Entrepreneurship is considered by the European Commission as a key competence for improving competitiveness and development. One of the Europe 2020 strategy’s aims is to enhance entrepreneurial skills in order to improve a European entrepreneurial culture. Accordingly, the European Commission (2013) encourages entrepreneurship education for developing youth entrepreneurial skills to help young people in the construction of their professional life. Europe is dealing with a high rate of youth unemployment (ILO, 2015), hence entrepreneurship and self-employment could indicate a way for overcoming unemployment and gaining full, productive and decent work.
A lack of entrepreneurship skills and characteristics can be an obstacle to business creation for youth and the development of entrepreneurship (OECD, 2015). Other barriers regard a lack of awareness in role models (such as parents or teachers) of the potentials of entrepreneurial activity; lack of education and training programmes for entrepreneurial attitudes and skills; lack of human, financial and social capital necessary both to design and successfully realise a new business; lack of personal funds and more difficulties than adults to attain external finance; small business networks and business-related social capital; and market barriers (OECD, 2012).
Entrepreneurial education aims principally to enhance entrepreneurial skills (Laukéus, 2015). Entrepreneurship in education also represents the ability to increase deep learning and engagement, joy, motivation, confidence and feelings of relevancy in people, but it also affects job creation, economic success, renewal and innovation for people, organisations and broader society (Laukéus, 2015).
In this perspective, the importance of entrepreneurship and especially strengthening youth entrepreneurship emerges as a significant option in response to the ongoing decline and unemployment issues in some EU countries, particularly in the framework of the 2020 targets. Furthermore, there is inadequate accessibility to the programmes developed by universities and organisations within youth entrepreneurship for potential entrepreneurs aged between 18 and 30, and a lack of experiences and opportunities such as simulation or internship (OECD, 2012). So, the challenge is to allow young people to access these opportunities to enhance youth entrepreneurship. The SPARK project is situated in this framework.
SPARK project description
The SPARK project addresses the difficulties of youths in moving their ideas into business due to a lack of knowledge in human, financial, and societal capitals (OECD, 2012), and in ways of accessing them, being part of a network and networking, and marketing their ideas at national and international levels (Birdthistle et al., 2016; Boyles, 2012; OECD, 2012, 2013, 2015). The SPARK project aimed to establish an online learning centre and develop content on youth and social entrepreneurship on the basis of broad needs-analysis research, sharing innovative start-up business across EU countries in a strategic paper that includes recommendations for policy makers to promote entrepreneurship among young people. The SPARK project aims also to disseminate the document to stakeholders and potential young entrepreneurs; to offer mentoring sessions by trained mentors; to prepare national networking events and to introduce young business ideas to investors; and to create internship opportunities abroad. SPARK addressed 9 potential young entrepreneurs and 3 mentors in each of its partner countries: Greece, Italy, Portugal and Turkey.
This project is being carried out transnationally in order to facilitate the exchange of best practices in entrepreneurship policies. The main aim is to find potential entrepreneurs in all partner countries to increase the project’s impact. In line with EU’s policies on entrepreneurship promotion, the SPARK project supports the EU’s goals on youth employment and sustainable job creation. In the SPARK project partnership, there are 3 universities (University of Florence, Italy; Universidade Europeia, Portugal; Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Turkey, AYBU), a chamber of commerce (ATO, applicant), a public research body (IBIMET) and a CSO (IED). All partners have been strategically chosen in relation to their expertise and the specific contributions they would make to the project.
This article describes the development of a questionnaire to identify needs in relation to skills gaps among young people, issues they face in their entrepreneurship endeavours and training needs, and it provides the results of the questionnaires administered in the four countries involved in the project: Greece, Italy, Portugal and Turkey. The development of the questionnaire is included in output 1 O1 – Needs analysis and production of the strategic paper – and was conducted by the University of Florence with support from each partner.
Literature review
An analysis of literature allowed skills gaps among youths, issues they face in their entrepreneurship endeavours and entrepreneurship training features to be identified.
Firstly, this analysis highlighted a distinction between entrepreneurial skills related to knowledge, know-how and expertise, enabling an individual to have good results in entrepreneurial activities (Taylor, Russ-Eft, & Chan, 2005), and individual characteristics related to the qualities and attributes of the person (Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006; Roberts, Wood, & Smith, 2005). In detail, the entrepreneurial skills emerging from the analysis of literature, included in the first draft of the questionnaire, are the following (Athayde, 2009; Birdthistle et al., 2016; Boyles, 2012; Chell & Athayde, 2009; Galloway et al., 2005; Geldhof et al., 2014; Liñán, 2008; OECD, 2012; Oosterbeek, van Praag, & Ijsselstein, 2010): opportunity identification, opportunity creation, resource acquisition, access to finance, business planning, running a pilot business, technical skills, business skills, financial skills, marketing skills, management skills, leadership skills, team working skills, collaborative skills, interpersonal skills, communication skills, networking skills, learning skills, problem-solving skills, development of new products and services skills, self-managed planning skills, self-regulation skills (goal selection, goal optimisation, goal compensation, loss-based goal selection), creative, critical and strategic thinking skills, and knowledge of the labour market.
The entrepreneurial characteristics emerging from the analysis of literature, included in the first draft of the questionnaire are the following (Birdthistle et al., 2016; Boyles, 2012; Chell & Athayde, 2009; Geldhof et al., 2014; OECD, 2012; Oosterbee et al., 2010; Rasheed, 2002): positive attitude towards self-employment, entrepreneurial passion, enthusiasm, motivation, self-confidence, sense of responsibility, pro-activeness, initiative, perseverance/goal mastery, energy, commitment, hard work, uncertainty and ambiguity tolerance, imagination, curiosity, innovation orientation, creativity, autonomy, personal control, intuition, need for achievement, need for independence, need for power, risk-taking propensity, financial risk tolerance, courage, flexibility, self-efficacy, leadership ability, organisation, and willpower.
Subsequently, the analysis of literature enabled the following possible obstacles that can be met in entrepreneurship endeavours to be identified (OECD, 2012; Robertson, Collins, Medeira, & Slater, 2003): cultural (e.g. negative social attitudes towards entrepreneurship), lack of skills, inadequate entrepreneurship education, lack of networks, market barriers, difficulties in the use of technology, difficulties in transforming ideas into business, lack of knowledge about financial resources and how to access them, lack of marketing ideas, bureaucratic, individual (e.g. courage, self-confidence), and lack of management skills.
Furthermore, analysis of literature enabled the following methods of promoting entrepreneurial activity to be identified (De Faoite, Henry, Johnston, & van der Sijde 2003; Edwards & Muir, 2005; Fuchs, Werner, & Wallau 2008): mentoring, business counselling, incubation/office facilities, subsistence allowance, seed capital, networking opportunities, follow-up support, self-directed experienced learning, co-operative education, economical/financial facilities, education, examples of success, and training.
The activities for promoting entrepreneurship (De Faoite et al., 2003; Edwards & Muir, 2005; Fuchs et al., 2008) are the following: challenging learners to exploit their full potential, challenging learners to increase their awareness of their personal strengths and weaknesses, calling upon their creativity, regarding mistakes as learning opportunities instead of failure, encouraging critical thinking, increasing the learner’s readiness to take risks, encouraging active forms of learning (e.g. searching for new information and understanding that learning is a lifelong process), projects (university, consultancy and research projects), practical internships, specialised courses, workshops, videos, conferences, analysis of case studies of success and failure, networking spaces, and networking courses.
The stages of the entrepreneurial start-up process where training can be important (De Faoite et al., 2003; Edwards & Muir, 2005; Fuchs et al., 2008; OECD, 2012) are the following: evaluation of entrepreneurial skills and characteristics, choice and structuring of the idea for the enterprise, market and product analysis, business plan, pilot project of the entrepreneurial idea, and achieving sustainability of the entrepreneurial idea.
Based on this literature review, the University of Florence made a first draft of the questionnaire for the needs analysis that was shared with the other partners who gave some feedback on it. After joint reflection, a second draft of the questionnaire was drawn up, awaiting final modifications/integrations deriving from focus groups.
Aims of the study
This study aimed to develop a questionnaire to identify skills gaps among young people, issues they face in their entrepreneurship endeavours and training needs, and to carry out needs analysis in the four countries: Greece, Italy, Portugal and Turkey, involved in the European project SPARK.
Method
Participants
The questionnaire was administered in the four-partner countries: Greece, Italy, Portugal and Turkey to both university students and young entrepreneurs. Each country administered the questionnaire to 75 university students and to 75 young entrepreneurs with a total of 300 university students and 300 young entrepreneurs. Regarding the 300 university students, 119 were males (39.67%) and 181 females (60.33%), average age = 23.62 years, SD = 6.26. Regarding the 300 young entrepreneurs, 152 males were males (50.67%) and 148 females (49.33%), average age = 31.55 years, SD = 9.10.
Measure
A first version of the questionnaire to identify skills gaps among young people, issues they face in their entrepreneurship endeavours and training needs was developed on the basis of the literature review. Additionally, focus groups were conducted to improve this first version of the questionnaire. The University of Florence drew up the template for the focus groups, shared it with the other partners and revised it according to their suggestions. The template enabled a shared guide to be used for the realisation of the focus group in each country and thus produced more reliable results for sharing. On the basis of the results of the focus groups, the University of Florence implemented the second draft of the questionnaire by including aspects emerging from these focus groups, which were missing in the first version of the questionnaire.
The final version of the questionnaire comprises the following four parts:
The first part refers to general information and incorporates: date, gender, age, education level, course, town, and nation.
The second part refers to entrepreneurial skills (27 items), individual entrepreneurial characteristics (36 items) and possible obstacles in relation to entrepreneurship (17 items).
For entrepreneurial skills and individual entrepreneurial characteristics, the participants were asked to indicate in the first column how frequently they think they have them on a five-point scale (1 = Not at all, 2 = Not much, 3 = Neither a little nor a lot, 4 = Quite a lot, 5 = A lot), and in the second column to indicate how far they think it is necessary to improve them on a five-point scale (1 = Not at all, 2 = Not much, 3 = Neither a little nor a lot, 4 = Quite a lot, 5 = A lot). For obstacles, the participants were asked to indicate in the first column how often they think they encounter them on a five-point scale (1 = Not at all, 2 = Not much, 3 = Neither a little nor a lot, 4 = Quite a lot, 5 = A lot), and in the second column to indicate how important they are in impeding entrepreneurial activities on a five-point scale (1 = Not at all, 2 = Not much, 3 = Neither a little nor a lot, 4 = Quite a lot, 5 = A lot).
The third part refers to entrepreneurship training features: methods of promoting entrepreneurial activity (15 items), activities to promote entrepreneurship (17 items), and stages of the entrepreneurial start-up process (6 items).
For methods of promoting entrepreneurial activity and activities to promote entrepreneurship, the participants were asked to indicate how far they think training should include each of the methods on a five-point scale (1 = Not at all, 2 = Not much, 3 = Neither a little nor a lot, 4 = Quite a lot, 5 = A lot). For the stages of the entrepreneurial start-up process, the participants were asked to indicate how important they think training is in this stage on a five-point scale (1 = Not at all, 2 = Not much, 3 = Neither a little nor a lot, 4 = Quite a lot, 5 = A lot).
The last part refers to additional information about willingness to start entrepreneurial activity, training experience in relation to entrepreneurship, and work experience.
Procedure
In all four countries: Greece, Italy, Portugal and Turkey, trained research assistants administered the questionnaires to university students and young entrepreneurs.
Data analysis
Data analyses were carried out by all four countries both for university students (75) and for young entrepreneurs (75). Furthermore, analyses were also carried out on the total samples both for university students (300) and for young entrepreneurs (300). Regarding the procedure for data analysis, the total scores and the means for each item were calculated in relation to the second part and the third part of the questionnaire. Then the total scores and the relative means were put in descending order.
Results - University students
The main results (average scores) of the answers regarding skills, individual characteristics, and obstacles in relation to entrepreneurship (second part of the questionnaire) are presented respectively in Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3 for university students and young entrepreneurs who answered the questionnaires.
Table 1. Average scores of the answers to the SECOND PART: SKILLS IN RELATION TO ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Table 2. Average scores of the answers to the SECOND PART: CHARACTERISTICS IN RELATION TO ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Table 3. Average scores of the answers to the SECOND PART: OBSTACLES IN RELATION TO ENTREPRENEURSHIP
The main results (average scores) of the answers regarding entrepreneurship training features, namely methods and activities to promote entrepreneurial activity and the stages of the entrepreneurial start-up process (third part of the questionnaire), are presented respectively in Table 4, Table 5, and Table 6 for university students and young entrepreneurs who answered the questionnaires.
Table 4. Average scores of the answers to the THIRD PART: ENTREPRENEURSHIP TRAINING FEATURES - METHODS OF PROMOTING ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTIVITY
Table 5. Average scores of the answers to the THIRD PART: ENTREPRENEURSHIP TRAINING FEATURES - ACTIVITIES TO PROMOTE ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTIVITY
Table 6. Average scores of the answers to the THIRD PART: ENTREPRENEURSHIP TRAINING FEATURES - STAGES OF THE ENTREPRENEURIAL START-UP PROCESS
In table 7, general information about work and entrepreneurial experiences is presented.
Table 7. FOURTH PART: INFORMATION
The analysis carried out in the questionnaire allowed us to define a framework for promoting entrepreneurship among young people.
Analysis of the results of the questionnaires administered in the four countries involved in the SPARK project (Greece, Italy, Portugal, Turkey) also allow us to delineate recommendations for policy makers regarding the enhancement of young entrepreneurship.
Discussion
The results of the administration of the questionnaire allow us to outline indications for promoting entrepreneurship among young people.
Regarding entrepreneurial skills that are considered necessary to improve, both university students and young entrepreneurs underlined access to finance. University students also indicated opportunity creation, business skills, management skills, and business planning, while young entrepreneurs report digital marketing, opportunity identification, opportunity creation, and networking skills. These aspects are in line with literature (Athayde, 2009; Birdthistle et al., 2016; Boyles, 2012; Chell & Athayde, 2009; Galloway et al., 2005; Geldhof et al., 2014; Liñán, 2008; OECD, 2012; Oosterbeek et al., 2010). The principal entrepreneurial characteristics that university students considered necessary to improve are self-confidence and perseverance/goal mastery. University students also underline the importance of motivation, global and holistic vision, and quality in the job. Instead, young entrepreneurs indicated innovation orientation, flexibility and management, and organisation. They emerged also in literature (Birdthistle et al., 2016; Boyles, 2012; Chell & Athayde, 2009; Geldhof et al., 2014; OECD, 2012; Oosterbeek et al., 2010; Rasheed, 2002).
The results of the research also highlighted, as emerging in literature (OECD, 2012; Robertson, Collins, Medeira, & Slater, 2003), the main obstacles to entrepreneurial activity for both university students and young entrepreneurs; these are high operational costs (taxes, etc.), lack of funds, and bureaucratic obstacles. University students also emphasised market barriers and lack of infrastructure; for young entrepreneurs there is inadequate entrepreneurship education, and lack of knowledge about financial sources and how to access them.
Concerning entrepreneurship training features, as presented also in past research (De Faoite et al., 2003; Edwards & Muir, 2005; Fuchs et al., 2008), it is important to take into account education, training, networking opportunities and seed capital both for university students and young entrepreneurs. Also economical/financial facilities are relevant for university students, whereas young entrepreneurs emphasised social media & advertisement.
As emerging in literature (De Faoite et al., 2003; Edwards & Muir, 2005; Fuchs et al., 2008) attention was also paid to the following principal activities for promoting entrepreneurship underlined both by university students and young entrepreneurs: encouraging critical thinking, calling upon their creativity, regarding mistakes as learning opportunities instead of failure, challenging learners to increase their awareness of their personal strengths and weaknesses. Practical internship is considered important by university students, while analysis of case studies of success and failure is another key point for young entrepreneurs.
Concerning the stages of the entrepreneurial start-up process where training is considered important, both university students and young entrepreneurs, according to past research (De Faoite et al., 2003; Edwards & Muir, 2005; Fuchs et al., 2008; OECD, 2012), indicated business plan and achieving sustainability of the entrepreneurial idea; another stage to be included is market and product analysis.
Notwithstanding the fact that the study identified skills gaps among young people, issues they face in their entrepreneurship endeavours and training needs throughout the four countries (Greece, Italy, Portugal and Turkey), it has some limitations. The participants were a small group of university students and young entrepreneurs from the four countries and so they are not representative of all realities. Hence, future research should extend this study to participants from different geographical regions in the four partner countries. This study could be also replicated in other countries for possible comparisons.
Despite these limitations, the study allows us to articulate some promising suggestions that could be included in a strategic paper for policy makers to promote entrepreneurship of young people in European countries. Furthermore, regarding counseling, the results of this study indicate the importance of also creating guidance and career counseling to support youth in the construction of an entrepreneurial path in their professional life. Finally in the strategic paper, new research perspectives for guidance and career counseling psychology are offered.
References
Athayde, R. (2009). Measuring enterprise potential in young people. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(2), 481-500.
Birdthistle, N., Costin, Y., & Hynes, B. (2016). Engendering entrepreneurial competencies in the youth of today: a teacher’s perspective. Education+ Training, 58(7/8), 766-782.
Boyles, T. (2012). 21st century knowledge, skills, and abilities and entrepreneurial competencies: A model for undergraduate entrepreneurship education. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 15, 41.
Chell, E., & Athayde, R. (2009). The identification and measurement of innovative characteristics of young people: Development of the Youth Innovation Skills Measurement Tool. National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts NESTA). Retrieved from https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/identification-and-measurement-of-innovative-characteristics-of-young-people-development-of-the-youth-innovation-skills-measurement-tool
De Faoite, D., Henry, C., Johnston, K., & van der Sijde, P. (2003). Education and training for entrepreneurs: A consideration of initiatives in Ireland and The Netherlands. Education+ Training, 45(8/9), 430-438.
Edwards, L. J., & Muir, E. J. (2005). Promoting entrepreneurship at the University of Glamorgan through formal and informal learning. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 12(4), 613-626.
European Commission (2013). Entrepreneurship 2020 Action Plan. Reigniting the entrepreneurial spirit in Europe. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2012/EN/1-2012-795-EN-F1-1.Pdf
Fuchs, K., Werner, A., & Wallau, F. (2008). Entrepreneurship education in Germany and Sweden: What role do different school systems play?. Journal of small business and enterprise development, 15(2), 365-381.
Galloway, L., Anderson, M., Brown, W., & Wilson, L. (2005). Enterprise skills for the economy. Education+Training, 47(1), 7-17.
Geldhof, G. J., Porter, T., Weiner, M. B., Malin, H., Bronk, K. C., Agans, J. P., ... & Lerner, R. M. (2014). Fostering youth entrepreneurship: Preliminary findings from the young entrepreneurs study. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 24(3), 431-446.
International Labour Organization (ILO, 2015). Global Employment Trends for Youth 2015. Scaling up investments in decent jobs for youth. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Office.
Linan, F. (2008). Skill and value perceptions: How do they affect entrepreneurial intentions?. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4(3), 257-272.
OECD (2012). Policy brief on youth entrepreneurship entrepreneurial activities in Europe. Luxembourg: OECD Publishing.
OECD (2013). Youth Entrepreneurship. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
OECD (2015). Entrepreneurship at a Glance 2015. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
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.
Rasheed, H. (2002). Developing entrepreneurial characteristics in youth: The effects of education and enterprise experience (Unpublished manuscript).
Robertson, M., Collins, A., Medeira, N., & Slater, J. (2003). Barriers to start-up and their effect on aspirant entrepreneurs. Education+Training, 45(6), 308-316.
Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological bulletin, 132(1), 1.
Roberts, B. W., Wood, D., & Smith, J. L. (2005). Evaluating five factor theory and social investment perspectives on personality trait development. Journal of Research in Personality, 39(1), 166-184.
Robertson, M., Collins, A., Medeira, N., & Slater, J. (2003). Barriers to start-up and their effect on aspirant entrepreneurs. Education+Training, 45(6), 308-316.
Taylor, P. J., Russ-Eft, D. F., & Chan, D. W. L. (2005). A meta-analytic review of behavior modeling training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 692-709.
