findings emphasize the importance of entrepreneurship training on entrepreneurial motivation as assumed.

PDF

___

Bosma, N. (2013). The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) and its impact on entrepreneurship research. Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 9(2), 143-248.
Carter, N. M., Gartner, W. B., Shaver, K. G., & Gatewood, E. J. (2003). The career reasons of nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 13-39.
Cetindamar, D. (2005). Policy issues for Turkish entrepreneurs. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 5(3-4), 187-205.
Cetindamar, D., Gupta, V. K., Karadeniz, E. E., & Egrican, N. (2012). What the numbers tell: The impact of human, family and financial capital on women and men's entry into entrepreneurship in Turkey. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 24(1-2), 29-51.
Cunningham, J. B., & Lischeron, J. (1991). Defining entrepreneurship. Journal of small business management, 29(1), 45-61.
Eroglu, O., & Piçak, M. (2011). Entrepreneurship, national culture and Turkey. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(16).
Fairlie, R. W., & Holleran, W. (2012). Entrepreneurship training, risk aversion and other personality traits: Evidence from a random experiment. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(2), 366-378.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM). 2016. https://www.gemconsortium.org/
Goss, D. (2005). Schumpeter's legacy? Interaction and emotions in the sociology of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(2), 205-218.
Henry, C., Hill, F., & Leitch, C. (2005). Entrepreneurship education and training: can entrepreneurship be taught? Part II. Education+ Training, 47(3), 158-169.
Henry, C., Hill, F., & Leitch, C. (2017). Entrepreneurship education and training: the issue of effectiveness: the issue of effectiveness. Routledge.
Karadeniz, E., & Ozdemir, O. (2009). Entrepreneurship in Turkey and developing countries: A comparison of activities, characteristics, motivation and environment for entrepreneurship. Mibes Transactions, 3(1), 30-45.
Markman, G. D., & Baron, R. A. (2003). Person–entrepreneurship fit: why some people are more successful as entrepreneurs than others. Human resource management review, 13(2), 281-301.
Nabi, G., Holden, R., Harris, M. L., & Gibson, S. G. (2008). Examining the entrepreneurial attitudes of US business students. Education+ Training.
Olugbola, S. A. (2017). Exploring entrepreneurial readiness of youth and startup success components: Entrepreneurship training as a moderator. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 2(3), 155-171.
Oosterbeek, H., Van Praag, M., & Ijsselstein, A. (2010). The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurship skills and motivation. European economic review, 54(3), 442-454.
Özdemir, Ö., & Karadeniz, E. (2011). Investigating the factors affecting total entrepreneurial activities in Turkey1. METU Studies in Development, 38(3), 275.
Ö. İ. K. (2018). Girişimciliğin Geliştirilmesi Özel İhtisas Komisyonu Raporu. http://www.sbb.gov.tr/wpcontent/uploads/2018/11/10_GirisimciliginGelistirilmesi.pdf http://www.sbb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/10_GirisimciliginGelistirilmesi.pdf
Reynolds, P. D., Camp, S. M., Bygrave, W. D., Autio, E., & Hay, M. (2002). Global entrepreneurship monitor gem 2001 summary report. London Business School and Babson College.
Sánchez, J. C. (2011). University training for entrepreneurial competencies: Its impact on intention of venture creation. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(2), 239-254.
Segal, G., Borgia, D., & Schoenfeld, J. (2005). The motivation to become an entrepreneur. International journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & research.
Shane, S., Locke, E. A., & Collins, C. J. (2003). Entrepreneurial motivation. Human resource management review, 13(2), 257-279.
Śledzik, K. (2013). Schumpeter’s view on innovation and entrepreneurship. Management Trends in Theory and Practice,(ed.) Stefan Hittmar, Faculty of Management Science and Informatics, University of Zilina & Institute of Management by University of Zilina.
Stewart, W. H., & Roth, P. L. (2007). A meta‐analysis of achievement motivation differences between entrepreneurs and managers. Journal of small business management, 45(4), 401-421.
Thurik, A. R. (2009). Entreprenomics: entrepreneurship, economic growth and policy. Entrepreneurship, growth and public policy, 219-249.
Tracy, M. (2013). The state of entrepreneurship in Turkey.