Cross-cultural differences in entrepreneurial tendencies: An exploratory view in Turkey and Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ABSTRACTEven though entrepreneurs hip is not new, its popularity is still growing rapidly as a result of a wide range of factors. Removal of the trade barriers, global economic recessions, advancements in information and telecommunication technologies, corporate restructurings, downsizing, mergers and acquisitions are among the major factors that led the topic to keep its critical importance. As a result of the above mentioned conditions, entrepreneurs hip is increasingly catching the attention of the academia as well as the governments, policy makers, NGOs and other profit or non-profit institutions. Whilst many governments are working on new policies to support entrepreneurs hip, higher education institutions (HEI) are constantly launching new and innovative programs, courses and seminars on entrepreneur ship. All these efforts have one common ultimate goal which is fostering and encouraging entrepreneurial activities and innovation.The aim of this study is to assess and compare the entrepreneurial tendencies of Turkish and Canadian students enrolled in Business Administration programs at undergraduate level. A sample of 429 third and fourth year students from Turkey and Canada were chosen for the study. 217 students out of 429 were Canadians and the remaining 212 were Turkish students.Field : Management, Entrepreneur ship, Cross-Cultural ManagementINTRODUCTIONThe field of entrepreneurship has a recognized scientific community that expresses itself through large numbers of conferences and scientific journals (Bruyat and Julien, 2000) as a result of its significant effects on both economic and corporate performance. Entrepreneurship is now considered as one of the most powerful tools to survive economic recessions and bottlenecks through creating new businesses and new jobs, fostering creative thinking and nurturing the economy itself. Entrepreneurship is even more crucial for developing countries since its vital role in economic growth, wealth creation and distribution grows as we speak.Triggered by the global and organizational changes, entrepreneurship has been receiving a growing interest both by the universities and other institutions. While globalization, removal of trade barriers and the emergence of Internet and telecom technologies are offering opportunities and risks globally, massive changes at organizational level like lay-offs, corporate restructurings, mergers & acquisitions, corporate alliances are also occuring constantly. These intense changes at macro and micro level call for an entrepreneurial action for increasing number of people day after day. Figure 1 shows the major factors fostering individual to consider entrepreneurship as an option.Parallel to the growing interest in entrepreneurship, increasing number of programs and courses offered by universities, private consultants and trade associations. The number of entrepreneurship research centers and degrees offered by those institutions are also growing rapidly.However, there is also a strong debate among academics about whether the entrepreneurship can actually be taught (Fiet, 2001). Albeit these strong discussions, entrepreneurship is relatively well established in most academic areas. Entrepreneurship scholars and teachers seem winning the battle for academic respectability that they fought over two decades (Johnson et al., 2006) and proved that entrepreneurship can be taught. In a survey of American professors, Vesper found that 93 percent of respondents indicated that entrepreneurship can be taught (Hynes, 2005). Supporting this view, Kantor (1988), studied 408 entrepreneurship students in Ontario and concluded that the most generally believed that the majority of entrepreneurial traits and skills can be taught, with skills perceived as being more teachable compared to traits (Henry et al., 2005).Entrepreneurial qualities and tendencies have long been closely linked with some personality characteristics such as need for achievement, need for autonomy, creative tendency, calculated risk taking and internal locus of control. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».