Using Entrepreneurial Mindset Constructs to Compare Engineering Students and Entrepreneurs

Current efforts to transform engineering education vary in their intensity and direction. One area that has gained considerable momentum in recent years is the effort to promote development of an entrepreneurial mindset (EM) in undergraduate engineering students. A driving force behind this momentum is the Kern Entrepreneurial Engineering Network (KEEN). KEEN is a group of over 40 institutions united in the mission to promote entrepreneurial-minded learning in engineering students. In KEEN, EM is construed to have three primary components, the 3C’s of Curiosity: Connection; and Creating Value. Recent efforts within the network led to the development of the Engineering Student Entrepreneurial Mindset Assessment (ESEMA) instrument as a tool to understand EM development within students. The ESEMA operationalizes EM measurement through a 34-item survey. These items load on six factors of interest: ideation, open-mindedness, interest, altruism, empathy, and help seeking. This work investigates how measurement of these factors compare between engineering students and working entrepreneurs. Data were collected using an instance of the ESEMA and several other instruments hosted in Qualtrics at Montana State University (MSU). The sample includes 397 responses from junior and senior engineering students at MSU. Qualtrics Research Services was utilized to collect complete responses from 172 working professionals. These professionals self-identified as entrepreneurs during survey screening questions. Comparisons between the two groups were made across all six ESEMA factors and a number of other measures using t-tests in R. These comparisons found statistically significant differences (α ≤ 0.1) between the groups in five of the six ESEMA factors. Moreover, regression results showed students having lower Entrepreneurial Intent and lower probability of starting a business while in college even after controlling for all six ESEMA factors. While additional investigation is warranted, these stark differences should raise questions for engineering educators interested in promoting entrepreneurial minded learning. Specifically, if the ESEMA outcomes are aligned with promoting the development of future entrepreneurs, are we taking the right actions to develop this mindset? Introduction For decades leaders in academia, industry, and government have recognized the need for engineering education to develop engineers who are more than simply technical experts [e.g. 1, 2, 3]. The responses of the engineering education community to meet those needs are widespread and varied in their approaches. Results have also been varied [4, 5]. In recent years, a notable workstream has grown around development of engineering entrepreneurship. One specific area that is receiving increased attention from engineering educators and engineering education researchers is the development of an entrepreneurial mindset within engineering students. This increased focus on entrepreneurial mindset is being accelerated by the support of the Kern Family Foundation and their Kern Entrepreneurial Engineering Network (KEEN). KEEN is a growing network, currently approaching 50 institutions, of U.S. engineering programs who conceptualize entrepreneurial mindset (EM) as consisting of three components referred to as the 3Cs [6]. Those components are summarized as: Curiosity – seeking information about our changing world and exploring contrarian views of accepted solutions. Connection – integrating varied sources and perspectives to gain insight. Creating Value – placing engineering work in the context of societal needs and working through failure to see those needs met. While EM has been conceptualized and measured in various ways [7], due to the growing importance of KEEN in engineering education, this work utilizes the 3Cs conceptualization as measured by the Engineering Student Entrepreneurial Mindset Assessment (EMSEA) [8]. Given the attention that entrepreneurial minded learning (EML) is receiving in engineering education and the mixed results of previous efforts to refine engineering education, we should be curious about the effects of EML on students with regard to entrepreneurship. To that end, this work investigates the alignment of EM between engineering students at Montana State University (MSU) and working professionals who identify themselves as entrepreneurs, hereafter referred to as “working entrepreneurs.” This investigation seeks to answer the following five research questions: RQ1. How do upper division engineering students compare to working entrepreneurs on measures of Entrepreneurial Mindset? (mindset comparison) RQ2. How do these students compare to working entrepreneurs on measures of Entrepreneurial Intent and the probability of starting a business in college? (intent comparison) RQ3. How do these students compare to working entrepreneurs on measures of Emotional Intelligence? (EI comparison) RQ4. How do these students compare to working entrepreneurs on measures of Grit? (Grit comparison) RQ5. How do measures of Grit, Entrepreneurial Mindset, Emotional Intelligence and participant demographics correlate with students’ measures of Entrepreneurial Intent? (predicting intent) This work utilized a quantitative research approach to answer these questions. Entrepreneurship and Engineering Students The growing interest in promoting EML in engineering students is also driving a growing literature in this area. These studies range in their focus, but many are concerned with understanding the relationship between EML (or entrepreneurship in general) and other, more familiar, areas of the engineering education literature. These include explorations of the relationship to “makers” behavior [9], how various experiences can promote EML (e.g. first year [10] and extra-curricular [11]), and applications in specific courses, both traditional engineering [12] and those with a more specific EML focus [13]. Outside of these more application-oriented areas, there have been workshops to contextualize what entrepreneurial education should look like in engineering [14], comparisons between engineering and business students’ interest in entrepreneurship [15], and exploration of the predictors of entrepreneurial self-efficacy [16]. In addition, there is a rapidly growing literature examining the development of instruments to measure various conceptualizations of entrepreneurial mindset in engineering students [8, 17-21]. What seems to be lacking in any of these studies is an investigation of the alignment between these measures and the mindset of practicing entrepreneurs. This work seeks to begin closing that gap. Data Collection Methods Data for this study was collected using the Qualtrics online survey tools hosted by MSU. The data was collected in two distinct phases, one for students and one for working entrepreneurs, using previously published and validated instruments to understand EM, Grit, Emotional Intelligence, Entrepreneurial Intent, and the probability of starting a business in college. The details of these methods are discussed in the following sections. Instruments To obtain a more complete picture of the relationship between EM as conceptualized by members of the KEEN network and other measures commonly found to relate to entrepreneurship in the literature, this study deployed an electronic survey that consisted of four previously published and validated instruments. These instruments provide measures of EM, Grit, Emotional Intelligence, Entrepreneurial Intention, and Entrepreneurial Engagement. As mentioned above, the EM instrument utilized was the ESEMA [8, 17]. The ESEMA is a fairly broad measure of EM that has been refined over time and subjected to validation tests. An example item is “I believe it is important I do things that fix problems in the world.” The instrument loads on the following factors: Altruism: a four-item scale measuring interest in making a positive contribution to the world Empathy: a three-item scale that measures the appreciation of others’ perspectives and viewpoints. Help Seeking: a five-item scale measuring willingness to seek out help when necessary. Ideation: eleven items that measure enjoyment in generating ideas and challenging the status quo and one item that measures persistence through setbacks. Interest (engagement): a three-item scale that measures an inherent interest in a range of activities. Open-Mindedness: an eight-item scale that measures the appreciation of, and willingness to work with, individuals with different expertise. This instrument utilizes a five-point Likert type scale ranging from “Never or Rarely True of Me” to “Always or Almost Always True of Me” with a midpoint of “True of Me About Half the Time.” To measure Grit, this study used Duckworth and Quinn’s 12-item scale [22]. “I have achieved a goal that took years of work” is an example item from this instrument. Overall, the instrument consists of two subscales: Consistency: concerned with one’s passion for ideas or goals Perseverance: measuring attributes like tenacity, hard work, diligence, and finishing whatever one begins. Items on this instrument are measured on traditional five-point Likert scale from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree.” To measure Emotional Intelligence, this work utilized the instrument developed by Wong and Law [23]. This instrument utilizes 18 items to measure four constructs. An example item is “I have a good sense of why I have certain feelings most of the time.” The four constructs are: Self-Emotion Appraisal (SEA): measuring understanding of one’s own emotions. Others’ Emotion Appraisal (OEA): measuring understanding of the emotions of others. Use of Emotion (UOE): measuring perception of self in a positive or negative manner. Regulation of Emotion (ROE): measuring ability to control emotions. Items in this instrument are measured on seven-point Likert scale ranging from “Strongly Disa