Research Article: 2024 Vol: 28 Issue: 1S
Female Chempreneurs: Differences In Motivations And Barriers Of Students Depending On Gender And The Impact On Entrepreneurship - A Comparative Study Of Polish And German Students
Sebastian Walther, Poznań University of Economics and Business
Stephan Haubold, Fresenius University of Applied Sciences
Renata Dobrucka, Poznań University of Economics and Business
Citation Information: Walther,S.,Haubold, S., Dobrucka, R., (2024). Female Chempreneurs: Differences In Motivations And Barriers Of Students Depending On Gender And The Impact On Entrepreneurship - A Comparative Study Of Polish And German Students. International Journal of Entrepreneurship, 28(S1),1-36
Abstract
The expectations of universities, as educational institutions, are to train chempreneurs, entrepreneurs from chemistry faculties. These chempreneurs are expected to transform the chemical industry towards sustainability in the future and change their respective industries. Despite over 20 years of progress, entrepreneurship in the STEM community remains male- dominated (Beede et al. 2011; Minniti et al. 2005; Kelley et al. 2017). German chemistry students are 54% less likely to start their own business than the average German student. Therefore, we conducted a comparative study among male and female chemistry students of all grades in Germany and compared them with samples of male and female Polish chemistry students to understand motivations, barriers and intentions and to identify possible differences between men and women. By including samples of students with significant differences in culture, economics and educational background, we developed and tested hypotheses about the influence of these factors on the intentions, perceptions, motivations and barriers of four groups. A random sample of chemistry students was included for both Germany and Poland. We distinguished between intrinsic and extrinsic factors. We found a number of significant differences between the four groups. We discuss the results and suggest new approaches for the education of chemistry students and for future research approaches.
Keywords
Chempreneurs, Entrepreneurs, Chemistry Students, Germany, Poland
Introduction
Products, concepts and innovations from the chemical industry, as well as their opportunities and applications, are related to global challenges such as human health, crop production, energy conversion and storage, safe and abundant water, climate change (Confalone, 2014). The application of scientific knowledge in entrepreneurship is essential for this, for which technology transfer can be used (Sachse & Martinez, 2016). The product implementation of academic research can take place through patenting, licensing, start-ups or university spin-off organisations (USOs). Innovation is the coincidence of an idea, product or service (invention) with a specific market (diffusion) (Dörr, N., & Müller-Prothmann, 2014) (Wolf, Dobrucka, Przekop, & Haubold, 2021). The development of entrepreneurship into an important field of research in its own right occurred through the attention of many disciplines on entrepreneurship as part of the innovation foundation (Kirzner, 1985).
Literature Review
Due to the view that entrepreneurship could be learned, many studies have been conducted on entrepreneurial intentions among university students e.g. (Abigail, Jeslin, Vijayarangan, & Rakhi, 2022) (Ajzen I. , 1991) (Franke & Lüthje, 2004). Among the best-known models for studying the factors that influence intention and willingness to start a business are the entrepreneurial event model (EEM) (Shapero, 1985) and the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen I. , 1985), although the explanatory power of the models and the elements integrated into them may differ from country to country and from discipline to discipline (Engle, et al., 2008). Moreover, understanding cultural diversity has become increasingly important due to globalisation, which has led to cross-cultural comparative studies of entrepreneurial intentions, such as (Giacomin, et al., 2011), (Pruett, Shinnar, Toney, Llopis, & Fox, 2009) or (Sesen & Pruett, 2014). The focus of cross-national comparative studies on this topic is increasingly on three basic factors: culture, economic climate and education. National cultural diversity as the first factor seems to reveal differences in entrepreneurial intentions among university students. Culture is defined according to Mead (1985) as a set of shared values and beliefs among groups of people. In the context of entrepreneurship, as mental programmes that are similar or different in relation to entrepreneurial intentions (Hofstede, 1980).
Research articles have identified family responsibilities (Busolt and Kugele 2009), gender bias in the entrepreneurial ecosystem of university ecosystems (Giuri et al. 2018), entrepreneurial funding (Alsos and Ljunggren 2017; Gicheva and Link 2013), entrepreneurship and innovation policy (Ahl and Nelson 2015; Pettersson 2007), academic background (Woolley 2019) and supportive infrastructure such as technology incubators (Marlow and McAdam 2012). The study by Karataş-Özkan and Chell (2015) point to gender inequalities at all levels, micro, meso, macro. For the micro level, they describe the different perceptions of academics achieving an established position, while this is only a step on the career ladder, we answer this with questions about lifestyle. Within the meso level, some gendered practices with major impacts on career development are described, which include high demands for flexibility, mobility, long working hours and insufficient or no role models, mentoring programmes or incentive mechanisms (Kuschel et al. 2017; Byrne et al. 2019). At the macro level, interactions between the STEM field and the commercial world of technology transfer are described, with women using gendered language and attitudes to financial actions and often relying on a support network in a male-dominated commercial environment.
Another factor mentioned is entrepreneurial education, which is used to explain differences between entrepreneurial intentions in different countries but also within a country with different subgroups. One study that took this comparative approach was that of Giacomin, Janssen, Pruett, Shinnar, Llopis and Toney (2011), which examined the influence of entrepreneurial education and its relationship to entrepreneurial intentions among American, Asian and European students. They found that entrepreneurial intentions differ from country to country and that this should lead to adjustments in entrepreneurship education to take cultural differences into account. Furthermore, entrepreneurship education can have an impact on students' entrepreneurial attitudes (Packham, Jones, Miller, Pickernell and Brychan, 2010). Both positive effects of entrepreneurship education among French and Polish students and a negative effect among male German students were found.
The main objective of this study is to compare the entrepreneurial intentions of male and female chemistry students in Germany (GER) and Poland (PL). Previous studies compared countries or regions with sometimes different economies, cultures or entrepreneurial educations, but often business students (e.g. (Autio, Keeley, Klofsten, Parker, & Hay, 2001); (Boissin, Branchet, Emin, & Herbert, 2009); (Franco, Haase, & Lautenschlager, 2010) & (Lee, Chang, & Lim, 2005). In contrast, this study compares entrepreneurial intentions in two relatively different neighbouring countries to develop an understanding of how we can increase the number of innovations in the chemical industry.
We assess the entrepreneurial education, cultural context and economic environment in the two countries to elucidate possible differences in the entrepreneurial intentions of male and female students. In this way, we answer the following research questions:
1. do curricula differ genders in terms of university stimulation, entrepreneurial intentions and career aspirations?
2. do genders differ in terms of their motives for starting a business?
3. do genders differ in terms of obstacles to starting a business?
4. do the genders differ in terms of the relative importance of factors for entrepreneurial intentions?
The study is divided into four main parts. After the introduction, the article first begins with a brief overview of the literature on entrepreneurial intentions, the motives and obstacles to entrepreneurial action and sets out the hypotheses. The third part presents methods and research findings, while the last part contains the discussion and conclusions.
The research model for this study, based on the theory of planned behaviour (after Ajzen 1991, p. 182), is shown in Figure 1. The model includes intention to found as the dependent variable and the mediators attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control, as in the model of planned behaviour described by Icek Ajzen. In addition, the four independent variables start-up knowledge, perceived educational support, perceived university/research institution support and perceived career opportunity are examined for start-up intention.
Figure 1 Adapted Research Model According to the Theory of Planned Behaviour
University Education and Entrepreneurial Intentions
Within entrepreneurship research, entrepreneurship education has played an increasingly important role since the beginning due to the common belief that entrepreneurship can be learned. An entrepreneur is defined as a person who recognises profit opportunities and takes the initiative to satisfy an unmet demand (Kirzner 1985). While earlier research views entrepreneurship as an innate behaviour, more recent approaches focus on intentions as the best predictor of entrepreneurial behaviour (Ajzen (1991), Davidsson (1995), Krueger & Carsrud (Entrepreneurial intentions: Applying the theory of planned behaviour, 1993); (Krueger, Reilly, & Carsrud, Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions, 2000); (Robinson, Stimpson, Huefner, & Hunt, 1991); Shapero, 1982)).
Entrepreneurial intention can be defined as a person's intention or commitment to start their own business (Drennan, Kennedy & Renfrow, 2005; Krueger & Carsrud, 1993; Souitaris, Zerbinati & Al-Laham, 2007). Thus, entrepreneurial intention can be viewed as a mental process that guides the planning and implementation of a business plan (Boyd & Vozikis, 1994; Gupta & Bhawe, 2007). Current research recognises that this mental process and the entrepreneurial decision of individuals can be influenced by entrepreneurship education and an entrepreneurial university environment (Fayolle, 2008; Katz, 2003; Robinson & Hayes, 1991; Solomon, Duffy & Tarabishy, 2002).
The spread of courses on entrepreneurship within GER is described at over 100 higher education institutions (Stiftung Entrepreneurship (2015) - "Entrepreneurship Education in German Higher Education: Status Quo und Empfehlungen zur Verbesserung"). At the same time, a direct comparison of start-up centres shows 633 in GER and 53 in PL ((Gründungsradar 2021, Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (BMWi)). ("Polska Sieć Inkubatorów Społecznych" (Polish Network of Social Incubators) 2021)).
Against the background of previous studies, we hypothesise the following.
Hypothesis 1: Lower rated by women as they have less entrepreneurial self-efficacy and therefore see no need for entrepreneurship education.
Subjective Norm
The literature points to different perceptions of the entrepreneurial environment, which can lead to women experiencing gendered inequalities (Karatas ̧-Özkan & Chell, 2015). Women are socialised differently and thus perceive opportunities differently (DeTienne, 2007). They point to the possibility of gender specificity in the processes, structures and discourses of academic entrepreneurship (Fältholm, et al., 2010). Further research showed a higher proportion of male students in entrepreneurship courses and a degree with a focus on entrepreneurship when pursuing a business degree compared to their female peers (Menzies & Tatroff, 2006), which led the authors to conclude that there may have been an influence of commonly held myths on the female respondents. This refers to negative gender stereotypes in the social environment of women entrepreneurs that persist in their lives as business owners (Baron, et al., 2001). These stereotypes can have a distorting effect on the concept of entrepreneurship in terms of gender ( (Nilsson, 1997); (Delmar & Holmquist, 2004). In this context, research reports that students see a successful manager as having typical masculine attributes (Yim & Bond, 2002). This means that society has less normative support for women entrepreneurs and implicitly interprets this as less desirable (Baughn, et al., 2006); (Langowitz & Minniti, 2007). As a result, women themselves perceive starting a business as a career option as less desirable (Veciana, et al., 2005)). This results in the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: The subjective norm is rated lower for women.
Economic Differences and Entrepreneurial Intentions
The gender pay gap has been described and reduced since the 1970s (Blau & Kahn, 1994). The gender pay gap has existed for several decades despite the fact that women make up the majority of university graduates ( (DiPrete & Buchmann, 2013); (Goldin, 2002)). This distribution does not apply to GER, where 39 % of chemistry graduates in 2021 will be female (Gesellschaft deutscher Chemiker, 2022). At the same time, women who have studied STEM subjects are less likely than their male counterparts to enter or remain in STEM professions ( (Glass, et al., 2013); (Yingyi & Savas, 2014); (Mann & DiPrete, 2013); (Sassler, et al., 2011)). Studies show persistent gender pay gaps regardless of fields or specific degrees (Ginther, 2003). In comparison, GER shows a gender pay gap of 17.6 % and PL 4.5 % in 2021 (Eurostat, 2021). The gender pay gap could serve as a motivation for women to start a business in order to achieve independence.
A research focus in literatures on entrepreneurship or entrepreneurial intentions is on the role of gender in the emergence of entrepreneurial intentions. The view of women entrepreneurs as a potential source of sustainable development in the economic and social spheres has increased research on entrepreneurial development (Akter, et al., 2013). In addition to the increase in the number of women entrepreneurs (De Bruin, et al., 2006), studies indicate that women have a lower propensity to engage in entrepreneurial activities or to start new businesses (García-Aramayo & Contreras-Espinosa, 2014). Other research points to a direct link between entrepreneurial intentions and male characteristics (Gupta, et al., 2009) and a significantly lower entrepreneurial intention among women (Langowitz & Minniti, 2007). Data collection from GEM reports internationally has shown a gender gap within start-up activity in most countries for over 20 years. In 2022, the analysis of TEA rates for GER and PL again showed a higher proportion of male entrepreneurs with a ratio of 1.58 for GER and 1.42 in PL (Sternberg, et al., 2022). It is therefore assumed that:
Hypothesis 3: Male students white higher entrepreneurial intention than their female counterparts.
Motives and barriers to entrepreneurship
The perceptions of men and women differ. For example, men have different motivations for starting a business (Klyver & Grant, 2010) and are likely to have a larger network of entrepreneurial contacts (Humbert & Drew, 2010). In this context, studies show higher motivation through possibly greater self-confidence (Kirkwood, 2009) and at the same time lower barriers such as fear of failure (Shinnar, et al., 2012). Other motives for starting a business include the pursuit of wealth, financial security and life security, which are stronger among men than women (Johan, et al., 2013). Further studies show challenging work as well as the attainment of wealth as motives for starting a business for men (Johan, et al., 2013), while for women the work-life balance and the possibly resulting free allocation of time as an entrepreneur are more preferred (Ahmad, et al., 2014). Another motivating factor for women to start a business is the desire for independence and freedom from any control (Naituli, et al., 2008). These findings are in line with the results of another study, which found that women have more self-confidence and become less risk averse than men (Brindley, 2005). However, due to the generally lower propensity of women to start a business, we put forward the following hypotheses
Hypothesis 4: Men have higher ratings of motives than women.
Hypothesis 5: Women have higher barrier ratings than men.
Methodology
This study is part of a comparative study of German and Polish chemistry students that examines innovation-oriented technology transfer from the students' perspective. Due to time and cost constraints, a longitudinal design was chosen for our study. The chosen method was a survey with one measurement point (August 2022 - January 2023) to collect prospective and current data using an online questionnaire.
Additional questions were added to the questionnaire used in this article. The questionnaire was translated into English, French, Spanish and Polish by specialised staff and then checked for loss of meaning. The target group for the survey was students from the departments of chemistry as well as related fields (biochemistry, analytics, industrial chemistry, process engineering, industrial biology and food chemistry) who were contacted by mail, personally in lectures or via online social media networks like Instagram.
Questions
The questions for the survey used in this study come from different studies (e.g. Genesca and Veciana (1984), Giacomin et al., 2011; Pruett et al., 2009; Veciana, Aponte & Urbano, 2005). The questionnaire consisted of 10 parts in total. After the demographic questions on gender, migration, nationality and age, participants were excluded based on their student status to ensure the desired data. Subsequently, study-relevant characteristics such as place of university, subject area, intended degree, total duration of studies, type of employment or the presence of founders in the environment were recorded and questions were asked to determine the latent constructs. For this, questions from different studies were used, which were adapted to a 6-point Likert scale to force selection. Absolute ignorance (1) to comprehensive knowledge (5) for questions on basic knowledge, or I don't know (0), don't agree at all (1) to completely agree (5) for the others. The probability of founding a company was asked through two different types of questions, on the one hand the probability of founding a company after graduation from very unlikely (1) to very likely (6) and on the other hand the career intentions with the options public service, employment and founding a company. Based on the career intentions, the entrepreneurial intentions (TEA rate) for the students are determined by percentage calculation. In addition, the option "I don't know" was given for questions on external factors, an example is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2 Schematic Representation of the Scale Used
The questions for the survey were taken from the studies by Roy, Akhtar & Das (2017) ("Foundation knowledge" & "Perceived Career options"), Saeed et al. (2015) ("Perceived educational support" & "Perceived support of the university"), Zapkau et al. (2015) ("Subjective Norm" & "Founding intention"), Pruett et al. (2009) ("Intention" & "Barriers") and Giacomin, et al., (2011) ("Perceived Behavioural control" & "Self-assessment for the foundation"). The response option "I don’t know" was used for all variables except for the areas " Foundation knowledge", "Subjective Norm" and " Founding intention ". As a further question category, the participants were asked about their career option in the context of their intention to found a company, with a choice between "industry", "public service" and "starting a business".
Participants
A total of 4,367 people and 120 professors or student representatives were contacted. In February 2023, we received completed questionnaires from 1,287 participants, a response rate of 29.4 %, which is acceptable compared to other web-based studies (Cook, Heath, & Thompson, 2000). Before conducting our statistical analyses, we excluded 320 participants due to incomplete data. We also excluded participants who reported that they were not currently a student (n = 135), or belonged to another field (such as teaching or electrical engineering), or were studying in another country (n = 21). The final sample thus consisted of 811 students, 498 from GER and 313 from PL. A summary of the distribution of study participants can be found in Figure 3. The diverse genders were not considered further in the course of this evaluation.
Figure 3 Summary of the Study Participants
The students from GER were on average 24.2 years old (SD = 3.42, range 17-35) and almost homogeneously divided between men (48.0 %) and women (50.6 %). Almost a quarter (23.3 %) have a migration background, while 84.5 % have German citizenship. Most of the participants (64.5 %) are studying chemistry at a public university (79.9 %) and 52.6 % are in a Bachelor's programme (25.3 % Master's programme, 22.1 % doctoral programme). Only 36.7 % of the students (n = 183) do not have an income from employment, whereas 6.8 % (n = 34) reported full-time employment. Most students have no founders among their acquaintances (n = 294, 59.0 %).
The students from PL were on average 22.9 years old (SD = 2.82, range 18-40) and not evenly distributed between men (28.1 %) and women (70.0 %). Almost one fifth (20.4 %) have a migrant background, while 96.2 % have Polish citizenship. Most of the participants (45.4 %) are studying chemistry and 71.6 % are in a Bachelor's programme (20.4 % Master's programme, 8.0 % doctoral programme). Only 59.7 % of the students (n = 187) do not have an income from employment, whereas 5.4 % (n = 17) reported full-time employment. Most students have no founders among their acquaintances (n = 196, 62.6 %).
Statistical analysis
The statistical analysis was carried out with IBM SPSS Statistics version 28.0.1. Before ANOVA, the data were tested for normal distribution using Shapiro-Wilk tests. Since the data were not normally distributed, the Kruskal-Wallis-Test was used for independent samples, which is a non-parametric alternative to ANOVA. Kruskal-Wallis-Test compares the ranks of the data. The result of an ANOVA analysis is the standardised z-value, which indicates how many standard deviations the test statistic deviates from the expected value, and the significance level (p-value) determined by the distribution function of the test. The significance level was defined as 5 %. The calculation of the probability of founding a company is based on the percentage of participants who selected founding a company as a career option. The results are presented as a table showing the factor, country, number of "I don't know" statements, proportion of "I don't know" statements, sample size (n), mean, median, z-value (z) and p-value (p).
Results
Foundation Knowledge
Table 1 shows the results for the male and female students from GER and PL with regard to their knowledge of business start-ups in relation to the questions on the tasks within a business start-up, the distinction between "good" and "bad" start-up ideas and the knowledge of support institutions for business start-ups.
| Table 1 Results Anova Comparison on the Factors of Foundation Knowledge | |||||||||||
| Question / Factors | Country | Gender | n | mean | Median | GER | PL | ||||
| male | female | male | |||||||||
| z | p | z | p | z | p | ||||||
| To what extent do you know about the tasks involved in setting up a business? | GER | male | 239 | 3.1 | 4 | ||||||
| female | 252 | 2.2 | 2 | 3.814 | 0.001 | ||||||
| PL | male | 88 | 2.6 | 2.5 | -0.397 | 1.000 | -3.181 | 0.009 | |||
| female | 219 | 3.1 | 3 | 0.183 | 1.000 | -3.543 | 0.002 | 0.528 | 1.000 | ||
| To what extent can you distinguish between a "good" and a "bad" start-up idea? | GER | male | 239 | 3.9 | 4 | ||||||
| female | 252 | 2.9 | 3 | 2.615 | 0.540 | ||||||
| PL | male | 88 | 3.4 | 3 | 1.365 | 1.000 | -0.532 | 1.000 | |||
| female | 219 | 3.0 | 3 | 3.200 | 0.008 | 0.685 | 1.000 | 1.024 | 1.000 | ||
| Do you know of any funding organisations that can help you with your start-up? | GER | male | 239 | 3.7 | 4 | ||||||
| female | 252 | 3.2 | 3 | 2.697 | 0.042 | ||||||
| PL | male | 88 | 2.8 | 3 | -0.341 | 1.000 | -2.310 | 0.125 | |||
| female | 219 | 2.9 | 3 | 1.059 | 1.000 | -1.563 | 0.708 | 1.122 | 1.000 | ||
With regard to the tasks involved in setting up a business, significant differences were identified between the assessments of German men (M = 3.1) and German women (M = 2.2) (z = 3.814, p = 0.001). In addition, a significant difference was found between German women (M = 2.2) and Polish women (M = 3.1) (z = -3.543, p = 0.002). For the factor "To what extent can you distinguish between a "good" and a "bad" start-up idea?" the comparison of German men (M = 3.9) and Polish women (M = 3.0) revealed a significant difference (z = 3.200, p = 0.008). For the factor "Do you know of any funding organisations that can help you with your start-up?" only the comparison of German men (M = 3.7) and German women (M = 3.2) showed a significant difference (z = 2.697, p = 0.042). The significant differences within the area of foundation knowledge for the German study participants confirms the research that male students are more likely to look at other areas outside of their core studies than women (Severiens and ten Dam 1994), which can have a positive influence on foundation behaviour.
Perceived educational support (PES) / Perceived Support of the university (PSU)
Table 2 shows students' scores on the extent of knowledge about business start-up included in the curriculum of the respondent's field of study and the extent to which universities encourage and support students to become entrepreneurs.
| Table 2 Results Anova Comparison on the Factors of Perceived Educational Support (PES) / Perceived Support of the University (PSU) | |||||||||||||
| Question / Factors | Country | Gender | „I don’t know“ n | „I don’t know“ % | n | mean | median | GER | PL | ||||
| male | female | male | |||||||||||
| z | p | z | p | z | p | ||||||||
| My college/university offers lectures on the topic of start-up/entrepreneurship. | GER | male | 91 | 38.1 | 148 | 4.5 | 5 | ||||||
| female | 103 | 40.9 | 149 | 4.1 | 5 | 1.217 | 1.000 | ||||||
| PL | male | 34 | 38.6 | 54 | 2.0 | 1 | 2.844 | 0.027 | 1.957 | 0.302 | |||
| female | 77 | 35.2 | 142 | 3.1 | 3 | 4.329 | <0.001 | 3.132 | 0.010 | 0.353 | 1.000 | ||
| My college/university offers projects on the topic of start-up/entrepreneurship. | GER | male | 97 | 40.6 | 142 | 4.6 | 5 | ||||||
| female | 108 | 42.9 | 144 | 3.8 | 3 | 2.082 | 0.224 | ||||||
| PL | male | 34 | 38.6 | 54 | 2.5 | 2 | 4.486 | <0.001 | 2.952 | 0.019 | |||
| female | 97 | 44.3 | 122 | 3.1 | 3 | 6.383 | <0.001 | 4.402 | <0.001 | 0.432 | 1.000 | ||
| My college/ university hosts conferences /workshops on startup/entre-preneurship. | GER | male | 95 | 39.7 | 144 | 4.7 | 5 | ||||||
| female | 105 | 41.7 | 147 | 4.0 | 5 | 1.116 | 1.000 | ||||||
| PL | male | 29 | 33.0 | 59 | 1.7 | 1.5 | 4.306 | <0.001 | 3.470 | 0.003 | |||
| female | 91 | 41.6 | 128 | 3.3 | 3 | 5.369 | <0.001 | 4.313 | <0.001 | - 0.085 | 1.000 | ||
| My college/university puts students interested in starting a business in touch with each other. | GER | male | 105 | 43.9 | 134 | 4.3 | 5 | ||||||
| female | 106 | 42.1 | 146 | 3.8 | 4 | 0.206 | 1.000 | ||||||
| PL | male | 45 | 51.1 | 43 | 1.7 | 1 | 3.881 | 0.001 | 3.778 | 0.001 | |||
| female | 111 | 50.7 | 108 | 2.3 | 3 | 5.826 | <0.001 | 5.741 | <0.001 | 0.406 | 1.000 | ||
| My college/university has a start-up centre. | GER | male | 132 | 55.2 | 107 | 4.6 | 5 | ||||||
| female | 170 | 67.5 | 82 | 4.0 | 4 | 2.489 | 0.077 | ||||||
| PL | male | 55 | 62.5 | 33 | 2.0 | 1 | 6.589 | <0.001 | 4.592 | <0.001 | |||
| female | 139 | 63.5 | 80 | 2.9 | 2 | 8.193 | <0.001 | 5.381 | <0.001 | - 0.489 | 1.000 | ||
| My college/university motivates students to start a new business. | GER | male | 56 | 23.4 | 183 | 3.9 | 4 | ||||||
| female | 69 | 27.4 | 183 | 3.5 | 3 | 0.110 | 1.000 | ||||||
| PL | male | 14 | 15.9 | 74 | 2.9 | 2 | - 0.863 | 1.000 | - 0.947 | 1.000 | |||
| female | 37 | 16.9 | 182 | 3.1 | 3 | 0.41 | 1.000 | 0.300 | 1.000 | 1.174 | 1.000 | ||
| My college/university provides students with ideas for starting a new business. | GER | male | 63 | 26.4 | 176 | 2.9 | 3 | ||||||
| female | 77 | 30.6 | 175 | 2.9 | 2 | - 0.158 | 1.000 | ||||||
| PL | male | 18 | 20.5 | 70 | 2.6 | 1.5 | - 1.704 | 0.530 | - 1.584 | 0.680 | |||
| female | 39 | 17.8 | 180 | 2.5 | 2 | - 0.345 | 1.000 | - 0.186 | 1.000 | 1.450 | 0.882 | ||
| My college/university provides students with the knowledge needed to start a new business. | GER | male | 65 | 27.2 | 174 | 3.9 | 4 | ||||||
| female | 74 | 29.4 | 178 | 3.2 | 3 | 2.037 | 0.250 | ||||||
| PL | male | 11 | 12.5 | 77 | 3.2 | 3 | - 1.975 | 0.290 | - 3.574 | 0.002 | |||
| female | 39 | 17.8 | 180 | 3.0 | 3 | 1.741 | 0.490 | - 0.304 | 1.000 | 3.344 | 0.005 | ||
| I am aware of foundation events outside my university for people interested in foundation their own business. | GER | male | 55 | 23.0 | 184 | 4.0 | 5 | ||||||
| female | 61 | 24.2 | 191 | 2.7 | 2 | 2.062 | 0.235 | ||||||
| PL | male | 23 | 26.1 | 65 | 3.2 | 3 | - 1.532 | 0.753 | - 3.023 | 0.015 | |||
| female | 79 | 36.1 | 140 | 3.3 | 3 | 0.252 | 1.000 | - 1.661 | 0.581 | 1.661 | 0.580 | ||
| My university has clear rules for the transfer of ideas from research to a start-up company. | GER | male | 151 | 63.2 | 88 | 3.7 | 4 | ||||||
| female | 180 | 71.4 | 72 | 3.0 | 3 | 1.395 | 0.977 | ||||||
| PL | male | 51 | 58.0 | 37 | 2.8 | 2 | 1.605 | 0.651 | 0.459 | 1.000 | |||
| female | 124 | 56.6 | 95 | 2.9 | 3 | 3.049 | 0.014 | 1468 | 0.852 | 0.705 | 1.000 | ||
All questions in this category except for "My college/university motivates students to start a new business. & "My college/university provides students with ideas for starting a new business." show significant difference in at least one comparison. The question "My college/university offers lectures on the topic of start-up/entrepreneurship. shows significant differences (z = 2.844, p = 0.027) when comparing German men (M = 4.5) with Polish men (M = 2.0), and German women (M = 4.1) with Polish women (M = 3.1) (z = 3.132, p = 0.010). The comparison of the groups German men with Polish men, German men with Polish women, German women with Polish men and German women with Polish women revealed significant differences in each case for the questions "My college/university offers projects on the topic of start-up/entrepreneurship.", "My college/ university hosts conferences /workshops on start-up/entrepreneurship.", "My college/university puts students interested in starting a business in touch with each other." and "My college/university has a start-up centre.". For the factor "My college/university provides students with the knowledge needed to start a new business." the results differ significantly (z = - 3.574, p = 0.002) when comparing the groups of German female chemistry students (M = 3.2) with Polish male chemistry students (M = 3.2). For this comparison group, there were also significant differences in the factor "I am aware of foundation events outside my university for people interested in founding their own business. The comparison grouping of German male chemistry students (M = 3.7) with Polish female chemistry students (M = 2.9) revealed a significant difference in the factor "My university has clear rules for the transfer of ideas from research to a start-up company" (z = 3.049, p = 0.014). These respective differences between the countries for the identical gender can be attributed to cultural differences. Cultural influences cannot be excluded from the significant differences between the genders from different countries. While gender-related differences within a country could not be proven for any of the factors. The results for factors of Perceived educational support (PES) / Perceived support of the university (PSU) show primarily higher ratings for the female study participants from Poland and at the same time low agreement with the question about the existence of a start-up centre. The study by Packham et al. (2010) shows that entrepreneurial education has a positive influence on the entrepreneurial attitude of Polish students. This could either be due to the lack of knowledge of the students about the existing offers on the part of the university, or to the lack of offers.
Hypothesis 1, lower evaluation by women because they have lower entrepreneurial self-efficacy and therefore see no need for entrepreneurial education, is thus rejected because only one significant difference was discernible and this is not directly related.
Subjective Norm (SN)
Table 3 contains the assessments of the chemistry students from GER and PL for the subjective norm in the respective gender comparison.
| Table 3 Results Anova Comparison on the Factors of Subjective Norm | |||||||||||
| Question / Factors | Country | Gender | n | mean | median | GER | PL | ||||
| male | female | male | |||||||||
| z | p | z | p | z | p | ||||||
| People I care about expect me to start a business after I graduate. | GER | male | 239 | 1.3 | 1 | ||||||
| female | 252 | 1.5 | 1 | <0.001 | 1.000 | ||||||
| PL | male | 88 | 2.9 | 2.5 | - 5.654 | <0.001 | - 6.007 | <0.001 | |||
| female | 219 | 2.3 | 2 | - 4.945 | <0.001 | - 5.427 | <0.001 | 1.921 | 0.328 | ||
| People who are important to me think that I should start a business after I graduate. | GER | male | 239 | 1.7 | 1 | ||||||
| female | 252 | 1.9 | 1 | 1.568 | 0.702 | ||||||
| PL | male | 88 | 3.2 | 3 | - 3.683 | 0.001 | - 4.852 | <0.001 | |||
| female | 219 | 2.4 | 2 | - 0.284 | 1.000 | - 1.819 | 0.413 | 3.429 | 0.004 | ||
As the results show, students' assessment of the direct environment of people is higher in PL than in GER. The two factors "People who are important to me expect me to start a business after graduation" and "People who are important to me think that I should start a business after graduation" show significant differences. In addition, the factor "People who are important to me think that I should start a business after graduation" shows significant differences when comparing male (M =3.2) and female (M = 2.4) students from PL (z = 3.429, p = 0.004).
Hypothesis 2, that the subjective norm is rated lower for women, is accepted because Polish men have a higher rating for "People who are important to me think that I should start a business after I graduate" and this represents a significant difference.
Perceived Career options (WCO)
Table 4 shows the results from the survey for the factors from the area of perceived career options.
| Table 4 Results Anova Comparison on the Factors of Perceived Career Options | |||||||||||||
| Question / Factors | Country | Gender | „I don’t know“ n | „I don’t know“ % | n | mean | median | GER | PL | ||||
| male | female | male | |||||||||||
| z | p | z | p | z | p | ||||||||
| The choice between the different career options is so complicated that I can't decide. | GER | male | 9 | 3.8 | 230 | 3.5 | 4 | ||||||
| female | 7 | 2.8 | 245 | 3.9 | 4 | - 1.395 | 0.978 | ||||||
| PL | male | 1 | 1.1 | 87 | 4.1 | 4 | - 2.649 | 0.048 | - 1.645 | 0.599 | |||
| female | 13 | 5.9 | 206 | 3.7 | 4 | - 3.219 | 0.008 | - 0.191 | 0.336 | 0.193 | 1.000 | ||
| The more I try to find out about different career options, the more confused I get. | GER | male | 9 | 3.8 | 230 | 2.9 | 3 | ||||||
| female | 9 | 3.6 | 243 | 3.2 | 4 | - 3.467 | 0.003 | ||||||
| PL | male | 4 | 4.5 | 84 | 3.3 | 3.5 | - 4.543 | <0.001 | - 2.056 | 0.238 | |||
| female | 10 | 4.6 | 209 | 3.4 | 4 | - 9.020 | <0.001 | - 5.757 | <0.001 | - 2.189 | 0.172 | ||
| I give a lot of thought to choosing the right career. | GER | male | 1 | 0.4 | 238 | 4.9 | 6 | ||||||
| female | 4 | 1.6 | 248 | 4.1 | 4 | - 2.082 | 0.224 | ||||||
| PL | male | 2 | 2.3 | 86 | 5.4 | 6 | - 2.625 | 0.052 | - 1.129 | 1.000 | |||
| female | 0 | 0.0 | 219 | 5.2 | 6 | - 4.611 | <0.001 | - 2.619 | 0.053 | - 0.789 | 1.000 | ||
| I'm not afraid of overlooking a career option. | GER | male | 7 | 2.9 | 232 | 3.4 | 3 | ||||||
| female | 7 | 2.8 | 245 | 3.9 | 4 | 2.358 | 0.110 | ||||||
| PL | male | 5 | 5.7 | 83 | 3.9 | 4.5 | - 1.838 | 0.397 | - 3.551 | 0.002 | |||
| female | 21 | 9.6 | 198 | 4.0 | 4 | 1.950 | 0.307 | - 0.286 | 1.000 | 3.240 | 0.007 | ||
| I keep getting different opinions about my career choice from important people in my life. | GER | male | 8 | 3.3 | 231 | 3.8 | 4 | ||||||
| female | 15 | 6.0 | 237 | 3.9 | 4 | 0.036 | 1.000 | ||||||
| PL | male | 2 | 2.3 | 86 | 4.3 | 4 | - 2.210 | 0.163 | - 2.244 | 0.149 | |||
| female | 5 | 2.3 | 214 | 4.0 | 4 | - 0.995 | 1.000 | - 1.038 | 1.000 | 1.447 | 0.887 | ||
| I can imagine that being an entrepreneur would give me great satisfaction. | GER | male | 24 | 10.0 | 215 | 4.1 | 4 | ||||||
| female | 31 | 12.3 | 221 | 3.4 | 4 | 4.212 | <0.001 | ||||||
| PL | male | 10 | 11.4 | 78 | 4.7 | 4.5 | - 3.475 | 0.003 | - 6.552 | <0.001 | |||
| female | 30 | 13.7 | 189 | 4.0 | 4 | - 1.101 | 1.000 | - 5.180 | <0.001 | 2.598 | 0.056 | ||
Overall, all factors except "I keep getting different opinions about my career choice from important people in my life." at least one significant difference in the comparison groups used. Within the factor "The choice between the different career options is so complicated that I can't decide." the comparison of German male chemistry students (M = 3.5) with male Polish chemistry students (M = 4.1) as well as female Polish chemistry students (M = 3.7) revealed significant differences. The factor "I give a lot of thought to choosing the right career." revealed significant differences (z = - 4.611, p = <0.001) when comparing male German chemistry students (M = 4.9) and female Polish chemistry students (M = 5.2). Significant differences between the sexes within a country could be found in GER with the factors "The more I try to find out about different career options, the more confused I get." (z = - 3.467, p = 0.003) and "I can imagine that being an entrepreneur would give me great satisfaction." (z = 4.212, p = <0.001) are analysed. Among the Polish students, a significant difference (z = 3.240, p = 0.007) between the sexes was found for the factor "I'm not afraid of overlooking a career option." to be identified. The fact that women perceive opportunities differently as described by DeTienne (2007) can be seen in the evaluations of German chemistry students for "The more I try to find out about different career options, the more confused I get". where women show greater uncertainty.
Entrepreneurial Intentions
The Table 5 contains the results for the entrepreneurial intention of the male and female study participants from GER and PL
| Table 5 Results Anova Comparison on Entrepreneurial Intentions | |||||||||||
| Question / Factors | Country | Gender | n | mean | median | GER | PL | ||||
| male | female | male | |||||||||
| z | p | z | p | z | p | ||||||
| Entrepreneurial intentions | GER | male | 239 | 2.3 | 2 | ||||||
| female | 252 | 2.1 | 2 | 1.696 | 0.540 | ||||||
| PL | male | 88 | 3.1 | 3 | - 4.329 | <0.001 | - 5.596 | <0.001 | |||
| female | 219 | 2.7 | 2 | - 2.425 | <0.001 | - 4.112 | <0.001 | 2.480 | <0.001 | ||
The results in Table 5 show significant differences between all comparison groups except German men and women. The willingness to start a business is strongest among Polish men (M = 3.1). The significantly lower propensity of female Polish students to start a business is in line with the results of earlier studies (Kelley et al. 2012; Kurczewska und Białek 2014). The results for Poland thus fit with the general findings from the STEM field that women are consistently underrepresented in all areas such as education, science, employment, leadership positions as well as business start-ups. (Beede et al. 2011; Legewie and DiPrete 2014). The TEA rate based on the students' career goals confirms the likelihood of founding with the order Polish men (29.5 %), Polish women (14.2 %), German men (12.6 %) and German women (4.8 %). Thus, the results of the survey show a gender ratio of about 2:1 (2.1) in PL and 2.6 in GER, which corresponds to a significantly higher gender gap than the GEM reports (1.58 for GER and 1.42 in PL (Sternberg, et al., 2022).
Hypothesis 3, Male students have a higher entrepreneurial intention than their female peers, is accepted as the entrepreneurial intention of Polish male students is significantly higher than that of their female peers.
Perceived Behavioural Control (PBC)
Table 6 contains the results from the survey for the factors from the area of perceived behavioural control.
The results show no significant differences in the comparison groups for the factors "Whether I am successful in life or not depends mainly on my abilities.", "Hard work is something I like to avoid." and "I am not willing to take risks when choosing a job or a company.". Significant differences in the comparison of female German chemistry students and female Polish chemistry students could be found in the factors "My life is determined by my own actions." (z = 2.883, p = 0.024) and "When I get what I want, it's usually because I'm lucky." (z = - 3.310, p = 0.006) can be identified. In addition, the comparison of German male and Polish female chemistry students shows significant differences in the factors "When I get what I want, it's usually because I'm lucky."(z = - 3.214, p = 0.008), "What happens in my life is mostly determined by powerful others." (z = 3.693, p = 0.001) and "Economic security is important to me."(z = - 4.672, p = <0.001). For the factor "It is important to me to be better at a task than others." the comparison of German female study participants with male and female chemistry students revealed significant differences.
| Table 6 Results Anova Comparison on the Factors of Perceived Behavioural Control | |||||||||||||
| Question / Factors | Country | Gender | „I don’t know“ n | „I don’t know“ % | n | mean | median | GER | PL | ||||
| male | female | male | |||||||||||
| z | p | z | p | z | p | ||||||||
| My life is determined by my own actions. | GER | male | 0 | 0.0 | 239 | 5.1 | 5 | ||||||
| female | 3 | 1.2 | 249 | 4.7 | 5 | - 0.420 | 1.000 | ||||||
| PL | male | 1 | 1.1 | 87 | 5.0 | 5 | - 0.218 | 1.000 | 0.086 | 1.000 | |||
| female | 5 | 2.3 | 214 | 4.7 | 5 | 2.451 | 0.085 | 2.883 | 0.024 | 2.029 | 0.255 | ||
| When I get what I want, it's usually because I'm lucky. | GER | male | 0 | 0.0 | 239 | 2.5 | 2 | ||||||
| female | 3 | 1.2 | 249 | 2.9 | 3 | 0.066 | 1.000 | ||||||
| PL | male | 1 | 1.1 | 87 | 3.3 | 3.5 | - 2.567 | 0.061 | - 2.629 | 0.051 | |||
| female | 6 | 2.7 | 213 | 3.0 | 3 | - 3.214 | 0.008 | - 3.310 | 0.006 | 0.146 | 1.000 | ||
| Whether I am successful in life or not depends mainly on my abilities. | GER | male | 0 | 0.0 | 239 | 4.4 | 4 | ||||||
| female | 3 | 1.2 | 249 | 4.0 | 4 | - 0.037 | 1.000 | ||||||
| PL | male | 0 | 0.0 | 88 | 4.8 | 5 | - 0.895 | 1.000 | - 0.873 | 1.000 | |||
| female | 1 | 0.5 | 218 | 4.2 | 4 | 0.041 | 1.000 | 0.078 | 1.000 | 0.914 | 1.000 | ||
| What happens in my life is mostly determined by powerful others. | GER | male | 4 | 1.7 | 235 | 2.5 | 2 | ||||||
| female | 2 | 0.8 | 250 | 2.5 | 3 | 1.573 | 0.694 | ||||||
| PL | male | 1 | 1.1 | 87 | 2.3 | 2 | 2.346 | 0.114 | 1.217 | 1.000 | |||
| female | 4 | 1.8 | 215 | 2.7 | 3 | 3.693 | 0.001 | 2.210 | 0.163 | 0.425 | 1.000 | ||
| Hard work is something I like to avoid. | GER | male | 3 | 1.3 | 236 | 2.1 | 2 | ||||||
| female | 1 | 0.4 | 251 | 2.2 | 2 | 2.121 | 0.203 | ||||||
| PL | male | 1 | 1.1 | 87 | 2.2 | 2 | - 0.232 | 1.000 | - 1.780 | 0.451 | |||
| female | 6 | 2.7 | 213 | 1.9 | 1 | 0.223 | 1.000 | - 1.839 | 0.396 | 0.394 | 1.000 | ||
| It is important to me to be better at a task than others. | GER | male | 2 | 0.8 | 237 | 4.4 | 4 | ||||||
| female | 2 | 0.8 | 250 | 3.9 | 4 | 0.379 | 1.000 | ||||||
| PL | male | 1 | 1.1 | 87 | 5.1 | 5 | - 2.426 | 0.092 | - 2.719 | 0.039 | |||
| female | 9 | 4.1 | 210 | 4.4 | 5 | - 2.309 | 0.126 | - 2.705 | 0.041 | 0.669 | 1.000 | ||
| I think it would be fun for me to have responsibility over other people. | GER | male | 11 | 4.6 | 228 | 4.9 | 5 | ||||||
| female | 4 | 1.6 | 248 | 4.4 | 5 | 2.036 | 0.250 | ||||||
| PL | male | 5 | 5.7 | 83 | 5.0 | 5 | 4.678 | 0.000 | 3.256 | 0.007 | |||
| female | 8 | 3.7 | 211 | 3.9 | 4 | 7.869 | 0.000 | 6.032 | <0.001 | 1.174 | 1.000 | ||
| I am not willing to take risks when choosing a job or a company. | GER | male | 5 | 2.1 | 234 | 3.0 | 4 | ||||||
| female | 12 | 4.8 | 240 | 3.7 | 4 | - 0.681 | 1.000 | ||||||
| PL | male | 3 | 3.4 | 85 | 3.2 | 3.5 | 2.123 | 0.203 | 2.625 | 0.052 | |||
| female | 11 | 5.0 | 208 | 2.9 | 3 | - 0.255 | 1.000 | 0.404 | 1.000 | - 2.277 | 0.137 | ||
| Economic security is important to me. | GER | male | 1 | 0.4 | 238 | 4.9 | 5 | ||||||
| female | 4 | 1.6 | 248 | 4.6 | 4 | - 2.537 | 0.067 | ||||||
| PL | male | 5 | 5.7 | 83 | 5.0 | 5 | - 1.927 | 0.324 | - 0.122 | 1.000 | |||
| female | 7 | 3.2 | 212 | 4.9 | 5 | - 4.672 | <0.001 | - 2.256 | 0.144 | - 1.510 | 0.786 | ||
Self-Assessment for the Foundation (Sf)
The results for the factors from the area of self-assessment for the foundation can be found in Table 7.
| Table 7 Results Anova Comparison on the Factors of Self-Assessment for the Foundations | |||||||||||||
| Question / Factors | Country | Gender | „I don’t know“ n | „I don’t know“ % | n | mean | median | GER | PL | ||||
| male | female | male | |||||||||||
| z | p | z | p | z | p | ||||||||
| Starting a business after my studies is for me, possible. | GER | male | 28 | 11.7 | 211 | 3.7 | 4 | ||||||
| female | 43 | 17.1 | 209 | 3.5 | 4 | 3.380 | 0.004 | ||||||
| PL | male | 7 | 8.0 | 81 | 3.5 | 3.5 | - 2.604 | 0.055 | - 5.121 | <0.001 | |||
| female | 27 | 12.3 | 192 | 4.5 | 5 | - 0.357 | 1.000 | - 3.655 | 0.002 | 2.301 | 0.128 | ||
| It would be easy for me to develop a business idea. | GER | male | 17 | 7.1 | 222 | 3.5 | 3 | ||||||
| female | 26 | 10.3 | 226 | 2.2 | 2 | 3.074 | 0.013 | ||||||
| PL | male | 10 | 11.4 | 78 | 3.2 | 3.5 | - 1.390 | 0.987 | - 3.605 | 0.002 | |||
| female | 15 | 6.8 | 204 | 3.9 | 4 | - 2.090 | 0.220 | - 5.107 | <0.001 | - 0.148 | 1.000 | ||
| I know all about the practical details required to start a business. | GER | male | 7 | 2.9 | 232 | 2.5 | 2 | ||||||
| female | 11 | 4.4 | 241 | 2.1 | 2 | 4.117 | <0.001 | ||||||
| PL | male | 3 | 3.4 | 85 | 2.5 | 2.5 | - 1.622 | 0.629 | - 4.632 | <0.001 | |||
| female | 11 | 5.0 | 208 | 2.4 | 2 | 0.575 | 1.000 | - 3.421 | 0.004 | 2.024 | 0.258 | ||
In the area of factors of self-assessment for the foundations, all questions differ significantly for the groups of German male and female chemistry students and furthermore for the German female chemistry students in comparison with the Polish ones regardless of gender. The mean values for the factor "It would be easy for me to develop a business idea.", which were rated lower by the German female chemistry students (M = 2.2) than by the other study participants, are striking. This indicates that German female chemistry students have difficulties in developing business ideas compared to the other groups considered. Research on self-assessments for the performance of tasks related to entrepreneurship shows the need for higher levels of education for identical assessments. This has been attributed to cultural perceptions of gender roles that make women less competent to perform tasks considered masculine, such as entrepreneurship Thébaud (2010).
Motives for Starting a Business
Table 8 contains the results from the survey for the motive on starting a business.
As Table 8 illustrates, all factors except "...to lead people." and "...to contribute to regional economic development." have at least one significant difference in the comparison groups applied. Significant differences between the genders of German participants are present in the factors "...the creation of jobs" and "...the difficulty of finding the right job. The factors "...the opportunity to realise my own ideas." were identified as the main inhibitors for the German male chemistry students. (M = 5.0), "......to create something on my own" (M = 4.9) and "...to work in a varied profession." (M = 4.9), while the main barriers of the German female participants were "...to work in a varied profession." (M = 4.9), "...the improvement of quality of life." (M = 4.5) and "...earn more money than through wage labour." (M = 4.3). According to the survey results, the main intentions for setting up a business among Polish students are "...the opportunity to be financially independent." for the male participants. (M = 5.6), "...my personal independence." (M = 5.4) and "...the building of personal wealth." (M = 5.4). While for the female participants the factors "...to create something on my own." (M = 5.2), "...the opportunity to be financially independent." (M = 5.2) and "...my personal independence." (M = 4.9) were the strongest inhibitors. These different ratings suggest different priorities between genders and countries. The evaluations by the female German study participants confirmed that women perceive opportunities differently in the factor "...the difficulty of finding the right job" (DeTienne, 2007).
| Table 8 Results Anova Comparison on the Factors of Motives for Starting A Business | |||||||||||||
| Question / Factors | Country | Gender | „I don’t know“ n | „I don’t know“ % | n | mean | median | GER | PL | ||||
| male | female | male | |||||||||||
| z | p | z | p | z | p | ||||||||
| ...the opportunity to realize my own ideas. | GER | male | 12 | 5.0 | 227 | 5.0 | 5 | ||||||
| female | 5 | 2.0 | 247 | 4.2 | 5 | - 1.120 | 1.000 | ||||||
| PL | male | 2 | 2.3 | 86 | 5.2 | 5 | - 1.552 | 0.724 | - 0.746 | 1.000 | |||
| female | 5 | 2.3 | 214 | 4.8 | 5 | - 3.366 | 0.005 | - 2.332 | 0.118 | - 0.973 | 1.000 | ||
| ...to create something on my own. | GER | male | 6 | 2.5 | 233 | 4.9 | 5 | ||||||
| female | 6 | 2.4 | 246 | 4.2 | 4 | - 1.348 | 1.000 | ||||||
| PL | male | 1 | 1.1 | 87 | 5.3 | 5 | - 1.988 | 0.281 | - 1.015 | 1.000 | |||
| female | 3 | 1.4 | 216 | 5.2 | 6 | - 3.811 | 0.001 | - 2.538 | 0.067 | - 0.867 | 1.000 | ||
| ...my personal independence. | GER | male | 9 | 3.8 | 230 | 4.4 | 5 | ||||||
| female | 6 | 2.4 | 246 | 4.2 | 4 | - 0.297 | 1.000 | ||||||
| PL | male | 2 | 2.3 | 86 | 5.4 | 6 | - 4.502 | <0.001 | - 4.326 | <0.001 | |||
| female | 4 | 1.8 | 215 | 4.9 | 6 | - 6.250 | <0.001 | - 6.059 | <0.001 | - 0.187 | 1.000 | ||
| ...to be at the head of an organisation. | GER | male | 9 | 3.8 | 230 | 3.9 | 4 | ||||||
| female | 6 | 2.4 | 246 | 4.1 | 4 | 0.048 | 1.000 | ||||||
| PL | male | 0 | 0.0 | 88 | 5.0 | 5.5 | - 2.673 | 0.045 | - 2.731 | 0.038 | |||
| female | 8 | 3.7 | 211 | 4.3 | 5 | - 4.329 | <0.001 | - 4.441 | <0.001 | - 0.612 | 1.000 | ||
| ...the opportunity to be financially independent. | GER | male | 10 | 4.2 | 229 | 4.2 | 5 | ||||||
| female | 5 | 2.0 | 247 | 4.2 | 5 | 1.238 | 1.000 | ||||||
| PL | male | 1 | 1.1 | 87 | 5.6 | 6 | - 4.747 | <0.001 | - 5.706 | <0.001 | |||
| female | 3 | 1.4 | 216 | 5.2 | 6 | - 6.768 | <0.001 | - 8.110 | <0.001 | - 0.347 | 1.000 | ||
| … the improvement of quality of life. | GER | male | 15 | 6.3 | 224 | 3.5 | 4 | ||||||
| female | 12 | 4.8 | 240 | 4.5 | 5 | 1.038 | 1.000 | ||||||
| PL | male | 3 | 3.4 | 85 | 5.3 | 6 | - 6.167 | <0.001 | - 6.989 | <0.001 | |||
| female | 4 | 1.8 | 215 | 4.7 | 5 | - 6.843 | <0.001 | - 7.985 | <0.001 | 1.033 | 1.000 | ||
| ...the creation of jobs. | GER | male | 11 | 4.6 | 228 | 3.4 | 4 | ||||||
| female | 8 | 3.2 | 244 | 3.9 | 4 | - 3.321 | 0.005 | ||||||
| PL | male | 2 | 2.3 | 86 | 4.9 | 5 | - 2.162 | 0.184 | 0.257 | 1.000 | |||
| female | 4 | 1.8 | 215 | 4.4 | 5 | - 5.136 | <0.001 | - 1.949 | 0.307 | - 1.682 | 0.555 | ||
| ...to lead people. | GER | male | 10 | 4.2 | 229 | 3.9 | 4 | ||||||
| female | 5 | 2.0 | 247 | 3.5 | 3 | 0.434 | 1.000 | ||||||
| PL | male | 3 | 3.4 | 85 | 4.5 | 5 | - 0.513 | 1.000 | - 0.835 | 1.000 | |||
| female | 9 | 4.1 | 210 | 3.9 | 4 | - 0.680 | 1.000 | - 1.116 | 1.000 | 0.002 | 1.000 | ||
| ...earn more money than through wage labor. | GER | male | 10 | 4.2 | 229 | 3.7 | 4 | ||||||
| female | 14 | 5.6 | 238 | 4.3 | 4 | 1.06 | 1.000 | ||||||
| PL | male | 2 | 2.3 | 86 | 4.8 | 5.5 | - 4.553 | <0.001 | - 5.357 | <0.001 | |||
| female | 7 | 3.2 | 212 | 4.8 | 5 | - 5.978 | <0.001 | - 7.073 | <0.001 | 0.047 | 1.000 | ||
| ...to work in a varied profession. | GER | male | 8 | 3.3 | 231 | 4.9 | 5 | ||||||
| female | 10 | 4.0 | 242 | 4.9 | 5 | - 2.243 | 0.149 | ||||||
| PL | male | 6 | 6.8 | 82 | 4.4 | 4.5 | 1.225 | 1.000 | 2.847 | 0.270 | |||
| female | 13 | 5.9 | 206 | 4.6 | 5 | 1.528 | 0.760 | 3.720 | 0.001 | -0.085 | 1.000 | ||
| ...the building of personal wealth. | GER | male | 10 | 4.2 | 229 | 4.1 | 4 | ||||||
| female | 7 | 2.8 | 245 | 3.8 | 4 | 1.229 | 1.000 | ||||||
| PL | male | 2 | 2.3 | 86 | 5.4 | 6 | - 2.690 | 0.043 | - 3.615 | 0.002 | |||
| female | 4 | 1.8 | 215 | 4.6 | 5 | - 2.924 | 0.021 | - 4.179 | <0.001 | 0.490 | 1.000 | ||
| ...to have more free time. | GER | male | 13 | 5.4 | 226 | 3.1 | 3 | ||||||
| female | 10 | 4.0 | 242 | 2.8 | 3 | - 1.180 | 1.000 | ||||||
| PL | male | 2 | 2.3 | 86 | 4.1 | 4.5 | - 4.508 | <0.001 | - 3.680 | 0.001 | |||
| female | 7 | 3.2 | 212 | 3.4 | 3 | - 4.784 | <0.001 | - 3.701 | 0.001 | 0.890 | 1.000 | ||
Hypothesis 4: Hypothesis 4, males have a higher rating of motives than females, is confirmed as the male Polish students have higher ratings in 13 out of 17 factors
Barriers to Starting a Business
Table 9 contains the results for the ratings of male and female the chemistry students from GER and PL for the factors from the area of barriers to starting a business.
| Table 9 Results Anova Comparison on the Factors of Barriers to Starting A Business | |||||||||||||
| Question / Factors | Country | Gender | „I don’t know“ n | „I don’t know“ % | n | mean | median | GER | PL | ||||
| male | female | male | |||||||||||
| z | p | z | p | z | p | ||||||||
| ...a lack of credit for newly established companies. | GER | male | 99 | 41.4 | 140 | 3.9 | 4 | ||||||
| female | 100 | 39.7 | 152 | 3.2 | 3 | - 0.867 | 1.000 | ||||||
| PL | male | 21 | 23.9 | 67 | 3.7 | 4 | - 0.339 | 1.000 | 0.349 | 1.000 | |||
| female | 47 | 21.5 | 172 | 4.8 | 5 | - 4.889 | <0.001 | - 4.098 | <0.001 | - 3.523 | 0.003 | ||
| ...the applicable state laws (rules and regulations). | GER | male | 78 | 32.6 | 161 | 3.8 | 4 | ||||||
| female | 104 | 41.3 | 148 | 3.5 | 4 | - 0.201 | 1.000 | ||||||
| PL | male | 17 | 19.3 | 71 | 4.4 | 5 | - 3.528 | 0.003 | - 3.323 | 0.005 | |||
| female | 44 | 20.1 | 175 | 4.7 | 5 | - 5.629 | <0.001 | - 5.299 | <0.001 | - 0.797 | 1.000 | ||
| ...the search for a business idea for a company that has not yet been realized. | GER | male | 26 | 10.9 | 213 | 4.1 | 4 | ||||||
| female | 33 | 13.1 | 219 | 4.4 | 5 | - 0.255 | 1.000 | ||||||
| PL | male | 12 | 13.6 | 76 | 4.2 | 5 | - 0.829 | 1.000 | - 0.648 | 1.000 | |||
| female | 25 | 11.4 | 194 | 4.0 | 4 | - 0.244 | 1.000 | 0.003 | 1.000 | 0.640 | 1.000 | ||
| ... excessive risk. | GER | male | 18 | 7.5 | 221 | 4.8 | 5 | ||||||
| female | 26 | 10.3 | 226 | 4.3 | 5 | - 3.651 | 0.002 | ||||||
| PL | male | 7 | 8.0 | 81 | 3.8 | 4 | 0.242 | 1.000 | 2.910 | 0.022 | |||
| female | 14 | 6.4 | 205 | 4.4 | 5 | - 4.985 | <0.001 | - 1.431 | 0.914 | - 3.923 | 0.001 | ||
| ...a lack of initial capital. | GER | male | 24 | 10.0 | 215 | 4.9 | 5 | ||||||
| female | 28 | 11.1 | 224 | 4.5 | 5 | - 2.327 | 0.120 | ||||||
| PL | male | 8 | 9.1 | 80 | 4.9 | 5 | - 2.586 | 0.058 | - 0.894 | 1.000 | |||
| female | 14 | 6.4 | 205 | 4.7 | 5 | - 5.950 | <0.001 | - 3.711 | 0.001 | - 1.837 | 0.397 | ||
| ...a lack of entrepreneurial competence. | GER | male | 24 | 10.0 | 215 | 3.5 | 4 | ||||||
| female | 29 | 11.5 | 223 | 4.8 | 5 | - 2.716 | 0.040 | ||||||
| PL | male | 9 | 10.2 | 79 | 3.9 | 4 | - 2.186 | 0.173 | - 0.214 | 1.000 | |||
| female | 13 | 5.9 | 206 | 4.4 | 5 | - 5.223 | <0.001 | - 2.583 | 0.059 | 1.674 | 0.565 | ||
| ...the current economic situation. | GER | male | 36 | 15.1 | 203 | 3.5 | 3 | ||||||
| female | 49 | 19.4 | 203 | 4.3 | 4 | - 3.270 | 0.006 | ||||||
| PL | male | 8 | 9.1 | 80 | 4.5 | 5 | - 6.065 | <0.001 | - 3.605 | 0.020 | |||
| female | 10 | 4.6 | 209 | 5.3 | 6 | - 10.042 | <0.001 | - 6.747 | <0.001 | - 1.437 | 0.904 | ||
| ...my own fear of failure. | GER | male | 16 | 6.7 | 223 | 4.0 | 5 | ||||||
| female | 13 | 5.2 | 239 | 3.9 | 4 | - 4.314 | <0.001 | ||||||
| PL | male | 6 | 6.8 | 82 | 3.3 | 3.5 | - 1.119 | 1.000 | 2.009 | 0.267 | |||
| female | 9 | 4.1 | 210 | 4.1 | 4 | - 4.457 | <0.001 | - 0.285 | 1.000 | - 2.182 | 0.175 | ||
| ...the fiscal charges (taxes, court fees, etc.). | GER | male | 55 | 23.0 | 184 | 3.6 | 4 | ||||||
| female | 64 | 25.4 | 188 | 3.5 | 3 | - 2.993 | 0.017 | ||||||
| PL | male | 9 | 10.2 | 79 | 4.3 | 4.5 | - 5.021 | <0.001 | - 2.722 | 0.039 | |||
| female | 13 | 5.9 | 206 | 5.1 | 6 | - 9.434 | <0.001 | - 6.411 | <0.001 | -2.128 | 0.200 | ||
| ...a of knowledge in the business world. | GER | male | 11 | 4.6 | 228 | 3.9 | 4 | ||||||
| female | 18 | 7.1 | 234 | 4.4 | 4 | - 3.804 | 0.001 | ||||||
| PL | male | 9 | 10.2 | 79 | 4.1 | 4.5 | - 0.279 | 1.000 | 2.441 | 0.098 | |||
| female | 10 | 4.6 | 209 | 4.3 | 4 | - 3.217 | 0.008 | 0.483 | 1.000 | - 2.057 | 0.238 | ||
| ...a lack of knowledge of the market. | GER | male | 14 | 5.9 | 225 | 3.5 | 4 | ||||||
| female | 19 | 7.5 | 233 | 4.5 | 5 | - 4.768 | <0.001 | ||||||
| PL | male | 7 | 8.0 | 81 | 5.0 | 5 | - 3.709 | 0.001 | - 0.271 | 1.000 | |||
| female | 9 | 4.1 | 210 | 4.4 | 4 | - 5.142 | <0.001 | - 0.502 | 1.000 | - 0.097 | 1.000 | ||
| ...a lack of ideas about which company to found. | GER | male | 20 | 8.4 | 219 | 3.9 | 4 | ||||||
| female | 25 | 9.9 | 227 | 4.5 | 5 | - 1.929 | 0.322 | ||||||
| PL | male | 11 | 12.5 | 77 | 4.3 | 5 | - 1.203 | 1.000 | 0.177 | 1.000 | |||
| female | 9 | 4.1 | 210 | 3.7 | 4 | - 1.588 | 0.673 | 0.306 | 1.000 | 0.045 | 1.000 | ||
| ...a lack of experience in management. | GER | male | 15 | 6.3 | 224 | 3.4 | 4 | ||||||
| female | 15 | 6.0 | 237 | 4.0 | 4 | - 3.567 | 0.002 | ||||||
| PL | male | 7 | 8.0 | 81 | 3.3 | 3.5 | - 0.177 | 1.000 | 2.405 | 0.097 | |||
| female | 10 | 4.6 | 209 | 4.0 | 4 | - 2.698 | 0.042 | 0.768 | 1.000 | - 1.808 | 0.424 | ||
| ...a lack of experience of accounting. | GER | male | 19 | 7.9 | 220 | 3.9 | 4 | ||||||
| female | 14 | 5.6 | 238 | 4.6 | 5 | - 2.819 | 0.029 | ||||||
| PL | male | 9 | 10.2 | 79 | 3.8 | 4.5 | - 1.434 | 0.909 | 0.582 | 1.000 | |||
| female | 10 | 4.6 | 209 | 4.1 | 4 | - 2.069 | 0.232 | 0.674 | 1.000 | 0.088 | 1.000 | ||
| ...a lack of guidance. | GER | male | 36 | 15.1 | 203 | 3.3 | 3 | ||||||
| female | 31 | 12.3 | 221 | 3.9 | 4 | - 3.560 | 0.020 | ||||||
| PL | male | 9 | 10.2 | 79 | 4.6 | 5 | - 1.183 | 1.000 | 1.443 | 0.894 | |||
| female | 15 | 6.8 | 204 | 3.9 | 4 | - 5.705 | <0.001 | - 2.260 | 0.143 | - 3.084 | 0.012 | ||
| ...a lack of support in setting up a business. | GER | male | 45 | 18.8 | 194 | 3.1 | 3 | ||||||
| female | 39 | 15.5 | 213 | 4.2 | 4 | - 2.787 | 0.032 | ||||||
| PL | male | 6 | 6.8 | 82 | 4.4 | 4.5 | - 1.204 | 1.000 | 0.908 | 1.000 | |||
| female | 15 | 6.8 | 204 | 4.0 | 4 | - 4.455 | <0.001 | - 1.737 | 0.495 | - 2.204 | 0.165 | ||
| ...paperwork and bureaucracy when starting up. | GER | male | 31 | 13.0 | 208 | 4.0 | 4 | ||||||
| female | 26 | 10.3 | 226 | 3.9 | 4 | 0.141 | 1.000 | ||||||
| PL | male | 8 | 9.1 | 80 | 4.4 | 5 | - 2.299 | 0.129 | - 2.429 | 0.091 | |||
| female | 14 | 6.4 | 205 | 4.6 | 5 | - 4.175 | <0.001 | - 4.401 | <0.001 | - 0.822 | 1.000 | ||
| ...too much work when setting up a company. | GER | male | 29 | 12.1 | 210 | 3.6 | 3 | ||||||
| female | 33 | 13.1 | 219 | 3.9 | 4 | - 0.564 | 1.000 | ||||||
| PL | male | 7 | 8.0 | 81 | 2.8 | 2.5 | 0.123 | 1.000 | 0.542 | 1.000 | |||
| female | 13 | 5.9 | 206 | 4.0 | 4 | - 2.652 | 0.048 | - 2.118 | 0.205 | - 2.105 | 0.212 | ||
| ... a lack of support from people around me. | GER | male | 29 | 12.1 | 210 | 2.6 | 2 | ||||||
| female | 34 | 13.5 | 218 | 2.9 | 3 | 0.773 | 1.000 | ||||||
| PL | male | 6 | 6.8 | 82 | 3.0 | 2.5 | 0.443 | 1.000 | 1.022 | 1.000 | |||
| female | 14 | 6.4 | 205 | 3.4 | 4 | - 5.301 | <0.001 | - 4.582 | <0.001 | - 4.425 | <0.001 | ||
As Table 9 shows, all factors except "...the search for a business idea for a company that has not yet been realised." and "...a lack of ideas about which company to find." show significant differences in at least one of the applied comparison groups. Significant differences between the responses of men and women from GER, with higher ratings for the men, are shown by the factors "...excessive risk.", "...my own fear of failure. "and "...the fiscal charges (taxes, court fees, etc.)." show. While the factors "...a lack of entrepreneurial competence.", "...the current economic situation.", "...a lack of knowledge in the business world.", "...a lack of knowledge of the market.", "...a lack of experience in management.", "... a lack of experience of accounting.", "...a lack of guidance." and "...a lack of support in setting up a business." show significant differences between the German participants with higher ratings by the German female chemistry students. The comparison of the responses of the Polish chemistry students revealed significant differences in the factors "...a lack of credit for newly established companies.", "...excessive risk.", "...a lack of guidance." and "...a lack of support from people around me.". Whereby only the factor "...a lack of guidance." was rated higher by the male participants in a comparison of responses from one country with significant differences. For the male chemistry students from GER, the main barriers to starting a business are "...a lack of initial capital." (M = 4.9), "... excessive risk." (M = 4.8) and "...the search for a business idea for a company that has not yet been realised." (M = 4.1). While for the female German participants the factors "...a lack of entrepreneurial competence." (M = 4.8), "...a lack of experience of accounting." (M = 4.6), "...a lack of initial capital." (M = 4.5), "...a lack of knowledge of the market." (M = 4.5) and "...a lack of ideas about which company to find." (M = 4.5) received the highest ratings. For the Polish male chemistry students, the factors "...a lack of knowledge of the market." (M = 5.0), "...a lack of initial capital." (M = 4.9) and "...a lack of guidance." (M = 4.6) were the highest rated barriers to starting a business. The Polish female participants rated the factors "...the current economic situation." (M = 5.3), "...the fiscal charges (taxes, court fees, etc.)." (M = 5.1) and "...a lack of credit for newly established companies." (M = 4.8) were rated the highest. As described in the literature, the results for starting a business among chemistry students from Germany and Poland show different characteristics depending on the group under consideration (Walther, et al., 2023). The strongest barriers can be summarised under capital, risk, entrepreneurship knowledge and business knowledge.
Hypothesis 5, women have higher barrier scores than men, is confirmed as women have higher scores on 12 factors among German students and 14 factors among Polish students. These results are confirmed in the significant differences where 10 out of 14 are due to higher female ratings.
Discussion
The results clearly show that students, regardless of their gender, are not or only partially informed about the existing start-up support of their respective educational institutions. We conclude this from students' low to medium ratings for "start-up knowledge" and "perceived educational support" (PES) or "perceived university support" (PSU) in both countries. We therefore recommend the establishment of at least one compulsory course on entrepreneurship and the support available from the respective institutions. By committing to this course, the quota of women can be increased and the described imbalance can be reduced (Baron, Markman, & Hirza, 2001). Within these courses, attention should be paid to breaking down established negative gender stereotypes in the social environment of women entrepreneurs that persist in their lives as business owners (Baron, Markman, & Hirza, 2001). These stereotypes can have a distorting effect on the concept of entrepreneurship in relation to gender (Nilsson, 1997); (Delmar & Holmquist, 2004).
The results also show that female chemistry students in both countries are undecided about their future career options. In addition, the subjective norm factors show that prevailing prejudices and stereotypes have an impact on female chemistry students in PL. This could be improved through appropriate events or workshops on behalf of the respective institutions.
The factors of the subjective norm can have a promoting or inhibiting effect on the founding behaviour of the students (Ajzen,1985). Due to the questioning in the direction of founding and the resulting moderate answers of the Polish students with significant differences, this effect requires further evaluation in order to be able to make a statement about the effect strength and direction.
Polish students, regardless of their gender, show a high willingness to start a business and at the same time see obstacles to starting their own business related to the current economic situation. This suggests that the intention to start a business might be primarily driven by the poor economic situation rather than by innovation. The significantly higher propensity to start a business among Polish males with a ratio of 2.1 compared to the 2022 TEA rate ratio between the sexes of 1.42 % highlights the significant influence of the current economic situation due to the Ukraine war and the post-Covid period. However, this assumption needs further investigation regarding the background and intentions of chemistry students. For GER, the propensity to start a business in the gender ratio came to a similar result with 2.6 % compared to 1.58.
Future evaluations should clarify how strong the influence of the various factors is on the chemistry students' intentions to start a business.
In order to identify further support possibilities and differences between the two countries, the analysis of further subgroups with regard to demographic factors is planned.
The present study provides a first overview of gender-specific differences in chemistry students in GER and PL and their willingness to start their own business. However, since this is not a representative study but a random sample, only tendencies can be identified. We therefore recommend a representative study for future research.
The results among female and male chemistry students in GER and PL confirm our hypothesis that women are more influenced by the subjective norm and rate barriers higher. The most effective way to promote entrepreneurship among chemistry students in both countries, in our opinion, is to raise students' awareness of the opportunities that lie in starting a chemical business and to break down barriers through teaching, possibly by experienced role models.
References
Abigail, J. G., Jeslin, C. J., Vijayarangan, P. B. & Rakhi, Y., (2022). Chemistry Innovations and Ideas from the Classroom to the Real World: The Students’ Perspective on Becoming a Chemistry Entrepreneur. Journal of Chemical Education, pp. 1556-1562.
Ahmad, N. H., Nasurdin, A. M., Halim, H. A., & Taghizadeh, S. K. (2014). The pursuit of entrepreneurial initiatives at the “silver” age: From the lens of Malaysian silver entrepreneurs. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 129, 305-313.
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11-39). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), 179-211.
Akter, M., Rahman, M., & Radicic, D. (2019). Women entrepreneurship in international trade: Bridging the gap by bringing feminist theories into entrepreneurship and internationalization theories. Sustainability, 11(22), 6230.
Autio, E., H. Keeley, R., Klofsten, M., GC Parker, G., & Hay, M. (2001). Entrepreneurial intent among students in Scandinavia and in the USA. Enterprise and Innovation Management Studies, 2(2), 145-160.
Baron, R. A., Markman, G. D., & Hirsa, A. (2001). Perceptions of women and men as entrepreneurs: evidence for differential effects of attributional augmenting. Journal of Applied psychology, 86(5), 923.
Baughn, C. C., Chua, B. L., & Neupert, K. E. (2006). The normative context for women's participation in entrepreneruship: A multicountry study. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 30(5), 687-708.
Bertrand, M., Goldin, C., & Katz, L. F. (2009). Dynamics of the gender gap for young professionals in the corporate and financial sectors.
Blau, F. D., & Kahn, L. M. (1994). Rising wage inequality and the US gender gap. The American Economic Review, 84(2), 23-28.
Boissin, J. P., Branchet, B., Emin, S., & Herbert, J. I. (2009). Students and entrepreneurship: a comparative study of France and the United States. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 22(2), 101-122.
Bosma, N. (2013). The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) and its impact on entrepreneurship research. Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 9(2), 143-248.
Bosma, N., Holvoet, T., & Crijns, H. (2013). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2011 Report for Belgium & Flanders. The global entrepreneurship monitor.
Boyd, N. G., & Vozikis, G. S. (1994). The influence of self-efficacy on the development of entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 18(4), 63-77.
Brindley, C. (2005). Barriers to women achieving their entrepreneurial potential: Women and risk. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 11(2), 144-161.
Busenitz, L. W., Gomez, C., & Spencer, J. W. (2000). Country institutional profiles: Unlocking entrepreneurial phenomena. Academy of Management journal, 43(5), 994-1003.
cefic, (2022). landscape-of-the-european-chemical-industry
Charney, A., & Libecap, G. D. (2000). The impact of entrepreneurship education: an evaluation of the Berger Entrepreneurship Program at the University of Arizona, 1985-1999. Available at SSRN 1262343.
Ching‐Yin Yim, P., & Harris Bond, M. (2002). Gender stereotyping of managers and the self‐concept of business students across their undergraduate education. Women in Management Review, 17(8), 364-372.
Confalone, P. N. (2014). Innovation and entrepreneurship in the chemical enterprise. In Careers, Entrepreneurship, and Diversity: Challenges and Opportunities in the Global Chemistry Enterprise (pp. 163-171). American Chemical Society.
Davidsson, P. (1995). Culture, structure and regional levels of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 7(1), 41-62.
De Bruin, A., Brush, C. G., & Welter, F. (2006). Introduction to the special issue: Towards building cumulative knowledge on women's entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and practice, 30(5), 585-593.
Delmar, F., & Holmquist, C. (2004). Women’s entrepreneurship: issues and policies. 2nd Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
DeTienne, D. R., & Chandler, G. N. (2007). The role of gender in opportunity identification. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 31(3), 365-386.
DiPrete, T. A., & Buchmann, C. (2013). The rise of women: The growing gender gap in education and what it means for American schools. Russell Sage Foundation.
Dörr, N., & Müller-Prothmann, T. (2011). Innovationsmanagement: Strategien, Methoden und Werkzeuge für systematische Innovationsprozesse. Hanser..
Drennan, J., Kennedy, J., & Renfrow, P. (2005). Impact of childhood experiences on the development of entrepreneurial intentions. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 6(4), 231-238.
Engle, R. L. et al., (2008). A twelve-country evaluation of Ajzen's model of planned behavior. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, pp. 36 - 57.
Eurostat, 2021. Gender pay gap statistics.
Fältholm, Y., Abrahamsson, L., & Källhammer, E. (2010). Academic entrepreneurship: gendered discourses and ghettos. Journal of technology management & innovation, 5(1), 51-63.
Fayolle, A. (2008). Entrepreneurship education at a crossroads: Towards a more mature teaching field. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 16(04), 325-337.
Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy , (2017). Start-ups and entrepreneurial spirit in Germany.
Franco, M., Haase, H., & Lautenschläger, A. (2010). Students' entrepreneurial intentions: an inter‐regional comparison. Education+ training, 52(4), 260-275.
Franke, N., & Lüthje, C. (2004). Entrepreneurial intentions of business students—A benchmarking study. International journal of innovation and technology management, 1(03), 269-288.
García-Aramayo, A. & Contreras-Espinosa, R., (2014). Mujeres Empresarias En Internet. 3C Empresa, 3(3).
Gesellschaft deutscher Chemiker, (2022). Die GDCh-Statistik der Chemiestudiengänge.
Giacomin, O., Janssen, F., Pruett, M., Shinnar, R. S., Llopis, F., & Toney, B. (2011). Entrepreneurial intentions, motivations and barriers: Differences among American, Asian and European students. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7, 219-238.
Ginther, D. K. (2003). Is MIT an exception? Gender pay differences in academic science. Bulletin of Science,
Glass, J. L., Sassler, S., Levitte, Y., & Michelmore, K. M. (2013). What's so special about STEM? A comparison of women's retention in STEM and professional occupations. Social forces, 92(2), 723-756.
Goldin, C. (2014). A pollution theory of discrimination: male and female differences in occupations and earnings. In Human capital in history: The American record (pp. 313-348). University of Chicago Press.
Gupta, V. K., & Bhawe, N. M. (2007). The influence of proactive personality and stereotype threat on women's entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 13(4), 73-85.
Gupta, V. K., Turban, D. B., Wasti, S. A., & Sikdar, A. (2009). The role of gender stereotypes in perceptions of entrepreneurs and intentions to become an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 33(2), 397-417.
Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship.
Humbert, A. & Drew, E., (2010). Gender, entrepreneurship and motivational factors in an Irish context. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 2(2), 173-196.
Iakovleva, T., Kolvereid, L., & Stephan, U. (2011). Entrepreneurial intentions in developing and developed countries. Education+ training, 53(5), 353-370.
Kanama, D. (2021). A comparative study of the entrepreneurial motivation of undergraduate and graduate students in Japan. Industry and Higher Education, 35(2), 102-113.
Karataş‐Özkan, M., & Chell, E. (2015). Gender inequalities in academic innovation and enterprise: a Bourdieuian analysis . British Journal of Management, 26(1), 109-125.
Katz, J. A. (2003). The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education: 1876–1999. Journal of business venturing, 18(2), 283-300.
Kelley, D., Singer, S., & Herrington, M. (2016). Global entrepreneurship monitor. Global Report, Global Entrepreneurship Research Association, London Business School, Regents Park, London NW1 4SA, UK.
Kirkwood, J. (2009). Is a lack of self‐confidence hindering women entrepreneurs?. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 1(2), 118-133.
Kirzner, I. M. (1985). Discovery and the capitalist process. University of Chicago Press. Discovery and the capitalist process.
Klyver, K., & Grant, S. (2010). Gender differences in entrepreneurial networking and participation. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 2(3), 213-227.
Kolvereid, L., & Moen, Ø. (1997). Entrepreneurship among business graduates: does a major in entrepreneurship make a difference?. Journal of European industrial training, 21(4), 154-160.
Krueger, N. F., & Carsrud, A. L. (1993). Entrepreneurial intentions: Applying the theory of planned behaviour. Entrepreneurship & regional development, 5(4), 315-330.
Krueger Jr, N. F., Reilly, M. D., & Carsrud, A. L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of business venturing, 15(5-6), 411-432.
Langowitz, N., & Minniti, M. (2007). The entrepreneurial propensity of women. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 31(3), 341-364.
Lee, S. M., Chang, D., & 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.
Ma, Y., & Savas, G. (2014). Which is more consequential: Fields of study or institutional selectivity?. The Review of Higher Education, 37(2), 221-247.
Maes, J., Leroy, H., & Sels, L. (2014). Gender differences in entrepreneurial intentions: A TPB multi-group analysis at factor and indicator level. European Management Journal, 32(5), 784-794.
Malebana, M. J. (2014). Entrepreneurial intentions and entrepreneurial motivation of South African rural university students. Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, 6(9), 709-726.
Mann, A., & DiPrete, T. A. (2013). Trends in gender segregation in the choice of science and engineering majors. Social science research, 42(6), 1519-1541.
Mead, M., (1985). Culture and commitment, New York, NY: Columbia University: s.n.
Menzies, T. V., & Tatroff, H. (2006). The propensity of male vs. female students to take courses and degree concentrations in entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 19(2), 203-223.
Michelmore, K., & Sassler, S. (2016). Explaining the gender wage gap in STEM: does field sex composition matter?. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 2(4), 194-215.
Mueller, S. L., Thomas, A. S., & Jaeger, A. M. (2002). National entrepreneurial potential: The role of culture, economic development, and political history. In Advances in Comparative International Management (Vol. 14, pp. 221-257). JAI.
Naituli, G., Wegulo, F. N., & Kaimenyi, B. (2006). Entrepreneurial characteristics among micro and small-scale Women owned enterprises in North and Central Meru districts, Kenya . Gender inequalities in Kenya, 7-25.
Nowaczyk, G., & Sobczak, A. (2016). Role of entrepreneurship education in higher education institutions in the process of business development in Poland. International Entrepreneurship Review, 2(2), 43-52.
Nowakowska, A. E. (2021). The engagement of universities in entrepreneurship and innovation infrastructure in Poland. Optimum. Economic Studies, 104(2), 31-43.
Packham, G., Jones, P., Miller, C., Pickernell, D., & Thomas, B. (2010). Attitudes towards entrepreneurship education: a comparative analysis. Education+ training, 52(8/9), 568-586.
Pernilla, N. (1997). Business counselling services directed towards female entrepreneurs-some legitimacy dilemmas. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 9(3), 239-258
Pruett, M., Shinnar, R., Toney, B., Llopis, F., & Fox, J. (2009). Explaining entrepreneurial intentions of university students: a cross‐cultural study. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 15(6), 571-594.
Robinson, P. B., Stimpson, D. V., Huefner, J. C., & Hunt, H. K. (1991). An attitude approach to the prediction of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 15(4), 13-32.
Robinson, P., & Haynes, M. (1991). Entrepreneurship education in America's major universities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 15(3), 41-52.
Roy, R., Akhtar, F., & Das, N. (2017). Entrepreneurial intention among science & technology students in India: extending the theory of planned behavior. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 13, 1013-1041.
Sachse, A., & Martinez, J. G. (2016). A brief guide for the chemistry entrepreneur. In Chemistry without Borders: Careers, Research, and Entrepreneurship (pp. 91-107). American Chemical Society.
Saeed, S., Yousafzai, S., Yani-De-Soriano, M., & Muffatto, M. (2018). The role of perceived university support in the formation of students’ entrepreneurial intention. In Sustainable entrepreneurship (pp. 3-23). Routledge.
Sassler, S., Levitte, Y., Glass, J., & Michelmore, K. (2011). The missing women in stem? accounting for gender differences in entrance into stem occupations. In Annual meeting of the Population Association of America Presentation.
Schwarz, E. J., Wdowiak, M. A., Almer‐Jarz, D. A., & Breitenecker, R. J. (2009). The effects of attitudes and perceived environment conditions on students' entrepreneurial intent: An Austrian perspective. Education+ Training, 51(4), 272-291.
Şeşen, H., & Pruett, M. (2014). The impact of education, economy and culture on entrepreneurial motives, barriers and intentions: A comparative study of the United States and Turkey. The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 23(2), 231-261.
Shapero, A. (1985). The entrepreneurial event. College of Administrative Science, Ohio State University.
Shinnar, R. S., Giacomin, O., & Janssen, F. (2012). Entrepreneurial perceptions and intentions: The role of gender and culture. Entrepreneurship Theory and practice, 36(3), 465-493.
Smith, A. J., Collins, L. A., & Hannon, P. D. (2006). Embedding new entrepreneurship programmes in UK higher education institutions: challenges and considerations. Education+ training, 48(8/9), 555-567.
Solomon, G., Duffy, S. & A., T., (2002). The state of entrepreneurship education in the United States: A nationwide survey and analysis. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 1(1), pp. 65-86.
Souitaris, V., Zerbinati, S., & Al-Laham, A. (2007). Do entrepreneurship programmes raise entrepreneurial intention of science and engineering students? The effect of learning, inspiration and resources. Journal of Business venturing, 22(4), 566-591.
Sternberg, R., Gorynia-Pfeffer, N., Stolz, L., Schauer, J., Baharian, A., & Wallisch, M. (2022). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Unternehmensgründungen im weltweiten Vergleich: Länderbericht Deutschland 2021/22.
Veciana, J. M., Aponte, M., & Urbano, D. (2005). University students’ attitudes towards entrepreneurship: A two countries comparison. The international entrepreneurship and management journal, 1, 165-182.
Wach, K., & Bilan, S. (2021). Public support and administration barriers towards entrepreneurial intentions of students in Poland. Administratie si Management Public, (36), 67-80.
Walther, S., Dobrucka, R., & Haubold, S. (2023). A review on influence factors promoting or inhibiting the transfer of research from universities into start-ups. Journal of Business Chemistry, 20(1).
Wennekers, S., Van Wennekers, A., Thurik, R., & Reynolds, P. (2005). Nascent entrepreneurship and the level of economic development. Small business economics, 24, 293-309.
Wolf, V., Dobrucka, R., Przekop, R., & Haubold, S. (2021). Innovation strategies in the context of the paradigm of the five dimensions of innovation strategy. LogForum, 17(2).
Zapkau, F. B., Schwens, C., Steinmetz, H., & Kabst, R. (2015). Disentangling the effect of prior entrepreneurial exposure on entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Business Research, 68(3), 639-653.
Received: 29-Sept-2023, Manuscript No. IJE-24-14147; Editor assigned: 03-Oct-2023, Pre QC No. IJE-24-14147 (PQ); Reviewed: 17-Oct-2023, QC No. IJE-24-23-14147; Revised: 23-Oct-2023, Manuscript No. IJE-24-14147 (R); Published: 30-Oct-2023