Embedding the marketing angle into the pursuit of entrepreneurial propensity: roles of perceived feasibility and desirability and stakeholders' support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study endeavors to decode the propensity for entrepreneurial action by addressing the perceptions of feasibility and desirability stemming from entrepreneurs' and non-entrepreneurs’ appraisal of holding marketing capabilities; complemented by the direct and indirect effects of market stakeholders' support, assessed as bridging or buffering the entrepreneurial action. Design/methodology/approach Three groups were formed from a random sample of 1,957 Canadian (from Quebec) respondents to an online questionnaire: non-entrepreneurs with low entrepreneurial intentions, non-entrepreneurs with high entrepreneurial intentions and entrepreneurs with high entrepreneurial intentions. Findings The analyses revealed salient effects of perceptions of feasibility and desirability, coupled with appraisals of possessing marketing capabilities, on entrepreneurial propensity; and their strengthened relations when obtaining stakeholders' support. Overall, the results suggest that perceived market feasibility and market desirability are prominent factors in differentiating between entrepreneurial and non-entrepreneurial action, and the type and function of stakeholders' support are prominent in differentiating between intentions. Practical implications Practical implications include facilitating the transmission of marketing knowledge to novice entrepreneurs through higher education and the ecosystem. Originality/value The authors show that perceptions of feasibility and desirability are particularly dependent on the entrepreneur's perceived marketing capabilities and perceptions of entrepreneurial ecosystem supportiveness. This study thus captures a fuller range of the intentions–action relationship by gauging the unidimensional approach to entrepreneurial action through intertwining attributes at the individual and market levels. It takes a new look at feasibility and desirability through marketing capabilities; and offers a more robust classification of stakeholders' support—institution/people, bridging/buffering. Practical implications include facilitating the transmission of marketing knowledge to novice entrepreneurs through higher education and the ecosystem.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".