Shaping Digital Entrepreneurship: IT Students' Decision-Making Styles and Entrepreneurial Orientation

Yıl 2024, , 563 - 578, 30.11.2024

Üzeyir Fidan

https://doi.org/10.31592/aeusbed.1468300

Öz

Currently, entrepreneurship is recognized as a significant professional choice, and education in informatics enhances the prospects for digital entrepreneurship. This study seeks to analyze the influence of decision-making methods and demographic factors of IT students in Turkey on their entrepreneurial inclinations. The study employed a quantitative methodology and gathered data from a sample of 736 IT students via a survey. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and cluster analysis. The results indicated that the rational decision-making style was the most prevalent among 51.9% of the participants, while the intuitive style was observed in 7.1% and a balanced approach was adopted by 41%. Men exhibit a higher level of entrepreneurial intention compared to women, as measured by gender. The age variable reveals that the highest level of entrepreneurial aspiration occurs within the age range of 28-32. Findings has shown that receiving support from one's family has a beneficial impact on the desire to become an entrepreneur, encompassing both financial and spiritual aspects. Moreover, the existence of prior entrepreneurial individuals within the family further enhances entrepreneurial inclination. In conclusion, this research uncovers the necessary measures to comprehend and bolster the entrepreneurial aptitude of IT students.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Digital entrepreneurship, data mining, cluster analysis, decision-making styles, entrepreneurial orientation

Dijital Girişimciliği Şekillendirmek: BT Öğrencilerinin Karar Verme Tarzları ve Girişimcilik Eğilimleri

Öz

Günümüzde girişimcilik önemli bir mesleki tercih olarak kabul edilmekte ve bilişim eğitimi dijital girişimciliğe yönelik beklentileri artırmaktadır. Bu çalışma, Türkiye'deki BT öğrencilerinin karar verme yöntemlerinin ve demografik faktörlerinin girişimcilik eğilimleri üzerindeki etkisini analiz etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışmada nicel bir metodoloji kullanılmış ve 736 BT öğrencisinden oluşan bir örneklemden anket yoluyla veri toplanmıştır. Veriler tanımlayıcı istatistikler ve küme analizi kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Sonuçlar, rasyonel karar verme tarzının katılımcıların %51.9'u arasında en yaygın olduğunu, sezgisel tarzın %7.1'de görüldüğünü ve dengeli bir yaklaşımın %41 tarafından benimsendiğini göstermiştir. Cinsiyete göre ölçüldüğünde, erkekler kadınlara kıyasla daha yüksek düzeyde girişimcilik niyeti sergilemektedir. Yaş değişkeni, en yüksek girişimcilik niyetinin 28-32 yaş aralığında gerçekleştiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Bulgular, kişinin ailesinden destek almasının girişimci olma arzusu üzerinde hem maddi hem de manevi yönleri kapsayan faydalı bir etkisi olduğunu göstermiştir. Ayrıca, aile içinde daha önce girişimci olmuş bireylerin varlığı girişimcilik eğilimini daha da artırmaktadır. Sonuç olarak, bu araştırma BT öğrencilerinin girişimcilik yeteneklerini anlamak ve desteklemek için gerekli önlemleri ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Dijital girişimcilik, veri madenciliği, kümeleme analizi, karar verme stilleri, girişimcilik yönelimi

Kaynakça

• Agyemang, I. K., Deh, I. Y., and Asuamah, S. Y. (2013). Socio-demographics effect in factors that shape decision to start own business. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship Development, 1(1), 34-41.
• Akhter, F. (2017). Unlocking digital entrepreneurship through technical business process. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 5(1), 36-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2017.5.1
• Andersen, T. C. K., Aagaard, A., and Magnusson, M. (2022). Exploring business model innovation in SMEs in a digital context: Organizing search behaviours, experimentation and decision‐making. Creativity and Innovation Management, 31(1), 19-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12474
• Barnir, A., and McLaughlin, E. (2011). Parental self-employment, start-up activities and funding: exploring intergenerational effects. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 16(03), 371-392. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1084946711001884
• Bolton, D. L., and Lane, M. D. (2012). Individual entrepreneurial orientation: Development of a measurement instrument. Education+Training, 54(2/3), 219-233. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400911211210314
• Özkara, M., ve Bozkurt, Ö. (2024). Karar verme sürecinde risk algısını etkileyen faktörlerin belirlenmesi: bireysel yatirimcilar üzerine bir uygulama. Uluslararası Turizm, Ekonomi ve İşletme Bilimleri Dergisi, 8(1), 29-45.
• Demir, B., e Sözüer, A. (2024). Pillars of cooperation in international entrepreneurship: A qualitative investigation of Turkish ventures. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 16(1), 153-165. https://doi.org/10.20491/isarder.2024.1783
• Edelman, L. F., Manolova, T., Shirokova, G., and Tsukanova, T. (2016). The impact of family support on young entrepreneurs' start-up activities. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(4), 428-448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2016.04.003
• Ercan, S., and Yıldıran, C. (2021). Bireysel girişimcilik yönelimi ölçeği’nin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması. Girişimcilik ve Kalkınma Dergisi, 16(1), 91-105.
• Fazio, C., Guzman, J., and Stern, S. (2020). The impact of state-level research and development tax credits on the quantity and quality of entrepreneurship. Economic Development Quarterly, 34(2), 188-208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242420920926
• Grilo, I., and Thurik, R. (2005). Latent and actual entrepreneurship in Europe and the US: some recent developments. The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 1, 441-459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-005-4772-9
• Grilo, I., Irigoyen, J. M. (2006). Entrepreneurship in the EU: To Wish and not to be. Small Business Economics, 26, 305–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-005-1561-3.
• Güneş, E., ve Şekerdil, R. (2024). Overcoming challenges in entrepreneurial and innovative endeavors. Girişimcilik ve Kalkınma Dergisi, 19(1), 12-25.
• Güven, B. (2020). Intrapreneurship in terms of change management. OPUS International Journal of Society Researches, 16(28), 846-863. 10.26466/opus.644237
• Hamilton, K., Shih, S. I., and Mohammed, S. (2016). The development and validation of the rational and intuitive decision styles scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(5), 523-535. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2015.1132426
• Hébert, R. F., and Link, A. N. (1989). In search of the meaning of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 1, 39-49. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00389915
• Karasar, N. (2008). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
• Kim, P. H., Aldrich, H. E., and Keister, L. A. (2006). Access (not) denied: The impact of financial, human, and cultural capital on entrepreneurial entryin the United States. Small Business Economics, 27, 5-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-006-0007-x
• Kıran, F. ve Bozkurt, Ö. C. (2020). Finansal okuryazarlık, risk alma eğilimi ve belirsizlik karşı tolerans ilişkisi: batı akdeniz girişimcileri üzerine bir araştırma. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 15(3), 1203-1222.
• Kraus, S., Palmer, C., Kailer, N., Kallinger, F. L., and Spitzer, J. (2019). Digital entrepreneurship: A research agenda on new business models for the twenty-first century. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 25(2), 353-375. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-06-2018-0425.
• Landell, K.(1997). Management by Menu. NY, USA: John Wiley and Sons.
• Lee, S. M., Chang, D., and Lim, S. B. (2005). Impact of entrepreneurship education: A comparative study of the US and Korea. The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 1, 27-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-005-6674-2
• Levesque, M., and Minniti, M. (2006). The effect of aging on entrepreneurial behavior. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(2), 177-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.04.003
• Li, Z., and Islam, A. A. (2021). Entrepreneurial intention in higher vocational education: an empirically-based model with implications for the entrepreneurial community. Sage Open, 11(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211059179
• Makandwa, G., and de Klerk, S. (2024). Impact of family moral support on female entrepreneurs involved in craft tourism. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 22(1), 61-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2016.04.003
• Matthews, C. and Moser, S. (1995). Family Background and Gender: Implications for Interest in Small Firm Ownership. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 7, 365–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985629500000023
• Menteşe, S., ve Menteşe, C. D. (2023). Dijitalleşen dünyada yöneticilerin değişen karar mekanizmaları. Munzur Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 12(2), 153-173.
• Muldoon, J., Bendickson, J. S., Gur, F. A., and Murphy, P. J. (2022). Management's knowledge filter: entrepreneurship theory and the historic conceptual evolution of opportunism in management studies. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 29(3), 402-420. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-06-2021-0231
• Ndofirepi, T. M., and Rambe, P. (2017). Entrepreneurship education and its impact on the entrepreneurship career intentions of vocational education students. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 15(1), 191-199. https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.15(1-1).2017.06
• Parker, S. C. (2005). The economics of entrepreneurship: What we know and what we don't. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 1-54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/0300000001
• Rousseeuw, P. J. (1987). Silhouettes: a graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 20, 53-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-0427(87)90125-7
• Sarıkaya, O., ve Atsan, N. (2021). Karar verme stili ve risk alma eğilimi: X ve Y kuşakları açısından bir değerlendirme. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Vizyoner Dergisi, 12(30), 599-611. https://doi.org/10.21076/vizyoner.780426
• Shahapure, K. R. (2020, 6-9 October). Cluster quality analysis using silhouette score. G. Webb, Z. Zhang, V. S. Tseng, G. Williams, M. Vlachos and L. Cao (Eds.), Sydney. IEEE 7th international conference on data science and advanced analytics in (pp. 747-748). Australia: IEEE.
• Śledzik, K. (2013). Schumpeter’s view on innovation and entrepreneurship. S. Hittmar (Eds.), Management trends in theory and practice in (pp. 89-95). Slovakia: University Publishing House, University of Zilina.
• Tuszynski, M. P., and Stansel, D. (2018). Targeted state economic development incentives and entrepreneurship. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy, 7(3), 235-247. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEPP-D-18-00033
• Üngör, J. E. (2021). Analyzing the entrepreneurship competencies based on demographic features. BİLTÜRK Journal of Economics and Related Studies, 3(4), 196-212.
• Verheul, I., Thurik, R., Grilo, I., and van der Zwan, P. (2012). Explaining preferences and actual involvement in self-employment: gender and the entrepreneurial personality. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(2), 325-341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2011.02.009
• Wolff, M. F. (2002). Federal innovation policy can help--and hurt--economy, economists say. Research Technology Management, 45(4).
• Xing, J. L., and Sharif, N. (2020). From creative destruction to creative appropriation: A comprehensive framework. Research Policy, 49(7), 104060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104060
• Yakup, İ., Soyer, M. K., and Keskinoğlu, M. Ş. (2020). Akılcı ve sezgisel karar verme stilleri ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanması. OPUS International Journal of Society Researches, 16 (Eğitim ve Toplum Özel sayısı), 5995-6013. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.720827
• Zulfiqar, M., Ansar, S., Ali, M., Hassan, K. H. U., Bilal, M., and Rahman, S. U. (2022). The role of social economic resources towards entrepreneurial intentions. PalArch's Journal of Archaeology of Egypt/Egyptology, 19(1), 2219-2253.