The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1462-6004.htm

Barriers of
Barriers of entrepreneurial entrepreneurial
intention among Qatari male intention

students
Boumediene Kebaili, Saif Saeed Al-Subyae and Fahed Al-Qahtani 833
Department of Management,
Received 27 November 2016
Ahmed Bin Mohammed Military College, Doha, Qatar Revised 20 March 2017
18 April 2017
Accepted 1 May 2017
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the effects of psychological and institutional factors on the
entrepreneurial intention among Qatari male students. Qatar has the world highest incomes per capita. Recently,
the government launched many initiatives to stimulate Qatari’s to engage in entrepreneurship activities.
Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected by means of a questionnaire. The target population
of this research were Qatari male students in the final year of Bachelor degree in Management. A total of 155
responses were used for the purpose of this study.
Findings – The findings indicate that Qatari male students hold a high entrepreneurial intention. In addition,
two institutional barriers and three psychological barriers were found to be associated with the
entrepreneurial intention.
Research limitations/implications – It would be interesting to investigate the barriers to entrepreneurial
intention among Qatari female students by expanding the current theoretical framework to include some
cultural factors pertaining to Qatari female students.
Practical implications – This study has implications for statutory bodies involved in promoting
entrepreneurship activities. In addition, it offers some suggestions for educational institutions and vocational
training centres.
Originality/value – The research confirms the need for more than one theory in explaining the
entrepreneurship intention. Another contribution is the context of this study. Qatar’s social, economic and
political contexts are totally dissimilar from Eastern or Western set-ups. The study provides some insights on
the psychological and institutional barriers among Qatari male students.
Keywords Qatar, Empirical, Institutional theory, Barriers, Entrepreneurship intention,
Psychological theory
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
In recent years, there has been a growing interest within the academy in entrepreneurship
activities. However, this interest has also been shared by government agencies, probably
due to the significant impact of entrepreneurship on economic growth, and social and
political stability. For example, Thurik and Wennekers (2004) conclude that
entrepreneurship is an effective instrument for reducing social problems. Two other
studies support Thurik and Wennekers (2004) statement. The first research was conducted
by Nawaser et al. (2011) in which they indicated that there is a positive relationship between
entrepreneurship and poverty diminution. The second one was carried out by Dzisi (2008),
in a study on entrepreneurial activities of indigenous African women, which concluded that
female entrepreneurs have significantly contributed to poverty reduction.
These rewards of entrepreneurship have inspired many governments to promote and
encourage private enterprise, regardless of their respective national wealth. This is clearly
seen in the rich economy of Qatar, where the government has incorporated entrepreneurship
activities into its long-term strategic planning. In fact, the Qatari Government has developed
Journal of Small Business and
a comprehensive long-term strategy to encourage Qataris to start their own businesses with Enterprise Development
the support of local banks and government agencies. Vol. 24 No. 4, 2017
pp. 833-849
One of the major agencies that was created to promote new business start-ups is the Qatar © Emerald Publishing Limited
1462-6004
Enterprising. In addition, a new bank called Qatar Development Bank was established to DOI 10.1108/JSBED-11-2016-0186
JSBED provide a wide range of financial support to small- and medium-sized enterprises.
24,4 The government has also come up with different awards and competitions to encourage
people to get involved in enterprising activities.
Three awards were launched by the Social Development Centre (SDC), which is a public
organisation that aims to promote entrepreneurship. The first award is the “Reyada
Award”, which is intended to motivate Qataris to develop their own business concepts.
834 The second is the “New Venture Challenge Award” for those who come up with
distinguished business ideas. The third is the “Entrepreneur Achiever Award”, and is given
to entrepreneurs who have successfully completed their projects. The SDC has a separate
award, which is “The Outstanding Entrepreneur Support Award”, and it is given to any
individual or organisation for their outstanding support of young entrepreneurs.
However, despite the above initiatives taken by both the government and the private sectors,
the number of real business start-ups in Qatar remains limited. The issue of limited commitment
towards entrepreneurship is not related to the lack of entrepreneurship characteristics among
Qataris. In their study, Ryan et al. (2011) found that, although people have a high level of
entrepreneurship characteristics, they were less committed to engaging in entrepreneurship.
Another study indicates that entrepreneurship engagement among Qataris is not associated
with low entrepreneurship potential (Madronic, 2011). Thus, there is no conclusive answer as to
which factors impede people from engaging in entrepreneurship activities, especially in Qatar.
Within this context, the main research question of the current study is follows:
RQ1. What are the barriers to entrepreneurial intention among Qatari male students?
It is important to note here that this study is limited to Qatari male student citizens and does
not include foreign workers.
This research may contribute to the existing body of knowledge by attempting to
determine the barriers to start up entrepreneurship activities. In addition, this study is
conducted within a very specific context (Qatar) that could help understand issues related to
enterprising within a different economic and social environment, as compared to the
conventional Western setting where most of the entrepreneurship theories were established
(Thornton et al., 2011; Fayolle et al., 2014; Schlaegel and Koenig, 2014). In a study on the
impact of institutional factors, Schlaegel and Koenig (2014) found that the relationship
between subjective norm – entrepreneurship intention and the association between
perceived desirability – entrepreneurship intention had a significant positive relationship in
Western countries, in contrast to non-Western countries. The differences can be explained
by the characteristics of Western cultural norms and values. Based on the findings of their
study, the authors call for a more contextual research approach in the field of
entrepreneurial intention development (Schlaegel and Koenig, 2014). This study will also
provide Qatar policy makers with some valuable explanations as to why only a few Qatari
male nationals have embarked on entrepreneurship activities.

2. Literature review
The main theories that are extensively used to study the concept of entrepreneurship are:
economic, psychological, institutional and behavioural theories. Besides these theories, there
are other approaches that were adopted in studying entrepreneurship such as push and pull
factors (Watson et al., 1994; Chen et al., 2006), and necessity- or opportunity-driven
perspectives (Venkataraman, 1997; Valdez et al., 2011).
It is worth noting that there are no clear boundaries between these approaches (Liñán and
Fayolle, 2015). Some researchers use the terms “sociological” and “institutional”
interchangeably, while others differentiate between them. The following sections present
descriptions of these theories. In the descriptions, the emphasis will be on the psychological,
institutional and behavioural theories that are particularly relevant to this study.
2.1 Economic theory Barriers of
Schumpeter stressed that entrepreneurship is a successful means for establishing economic entrepreneurial
equilibrium through the development of new means of production (Schumpeter, 1934). intention
Meanwhile, Kirzner (1973) introduced the concept of “alertness to opportunity”, which
means being ready to identify current business opportunities (Kirzner, 1973). In fact, he
distinguished entrepreneurs from other people by the degree of alertness to opportunity.
Kirzner (1973) did not view an entrepreneur as an innovator, as opposed to 835
Schumpeter (1934). Rather, he maintained that an entrepreneur identifies opportunities
that already exist.

2.2 Psychological theory

The psychological theory highlights the role of the individual’s personality in the intention
to start a new business (Solesvik et al., 2014). Down (2010) critically analysed and
summarised the contribution of the psychological perspective to the development of
entrepreneurship concept. He differentiated between cognitive psychology, social
psychology and the social construction approach.
Behavioural scholars have been criticised for their overemphasis on the observable
behaviour in defining an entrepreneur. Such limitations have led to the emergence of
cognitive psychology that pays more attention to the mental process (Down, 2010).
Entrepreneurial cognitions were defined as the knowledge structures that people use to
make assessments, judgments or decisions involving opportunity evaluation, venture
creation and growth (Mitchell et al., 2002).
The psychological approach, as explained by Down (2010), is the creative process or
social construction approach. This approach attempts to bridge the gap between the
behavioural and cognitive psychology approaches. Down (2010) pointed out that this
approach suggests that people define themselves through their involvement in their social
environment. He provided a dynamic definition of an entrepreneur that takes time and space
into consideration.
Another classification of a research stream within the psychological theories was offered
by Robertson et al. (2003). The authors distinguish between the trait school, the
psychoanalytic school, and the social engineering school. The first one tries to define and to
identify an entrepreneur based on certain common personality traits, such as the need for
achievement, internal locus of control and risk-taking ability (McClelland, 1987; Dyer, 1994;
Rotter, 1966). Scholars under this umbrella believe that entrepreneurs’ qualities are inborn
and cannot be taught (Robertson et al., 2003). The second school of thought is the
“psychoanalytic”, which stresses the role of authority and control in starting-up
entrepreneurship activities. The third one is the social engineering school, which takes
into consideration both the context as well as the effect of social factors (e.g. previous
experience, family history, involvement in entrepreneurship activities and culture).

2.3 Institutional theory

The institutional theory attempts to close the gap in the entrepreneurship research by
considering the external factors that were ignored by the psychological stream of research
(Down, 2010). Researchers pointed out the impact of formal factors (government policies,
physical infrastructure and intellectual property rights) and informal factors (cultural and
social norms, entrepreneur social image, support to start-ups, and access to social network)
on entrepreneurial start-ups activities (Salimath and Cullen, 2010; Thornton et al., 2011;
Liñán and Fayolle, 2015).
In a systematic review on entrepreneurial intention, Liñán and Fayolle (2015) categorised
four institutional themes: cross-cultural studies, cultural background, institutional variables
and ecological approach. Similarly, Schlaegel and Koenig (2014) suggested that the
JSBED improved institutional conditions and an unstable economic situation could create a positive
24,4 attitude towards being entrepreneurial among individuals.
Within the Qatari context Mehrez (2014) highlighted five institutional issues that were
mentioned by respondents as being barriers to entrepreneurial activities: lack of systematic
awareness programs; lack of support at operation time; lack of funds, especially in the early
stages; lack of adequate regulations/infrastructure; and the absence of an exit strategy.
836 Researchers in the field of entrepreneurial intention have called for a re-examination of
the direct link by introducing some moderating factor to explain the inconsistency of the
findings. For example, Solesvik et al. (2013) proposed entrepreneurship-specific education
as a moderator of the relationship between alertness, and risk-taking asset accumulation,
with the entrepreneurial intention acting as the dependant variable. In another study,
Solesvik et al. (2014) suggested entrepreneurship-specific education as a moderating
variable between the perceived local cultural environment and the intensity of
entrepreneurial intention.

2.4 Behavioural theory

Behaviourists attempt to identify “what the entrepreneur does” and not “who the
entrepreneur is” Down (2010). Kobia and Sikalieh (2010) discerned three entrepreneurship
attributes: the intention to form a new business; the capabilities to identify opportunities for
establishing a profitable business; and the abilities to select proper opportunities.
Due to the difficulties of measuring the behaviour involved in starting a new business,
researchers use the intention to start a new business as a proxy (Souitaris et al., 2007;
Gird and Bagraim, 2008; Nabi and Linan, 2011; Ryan et al., 2011; Ferreira et al., 2012;
Mohamed et al., 2012). Entrepreneurship intention was defined as a state of mind that directs
individuals’ consideration and action towards starting their own business, rather than
working for other people (Bird, 1988). Research on entrepreneurship linked intention to
successive action. Furthermore, entrepreneurial activities can be regarded as planned
behaviour that can be best examined by intention models (Krueger et al., 2000). Moreover,
behaviour prediction is not an easy task because it is rare, hard to discern and encompasses
volatile time lags (Bagozzi et al., 1989; Krueger et al., 2000).
The above arguments justify the appropriateness of entrepreneurship intention as a
proxy of the actual behaviour of starting-up new business activities. However, researchers
clearly differentiate between intention and the behaviour itself (Nabi et al., 2010; Fayolle
et al., 2014; Shirokova et al., 2016). In this connection, Fayolle et al. (2014) call for a special
consideration of the intention-action relationship. They have suggested that motivations
and values should be included in the entrepreneurial intention model. Furthermore,
Shirokova et al. (2016) questioned the relationship between intention and actual start up
activities. They introduce two set mediating variables.

2.5 Conceptual model of entrepreneurial intention

Researchers have developed a number of conceptual models incorporating the
entrepreneurship intention concept (Shapero and Sokol, 1982; Ajzen, 1991; Robinson et al.,
1991; Krueger and Carsrud, 1993; Krueger and Brazeal, 1994). The major models to be
briefly presented in this study include the following: Shapero and Sokol (1982) model,
Simplified Model of Entrepreneurial Potential (Krueger and Brazeal, 1994), Ajzen (1991)
Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) and Davidsson’s (1995) Economic Psychological Model
of Determinants of Entrepreneurial Intention.
Shapero and Sokol (1982) developed a model based on the idea that people engage in
entrepreneurship activities because of certain events, like losing a job or changing location.
Thus, people start a new business based on their perception towards the feasibility and
desirability of the opportunity available. In addition, there must be certain level of tendency
to act and size-up such an opportunity. Later on, the model was tested, and the empirical Barriers of
study provided full support to Shaipro’s model (Krueger et al., 2000; Millman et al., 2010). entrepreneurial
The Shapero’s and Sokol (1982) model was further developed by Krueger and Brazeal (1994), intention
who named it the “Simplified Model of Entrepreneurship Potential”. The authors added two
new mediators (credibility and potential) and two new moderators (the propensity to act and
precipitating event).
The third model to be introduced is the Ajzen (1991) model, known as the “TPB”. 837
The TPB used intention to predict the behaviour. Determinants of intention are attitudes
towards behaviour, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control. According to this
model, attitude toward-the-act is influenced by the expected value. Subjective norms are
determined by normative beliefs. Perceived feasibility can be explained by the perceived
self-efficacy. A number of empirical studies have been carried out within different contexts
that showed some support to Ajzen model (Kolvereid, 1996; Krueger et al., 2000;
Souitaris et al., 2007; Gird and Bagraim, 2008; Ferreira et al., 2012; Solesvik et al., 2012).
The Economic Psychological Model of Determinants of Entrepreneurial Intention was
developed by Davidsson (1995). The model includes five personal characteristics (gender,
vicarious experience, education, radical change and age) that may influence both general
attitudes and domain attitudes. General attitude was measured by attitudes towards
change, competition, money, achievement and autonomy. Domain attitude contains payoff,
societal contribution and know-how. The model depicts these sets of attitude as antecedents
of conviction. The model also explains the entrepreneurship intention by conviction while
controlling the relationship by individual situation (current employment).

3. Theory and research hypotheses

The above entrepreneurial intention models were tested individually. However, some
studies had conceptually developed models that combine constructs from more than one
theory and attempted to test them (Robertson et al., 2003; Gird and Bagraim, 2008;
Ferreira et al., 2012). Similarly, this study will address the issue of entrepreneurship
intention by adopting institutional and psychological theories. The combination of the two
theories can be backed by few definitions of entrepreneurship (Robbins and Coulter, 1999;
Hisrich et al., 2008; Espíritu-Olmos and Sastre-Castillo, 2015). In defining entrepreneurship,
these authors combine risk and uncertainty tolerance as well as the resources availability.
In this study, the constructs that are conceptualised as barriers were selected based on the
findings of an exploratory study of entrepreneurship barriers among Qatari male students
conducted by Kebaili et al. (2015). This qualitative study found that four psychological
variables: attitude towards change (AC), risk avoidance (RA), fear of failure (FF) and stress
avoidance (SA) act as the main barriers to entrepreneurial intention. In addition, three
institutional variables – financial barriers (FBs), market barriers (MBs) and knowledge
barriers (KBs) – were perceived by Qatari male students as the main obstructions to
entrepreneurial intention (Figure 1).
The first barrier is the FB, which can manifest in various ways: a lack of loans,
bureaucratic processes or requirements for loans – like collateral or guarantor. Previous
studies, within different contexts, indicated and tested such a relationship. In his study on
the entrepreneurship barriers in Saudi Arabia, Ahmad (2012) found that the most frequent
barrier is the difficulty to obtain financial support. In fact, it was ranked as the number one
barrier (90.96 per cent the highest percentage). Similarly, Chowdhury (2007) in his research
on entrepreneurship development constraints in Bangladesh found that one of the main
barriers is the lack of financial supply. Many Bangladeshi entrepreneurs find it difficult to
secure loans or any other form of financial support. Furthermore, Robertson et al. (2003)
found that financial support is the main barrier (more than 50 per cent) facing start-up
activities in the UK.
JSBED
24,4 Institutional Variables

• Financial Barriers
• Market Barriers
• Knowledge Barriers
Entrepreneurship Start-Up
838 Activities Intention

Psychological Variables

• Attitude towards Change

Figure 1. • Risk Avoidance
Schematic • Fear of Failure
representation of the • Stress Avoidance
research model

Despite the importance of fund availability as a main barrier to start-up activities, empirical
studies that tested the relationship between non-availability of funds and entrepreneurship
intention are inconclusive. Sandhu et al. (2011) found that financial support and
entrepreneurship are negatively related. However, Schwarz et al. (2009) in their empirical
study conducted among Austrian students found that there is no significant relationship
between fund availability and start-up activities’ intention:
H1. The FBs are negatively related to entrepreneurial intention.
The second institutional barrier to start up activities is the perceived MB. MBs may include
the threat of the large competitors who control the market, non-availability of information,
or lack of business networks (Chowdhury, 2007; Gird and Bagraim, 2008; Wauters and
Lambrecht, 2008; Pruett et al., 2009; Ahmad, 2012). A lack of a business network can be a
barrier because it will be a serious hindrance to any potential entrepreneur who wants to
penetrate the market (Chowdhury, 2007; Ahmad, 2012):
H2. The higher the level of perceived MBs, the lower the level of entrepreneurial intention.
The last institutional factor considered in this study is the KB. Previous studies explained
the lack of knowledge in terms of lack of skills and entrepreneurial competencies (Robertson
et al., 2003; Pruett et al., 2009). Others define lack of knowledge as the inability to forecast
demand (Chowdhury, 2007), the inability to manage people and maintain business and
accounting records, and the lack of business and marketing knowledge (Ahmad, 2012):
H3. The higher the level of perceived KBs, the lower the level of entrepreneurial intention.
AC can be defined as the propensity to accept change and related challenges. New start-up
activities involve a certain degree of unpredictability and uncertainty of the new business
outcome (Schwarz et al., 2009). The authors assert that people with a positive AC are usually
more inclined to start-up new businesses, and are bored with being stagnant in a stable and
routinized environment:
H4. Positive AC will lead to a higher entrepreneurial intention.
Previous studies have indicated that there is a link between risk attitude and
entrepreneurship intention. Koh (1996) defined propensity to risk as the person’s
inclination to gamble in uncertain decision-making contexts. Starting-up new businesses
involves uncertainty that can be translated into riskiness. Pruett et al. (2009) distinguished
between two types of risk: operating-risk and start-up risk. The first is related to issues
concerning employees (going bankrupt, workload and irregular income). The second type of Barriers of
risk is about the lack of initial capital. Many studies have linked risk aversion to entrepreneurial
entrepreneurship intention (Koh, 1996; Pruett et al., 2009; Sandhu et al., 2011; Ferreira et al., intention
2012; Solesvik et al., 2013):
H5. A high risk aversion leads to a low entrepreneurial intention.
The third psychological barrier to start-up activities is the FF. As indicated by a few
Qatari respondents (Kebaili et al., 2015), the problem of business failure and the high
839
likelihood of going bankrupt is a serious psychological barrier to starting new business
(Kebaili et al., 2015). Within a conservative society, business failure means losing face in
front of family and friends. This is because failure means that the person is incompetent,
careless and even immature. The FF can be found mainly in societies where people have
high uncertainty avoidance. For example, in their empirical study about entrepreneurship
potential among Malaysian students, Sandhu et al. (2011) found a significant negative
relationship between FF and entrepreneurship potential:
H6. The higher the level of the FF, the lower the level of entrepreneurial intention.
The last barrier considered in this study is SA. Starting and maintaining a new business
involves two types of stress. First, is the stress related to time commitment and the
extra-work load required by a new business. In addition, engaging in a new business
involves the hassle of running the show. The second type of stress comes from the worry
caused by irregular income. Establishing and managing a business encompasses a certain
level of uncertainty about market and economic situations that may cause extra stress to
owners. Thus, people may avoid starting a new business and instead stick to a stable and
free-of-stress government job. A previous study conducted by Sandhu et al. (2011) confirmed
the negative relationship between SA and entrepreneurship avoidance:
H7. The higher is the level of SA, the lower the level of entrepreneurial intention.

4. Methodology
4.1 Sample, data collection and respondents
The target population of this research is the Qatari male student who is in the final year of a
management bachelor degree. The study does not include female students. The importance
of female student research in the field of entrepreneurship is unquestionable. However,
simple gender comparative studies may not be an appropriate and fair way to examine
entrepreneurship barriers among female within the context of the current study. In addition,
females may have very specific barriers to entrepreneurial intention which are related to
cultural factors and social attitudes. Felder and Vuollo (2008) provide convincing examples
on how cultural and social factors can influence female career decision making in Qatar.
Official statistics confirm Felder and Vuollo’s (2008) findings. According to a survey
conducted by the Ministry of Development Planning and Statistics (2016) almost one third
of female Qataris are home makers.
In regard to data collection, data were collected by means of a questionnaire survey at
one point in time. The respondents were asked to return the completed questionnaire within
three days to their respective class representative, who submitted the collected
questionnaires to the researcher’s office. A total of 164 questionnaires were collected.
Nine responses were discarded as they were not properly filled-in. Consequently, a total of
155 responses were used for the purpose of this study. Respondents’ ages ranged from
22 to 25 years old. All of them were male students from the School of Business. More than
95 per cent of them were single. Students have taken the common management subjects.
Only one subject was related to entrepreneurship.
JSBED 4.2 Measures
24,4 Different sources of measurement were used to evaluate the research constructs.
Psychological constructs were measured by 16 items: five items measure SA (adapted
from Sandhu et al., 2011), three items for AC (adapted from Schwarz et al., 2009; Sandhu
et al., 2011), three items for FF (adapted from Sandhu et al., 2011) and five items measuring
RA (adapted from Sandhu et al., 2011). As to the institutional constructs, 11 items were
840 used to measure the three institutional constructs: MBs were measured by three items
(adapted from Ahmad, 2012), FBs were measured by five items (adapted from
Schwarz et al., 2009; Ahmad, 2012) and KBs were measured by three items (adapted
from Ahmad, 2012). The dependant variable was measured by three items adopted from
Schwarz et al. (2009). All variables were measured on a five-point Likert scale ranging
from 1 ¼ “strongly disagree” to 5 ¼ “strongly agree”. As the questionnaire was developed
originally in the English language, it was necessary to translate it into Arabic and then
back translated into English. To ensure face and content validity, copies of the
questionnaire were given to both academicians and practitioners. Minor comments from
the participants were taken into consideration in preparing the final draft.

5. Results
5.1 Factor analysis and reliability test
Confirmatory factor analysis and reliability tests were utilised to ensure the appropriateness
of the data used in the current study. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) was computed to
check the measure of sampling adequacy. The minimum value of KMO is 0.60. Bartlett’s test
of sphericity was used to test the significance of correlation among all factors. A 0.05 cut-off
point was used in determining the significance level. Principal component analysis with
varimax rotation was used as an extraction method. A factor with an eigenvalue above 1
was retained. The communalities table was also used to determine the proportion of the
variance explained by individual variables. A value below 0.50 qualified the item to be
dropped (Hair et al., 2006). Finally, a Cronbach’s α test was used to test whether the item
measuring the variables in the instrument are stable and consistent.
The results of confirmatory factor analysis show that the KMO’s value was 0.72 this
exceed the recommended values. The overall significance of correlation among all items was
significant with a Bartlett’s test of sphericity being less than 0.01. The commonalities’ table
indicates that all items score above 0.50 which indicates that each variable shares a
sufficient amount of variance with other variables included in the analysis (Hair et al., 2006).
The eigen values for all factors were above the threshold of 1 (Hair et al., 2006). The
accumulated variance explained by the factors was 59.26 per cent. Three items loaded
clearly on the first factor that were initially conceptualised as the MBs). Similarly, the five
items measuring FBs were loaded clearly on one factor (Table I). The next three items (KB1,
KB2 and KB3) were loaded on the third factor named KB.
As to the psychological factors, the results of the test indicate that four variables were
extracted: SA, AC, RA and FF. On the fourth factor, five items loaded clearly that were
conceptualised as SA. Similarly, the three items measuring AC (AC1, AC2 and AC3) were all
loaded clearly on one factor. Items RA1, RA2, RA3, RA4 and RA5 loaded on the sixth factor,
named RA. The last three items measuring FF (FF1, FF2 and FF3) loaded on one factor.
There was no significant cross-loading of items between the factors.
The results of the reliability test indicate that some variables have high Cronbach’s α
values, whereas some others have moderately acceptable values. The AC has the highest
Cronbach’s α (0.89). The SA has the second highest value (0.79). The Cronbach’s α value for
FBs is (0.69), followed by the RA with a reliability value of 0.66. Cronbach’s α values for FF
and KBs are 0.58 and 0.52, respectively. Out of the seven variables, four have Cronbach’s α
values that range from 0.52 to 0.69.
 Factor
Barriers of
Factors Items loading entrepreneurial
intention
I Market barriers (MBs)
MB1 Good business contacts will facilitate the acquisition of new business project 0.876
MB3 New companies will face stiff competition from large companies 0.808
MB2 New companies will face difficulties in gaining acceptance in the market 0.678
841
II Financial barriers (FB)
FB2 It is hard to find capital providers to start-up companies 0.903
FB5 Lack of financial resources is a barrier for a new business start up 0.642
FB3 There are not sufficient subsidies available for new companies 0.581
FB4 Financial institutions impose a high interest rates on loan for new projects 0.562
FB1 Banks do not readily give credit to start-up companies 0.554
III Knowledge barriers (KB)
KB2 It is difficult to establish new a company without business experience 0.736
KB3 Marketing knowledge is necessary for a successful new company 0.706
KB1 It is difficult to establish a new company without business knowledge 0.579
IV Stress avoidance (SA)
SA2 The thought of stress leads to restlessness 0.760
SA1 I can work for long hours 0.747
SA4 Hard work negatively affects life 0.742
SA5 Hard work is not good for health 0.666
SA3 Difficulties in managing hard work 0.606
V Attitude towards change (AC)
AC2 I need constant change to remain stimulated, even if this would mean higher uncertainty 0.911
AC1 I find working in stable and routinized environments boring 0.863
AC3 I prefer a government job rather than setting up a new business 0.789
VI Risk avoidance (RA)
RA2 People who have the fear of failure will become stagnant 0.794
RA4 Prefer job security than risky business 0.653
RA1 People who take risks are more likely to succeed 0.610
RA3 People who can assume risks are more likely to succeed 0.565
RA5 I am fine with the risk of Irregular income 0.517
VII Fear of failure (FF)
FF2 Fear of failure is a barrier to starting-up a new business 0.751
FF1 Embarrassment from failing in business ventures is a barrier to starting-up a new business 0.693
FF3 Fear of failure is one reason for the limited number of business start-ups 0.641
Total variance (%) 59.26 Table I.
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin MSA 0.72 Factor analysis of
Bartlett's test of sphericity 846.01*** entrepreneurship
Note: ***p o0.01 barrier variables

These results are quite acceptable, as some past studies in the field of entrepreneurship
contained Cronbach’s α values within a similar range (Schwarz et al., 2009; Sandhu et al.,
2011). Sandhu et al. (2011) found that three variables out of six (fear, resource and network)
have Cronbach’s α values ranging from 0.60 to 0.63. The authors argue that a Cronbach’s α
value above 0.60 is enough to ensure the internal consistency of the construct. Furthermore,
Schwarz et al. (2009) found that four out of eight variables (attitude towards
competitiveness, attitude towards entrepreneurship, environmental support and
environmental barriers) have Cronbach’s α scores ranging from 0.53 to 0.69. The authors
conclude that the results of the reliability test can be considered as satisfactory.
JSBED The measurement instrument of the current study was adapted from Schwarz et al. (2009)
24,4 and Sandhu et al. (2011). Thus, the findings of the current study are in line with
Schwarz et al. (2009) and Sandhu et al. (2011).
The above explanations can also be supported by other past research (Schmitt, 1996;
Gaffney, 1997; Salvucci et al., 1997). In their study titled, “Measurement error studies at
the national centre for education statistics”, Salvucci et al. (1997) propose three categories
842 for the Cronbach’s α measurement range. Any Cronbach’s α value below 0.50 is described
as having low reliability. The next category range is from 0.50 to 0.80, which is
considered as moderate. Finally, a Cronbach’s α value greater than 0.80 is regarded as
having high reliability.
In the current study, the two constructs with the lowest Cronbach’s α values are FF and
KBs. One possible explanation for this is the number of items measuring the constructs.
The two constructs were measured with only three items. In fact, this was indicated by
previous studies that found the Cronbach’s α value can be affected by the number of items
(Gaffney, 1997; Enders and Bandalos, 1999; Hair et al., 2006; Tan, 2009; Tavakol and Dennick,
2011). Indeed, in his study titled “Coefficient Alpha, interpret with caution”, Panayides (2013)
clearly demonstrated how the number of items can affect Cronbach’s α value.
The descriptive statistics (Table II) show that six predictors of intention to start
entrepreneurship activities scored around three (MBs mean ¼ 2.96) on a five-point Likert
scale. This means that respondents considered the six institutional and psychological
variables to be real issues.

5.2 Results of regression analysis

The results indicate that there is no auto-correlation issue (Durbin-Watson ¼ 2.2) and no
multi-collinearity problem (correlations between independent variables were less than 0.90;
VIF o 10; tolerance W 0.1; condition index o 30 and variance proportion o 0.90).
No outliers were detected. The results (Table III) indicate that the regression model was
significant (F ¼ 11.48, p o0.001). In addition, the coefficient of determination (R²) is equal to
0.354. This means that 35.40 per cent of variation in entrepreneurship start-up activities
intention is due to the factors included in the regression analysis.
Five variables out of seven were found to be significant, and were negatively related to
the intention to start up a new business. The estimated coefficients for FBs, KBs, RA, SA
and FF are −0.35, −0.16, −0.23, −0.39 and −0.22, respectively. Out of the seven
hypotheses, five were supported. H1, H3, H5, H6 and H7 were supported. As to H2 and
H3, they were rejected.

6. Discussions and conclusions

The results indicate that respondents who believe that a business start-up fund is a major
barrier are less likely to engage in any entrepreneurship activities. This can be

Variable Cronbach’s α Mean SD

Market barriers 0.76 2.96 1.04

Financial barriers 0.69 3.00 0.78
Knowledge barriers 0.52 3.12 0.88
Stress avoidance 0.79 3.13 0.92
Attitude towards change 0.89 3.04 1.05
Risk avoidance 0.66 3.04 0.77
Table II. Fear of failure 0.58 3.07 0.96
Descriptive statistics Entrepreneurial intention 0.80 3.19 1.14
Variable Coefficient SE
Barriers of
entrepreneurial
Market barriers 0.07 0.10 intention
Attitude towards change −0.04 0.09
Financial barriers −0.35 0.12***
Knowledge barriers −0.16 0.11**
Risk aversion −0.23 0.10**
Stress avoidance −0.39 0.10*** 843
Fear of failure −0.22 0.09**
F-statistics (F ¼ 11.48, p o0.01) 11.48***
R2 0.354 Table III.
Adj. R2 0.323 Results of
Notes: **p o0.05; ***p o0.01 regression analysis

understandable within the Qatari context (Mehrez, 2014; Kebaili et al., 2015). The findings,
also, show that KBs are negatively related to intention to start entrepreneurship activities.
Respondents believe that experience and business knowledge are necessary to the success
of a new business start-up. These results are in line with those of previous studies
(Robertson et al., 2003; Chowdhury, 2007; Pruett et al., 2009; Ahmad, 2012).
As mentioned above, both FBs and KBs were negatively related to intention to start
entrepreneurship activities. However, FBs have a high explanatory power compared to KBs,
which implies that even if people have enough knowledge about starting and running a new
business, they may not engage in any enterprising activities unless they have appropriate
financial resources.
The third hypothesis is related to the relationship between MBs and intention to start
entrepreneurship activities. Unexpectedly, the findings indicate that there is no significant
association between MBs and intention to start entrepreneurship activities. These results do
not align with the findings of previous research (Chowdhury, 2007; Gird and Bagraim, 2008;
Wauters and Lambrecht, 2008; Pruett et al., 2009; Ahmad, 2012). A possible reason for this
anomaly may be the study context (Liñán and Fayolle, 2015). Qatar’s population is relatively
small. Subsequently, the market place is limited. Thus, informants do not perceive the
market to be a barrier.
Three variables conceptualised under psychological theory were found significantly
related to entrepreneurial intention, which are RA, FF and SA. As to the fourth variable,
AC, the findings indicate that it is not associated with entrepreneurial intention.
Schwarz et al. (2009) also found that AC is not related to intention to start entrepreneurship
activities. The insignificance can be due to the overlap between AC and SA. Indeed, those
who avoid stress may resist and escape change. On the other hand, the insignificance can be
justified by the fact that AC does not differentiate between individuals who are inclined, and
those who are not inclined, towards entrepreneurship.
The fifth hypothesis suggests a negative association between RA and barrier to intention
to start entrepreneurship activities. The results of the test confirm the negative relationship.
This aligns well with results from previous studies (Koh, 1996; Pruett et al., 2009;
Sandhu et al., 2011). This is an understandable finding in that people in Middle East societies
have a high uncertainty avoidance that leads to risk aversion (Hofstede, 1980).
The test of the sixth hypothesis indicates that SA is considered as a major barrier to
starting-up a new business. Qatari male students view the processes of starting and running
a new business as creating hassle in their lives. This is reasonable, as most people prefer
government jobs that provide a secure, stable and hassle free salary (Forstenlechner and
Rutledge, 2010). In this regard, the current study findings are consistent with some previous
studies (Henderson and Robertson, 2000; Sandhu et al., 2011).
JSBED The last psychological barrier to intention to start entrepreneurship activities is the FF.
24,4 The findings indicate a negative association between both variables. The problem of
business failure and the high likelihood of going bankrupt is a serious psychological
barrier to starting a business. It is important to note here that, in a conservative society,
business failure means losing face. This is due to the fact that when people in such a
society fail in business, they can be viewed as being incompetent, or even immature.
844 The FF can be found mainly in societies where people have high uncertainty avoidance.
For example, in their empirical study about entrepreneurship potential among Malaysian
students, Sandhu et al. (2011) found a significant negative relationship between FF and
entrepreneurship potential.
At the theoretical level, this study makes some contributions to the body of knowledge.
The current study, by adopting institutional and psychological approaches, confirms the
need for more than one theory in developing any conceptual framework to explain
entrepreneurship intention (Schwarz et al., 2009; Sandhu et al., 2011; Ferreira et al., 2012).
The context of this study provides some insight into the factors hindering
entrepreneurship intention (Schwarz et al., 2009; Thornton et al., 2011; Fayolle et al., 2014;
Schlaegel and Koenig, 2014). Qatar’s social, economic and political contexts are totally
dissimilar to its Western or Eastern counterparts. The country’s conservative culture and
high income per capital make it unique, especially when it comes to the identification of the
barriers to intention to start entrepreneurship activities.
Theoretically, the study indicates that two institutional barriers out of the three barriers
have a negative effect on entrepreneurship start-up activities. These are FBs and KBs.
Out of the four psychological barriers, three were negatively related to entrepreneurship
intention. These three factors are: RA, FF and SA. In addition, this research confirms the
fact that barriers to entrepreneurship are contingent on the study context.
The study also reveals that Qatari male students perceived institutional factors
(knowledge and FBs) as serious barriers to starting a new business. This implies that the
government needs to provide more learning opportunities to improve the business skills
and knowledge of potential entrepreneurs. This can be achieved through instruction at
institutions of higher learning that may include specialised entrepreneurship courses as
well as sandwich courses. The government can also increase entrepreneurship
competencies among male students by establishing regional vocational training centres
for this purpose (Matlay, 2008). Concerning the FBs, despite the government financial
support to encourage new business start-ups, students still perceive FBs as being a
major barrier. To overcome this issue, the government needs to connect with these young
potential entrepreneurs. It is useless to provide such assistance without effectively
communicating it to those who may be looking for it. Many marketing means can be used
to communicate with potential entrepreneurs, such as advertisements (on TV, Radio and
internet), organising open days, holding public lectures (in places like schools and universities)
and attending road shows. In addition there are cases where people are aware of availability of
funds but access to these funds is difficult or demanding. Thus, the government has to ease
access to these financial supports by eliminating all kinds of bureaucracy and any other
exhausting processes.
The research also highlights the negative impact of three psychological barriers
towards establishing a new business: RA, FF and SA. Given the specific nature of the local
culture, the government needs to promote an enterprising culture to reduce the negative
impact of these barriers among Qataris. One way is to nurture entrepreneurship culture
among Qatari male students from their early schooling. It is very important to build a
positive image about entrepreneurs among children, from nursery school to the university
level ( Jones et al., 2011; Jones and Colwill, 2013). It is necessary to develop programmes
that build entrepreneurship personality instead of focussing on improving business
knowledge and capabilities. The findings indicate that psychological barriers hinder Barriers of
business start-up among Qataris. Thus, it is crucial to foster an entrepreneurship mind-set entrepreneurial
among male students that welcomes risk, tolerates stress and accepts failure as a intention
necessary learning process. Moreover, government agencies, which are established with
the aim of promoting entrepreneurship activities, can organise public lectures and casual
talks where both successful and unsuccessful entrepreneurs can share their experience
with any potential entrepreneur. 845
The research findings and interpretations need to be viewed according to the following
limitations. The sample of the current study focusses solely on Qatari male students.
As we have already noted, it would be interesting to investigate the barriers to
entrepreneurial intention among Qatari female student by expanding the current
theoretical framework to include some cultural factors pertaining to Qatari female
students (this might include religious and other social factors). Equally important is the
sample size, future studies may need to replicate the study on a larger sample size that
includes students from different disciplines, as well as from different Middle Eastern and
North African countries. Future researchers could also introduce mediating or moderating
factors (Shirokova et al., 2016).

References
Ahmad, S.Z. (2012), “Micro, small and medium-sized enterprises development in the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia: problems and constraints”, World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and
Sustainable Development, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 217-232.
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behaviour”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.
Bagozzi, R.P., Baumgartner, J. and Yi, Y. (1989), “An investigation into the role of intentions as
mediators of the attitude-behaviour relationship”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 10
No. 1, pp. 35-62.
Bird, B. (1988), “Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: the case of intentions”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 442-454.
Chen, G., Li, J. and Matlay, H. (2006), “Who are the Chinese private entrepreneurs?”, Journal of Small
Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 148-160.
Chowdhury, M.S. (2007), “Overcoming entrepreneurship development constraints: the case of
Bangladesh”, Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy,
Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 240-251.
Davidsson, P. (1995), “Determinants of entrepreneurial intention”, paper prepared for the Rent IX
Workshop, Piacenza, available at: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/2076/1/RENT_IX.pdf (accessed
16 June 2015).
Down, S. (2010), Enterprise, Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Sage Publications, London.
Dyer, W.G. (1994), “Toward a theory of entrepreneurial careers”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 7-22.
Dzisi, S. (2008), “Entrepreneurial activities of indigenous African women: a case of Ghana”, Journal
of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, Vol. 2 No. 3,
pp. 254-264.
Enders, C.K. and Bandalos, D.L. (1999), “The effects of heterogeneous item distributions on reliability”,
Applied Measurement in Education, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 133-150.
Espíritu-Olmos, R.A. and Sastre-Castillo, M.A. (2015), “Personality traits versus work values:
comparing psychological theories on entrepreneurial intention”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 68 No. 7, pp. 1595-1598.
JSBED Fayolle, A., Liñán, F. and Moriano, J.A. (2014), “Beyond entrepreneurial intentions: values and
24,4 motivations in entrepreneurship”, International Entrepreneurship Management Journal, Vol. 10
No. 4, pp. 679-689.
Felder, D. and Vuollo, M. (2008), “Qatari women in the workforce”, Working Paper No. WR-612-
QATAR, Rand-Qatar Policy Institute, August, available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.
cfm?abstract_id=1291424 (accessed 14 March 2017).
846 Ferreira, J.J., Raposo, M.L., Rodrigues, R.J., Dinis, A. and do Paço, A. (2012), “A model of entrepreneurial
intention: an application of the psychological and behavioral approaches”, Journal of Small
Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 424-440.
Forstenlechner, I. and Rutledge, E. (2010), “Unemployment in the gulf: time to update the ‘social
contract’ ”, Middle East Policy, Vol. XVII No. 2, pp. 38-51.
Gaffney, P.V. (1997), “A test reliability analysis of an abbreviated version of the pupil control ideology
form”, Educational Resources Information Centre (ERIC), Office of Educational Research and
Improvement, US Department of Education, available at: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED407422
(accessed 14 March 2017).
Gird, A. and Bagraim, J.J. (2008), “The theory of planned behaviour as predictor of entrepreneurial
intent amongst final-year university students”, South African Journal of Psychology, Vol. 38
No. 4, pp. 711-724.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis,
Pearson Education Inc., NJ.
Henderson, R. and Robertson, M. (2000), “Who wants to be an entrepreneur? Young adult
attitudes to entrepreneurship as a career”, Career Development International, Vol. 5 No. 6,
pp. 279-287.
Hisrich, R.D., Peters, M.P. and Shepherd, D.A. (2008), Entrepreneurship, McGraw-Hill International
Edition, Singapore.
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.
Jones, P. and Colwill, A. (2013), “Entrepreneurship education: an evaluation of the young enterprise
wales initiative”, Education + Training, Vol. 55 Nos 8/9, pp. 911-925.
Jones, P., Miller, C., Jones, A., Packham, G., Pickernell, D. and Zbierowski, P. (2011), “Attitudes and
motivations of polish students towards entrepreneurial activity”, Education + Training, Vol. 53
No. 5, pp. 416-432.
Kebaili, B., Al-Subyae, S.S., Al-Qahtani, F. and Belkhamza, B. (2015), “An exploratory study of
entrepreneurship barriers: the case of Qatar”, World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management
and Sustainable Development, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 210-219.
Kirzner, I. (1973), Competition and Entrepreneurship, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Kobia, M. and Sikalieh, D. (2010), “Towards a search for the meaning of entrepreneurship”, Journal of
European Industrial Training, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 110-127.
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.
Krueger, N.F. Jr and Brazeal, D.V. (1994), “Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs”,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 91-104.
Krueger, N.F. and Carsrud, A.L. (1993), “Entrepreneurial intentions: applying the theory of planned
behaviour”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 315-330.
Krueger, N.F. Jr, Reilly, M.D. and Carsrud, A.L. (2000), “Competing models of entrepreneurial
intentions”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 15 Nos 5/6, pp. 411-432.
Liñán, F. and Fayolle, A. (2015), “A systematic literature review on entrepreneurial intentions: citation, Barriers of
thematic analyses, and research agenda”, International Entrepreneurship and Management entrepreneurial
Journal, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 907-933.
intention
McClelland, D.C. (1987), “Characteristics of successful entrepreneurs”, Journal of Creative Behaviour,
Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 219-233.
Madronic, R. (2011), “Measuring entrepreneurial potential in students at the college of the
North Atlantic-Qatar”, Qatar Foundation Annual Research Forum Proceedings, Vol. AHP16, doi: 847
10.5339/qfarf.2011.ahp16, available at: www.qscience.com/doi/abs/10.5339/qfarf.2011.ahp16?
af=R& (accessed 20 June 2017).
Matlay, H. (2008), “The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial outcomes”, Journal of
Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 382-396.
Mehrez, A. (2014), “A study of barriers to entrepreneurship in emerging economies: the case of Qatar”,
Proceedings of 29th International Business Research Conference, Novotel Hotel Sydney Central,
Sydney, 24-25 November.
Millman, C., Li, Z., Matlay, H. and Wong, W.C. (2010), “Entrepreneurship education and students’
internet entrepreneurship intentions: evidence from Chinese HEIs”, Journal of Small Business
and Enterprise Development, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 569-590.
Ministry of Development Planning and Statistics (2016), “Labor force survey the third quarter report”,
Doha, July-September, p. 13.
Mitchell, R.K., Busenitz, L., Lant, T., McDougall, P.P., Morse, E.A. and Smith, J.B. (2002), “Toward a
theory of entrepreneurial cognition: rethinking the people side of entrepreneurship research”,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 93-104.
Mohamed, Z., Rezai, G., Shamsudin, M.S. and Mahmud, M.M. (2012), “Enhancing young graduates’
intention towards entrepreneurship development in Malaysia”, Education + Training, Vol. 54
No. 7, pp. 605-618.
Nabi, G. and Linan, F. (2011), “Graduate entrepreneurship in the developing world: intentions,
education and development”, Education + Training, Vol. 53 No. 5, pp. 325-334.
Nabi, G., Holden, R. and Walmsley, A. (2010), “Entrepreneurial intentions among students: towards a
re-focused research agenda”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 17
No. 4, pp. 537-551.
Nawaser, K., Khaksar, S.M.S., Shakhsian, F. and Jahanshahi, A.A. (2011), “Motivational and legal
barriers of entrepreneurship development”, International Journal of Business and Management,
Vol. 6 No. 11, pp. 112-116.
Panayides, P. (2013), “Coefficient alpha: interpret with caution”, Europe’s Journal of Psychology, Vol. 9
No. 4, pp. 687-696.
Pruett, M., Shinnar, R., Toney, B., Llopis, F. and Fox, J. (2009), “Explaining entrepreneurial intentions of
university students: a cross-cultural study”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour
& Research, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 571-594.
Robbins, P.S. and Coulter, M. (1999), Management, 6th ed., Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Robertson, M., Collins, A., Medeira, N. and Slater, J. (2003), “Barriers to start-up and their effect on
aspirant entrepreneurs”, Education + Training, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 308-316.
Robinson, P.B., Stimpson, D., Huefner, J.C. and Hunt, H.K. (1991), “An attitude approach to
the prediction of entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 15 No. 4,
pp. 13-31.
Rotter, J.B. (1966), “Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement”,
Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 1-28.
Ryan, G.C., Tipu, S.A. and Zeffane, R.M. (2011), “Need for achievement and entrepreneurial potential: a
study of young adults in the UAE”, Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle
Eastern Issues, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 153-166.
JSBED Salimath, M.S. and Cullen, J.B. (2010), “Formal and informal institutional effects on entrepreneurship: a
24,4 synthesis of nation-level research”, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 18
No. 3, pp. 358-385.
Salvucci, S., Walter, E., Conley, V., Steven, F. and Saba, M. (1997), “Measurement error studies at the
National Center for Education Statistics”, Educational Resources Information Centre (ERIC),
Office of Educational Research and Improvement, US Department of Education, available at:
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED407422 (accessed 14 March 2017).
848
Sandhu, M.S., Sidique, S.F. and Riaz, S. (2011), “Entrepreneurship barriers and entrepreneurial
inclination among Malaysian postgraduate students”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behaviour & Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 428-449.
Schlaegel, C. and Koenig, M. (2014), “Determinants of entrepreneurial intent: a meta-analytic test and
integration of competing models”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 38 No. 2,
pp. 291-332.
Schmitt, N. (1996), “Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha”, Psychological Assessment, Vol. 8 No. 4,
pp. 350-353.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Schwarz, E.J., Wdowiak, M.A., Almer-Jarz, D.A. and Breitenecker, R.J. (2009), “The effects of attitudes
and perceived environment conditions on students’ entrepreneurial intent: an Austrian
perspective”, Education + Training, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 272-291.
Shapero, A. and Sokol, L. (1982), “Social dimensions of entrepreneurship”, in Kent, C., Sexton, D. and
Vesper, K. (Eds), The Encyclopaedia of Entrepreneurship, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
pp. 72-90.
Shirokova, G., Osiyevskyy, O. and Bogatyreva, K. (2016), “Exploring the intention-behavior link in
student entrepreneurship: moderating effects of individual and environmental characteristics”,
European Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 386-399.
Solesvik, M., Westhead, P. and Matlay, H. (2014), “Cultural factors and entrepreneurial intention:
the role of entrepreneurship education”, Education + Training, Vol. 56 Nos 8/9,
pp. 680-696.
Solesvik, M.Z., Westhead, P., Kolvereid, L. and Matlay, H. (2012), “Student intentions to become
self-employed: the Ukrainian context”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,
Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 441-460.
Solesvik, M.Z., Westhead, P., Matlay, H. and Parsyak, V.N. (2013), “Entrepreneurial assets and
mindsets: benefit from university entrepreneurship education investment”, Education +
Training, Vol. 55 Nos 8/9, pp. 748-762.
Souitaris, V., Zerbinati, S. and Al-Laham, A. (2007), “Do entrepreneurship programmes raise
entrepreneurial intention of science and engineering students? The effect of learning inspiration
and resources”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 566-591.
Tan, S. (2009), “Misuses of KR-20 and Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients”, Education and Science,
Vol. 34 No. 152, pp. 101-112.
Tavakol, M. and Dennick, R. (2011), “Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha”, International Journal of
Medical Education, Vol. 2, pp. 53-55.
Thornton, P.H., Ribeiro-Soriano, D. and Urbano, D. (2011), “Socio-cultural factors and
entrepreneurial activity: an overview”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 29 No. 2,
pp. 105-118.
Thurik, R. and Wennekers, S. (2004), “Entrepreneurship, small business and economic growth”, Journal
of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 140-149.
Valdez, M.E., Doktorb, R.H., Singerc, A.E. and Danad, L.P. (2011), “Impact of tolerance for uncertainty
upon opportunity and necessity entrepreneurship”, Human Systems Management, Vol. 30 No. 3,
pp. 145-153.
Venkataraman, S. (1997), “The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research”, in Shane, S. (Ed.), Barriers of
Foundations of Entrepreneurship, Edward Elgar Press, available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract= entrepreneurial
1444184 (accessed 25 June 2015).
Watson, K., Hogarth-Scott, S. and Wilson, N. (1994), “Small business start-up: success factors and
intention
support implications”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol. 4
No. 3, pp. 217-238.
Wauters, B. and Lambrecht, J. (2008), “Barriers to refugee entrepreneurship in Belgium: towards an
explanatory model”, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 895-915. 849

Corresponding author
Boumediene Kebaili can be contacted at: kebaili.usm@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com