En relació amb el projecte

From a careful examination of the question “why do some people but not others choose to be entrepreneurs”, it would seem that the question can be divided into two. The first part is about why a particular group of people choose to be entrepreneurs, which seeks to find the difference between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs. This part would be better solved using variance analysis (Hair et al., 2010). The second part is about why one chooses the entrepreneurial career, which is a question that explores the factors that can affect entrepreneurial career choice by certain cause and effect mechanisms. This part would be better solved using relationship analysis (Hair et al., 2010).

24

2.2.5.1 Variance Analysis and its Problems

Early studies attempted to compare entrepreneurs with non-entrepreneurs to infer the traits that are specific to entrepreneurs (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000; Gregoire et al., 2006;

Stewart and Roth, 2007; Zhao et al., 2010). The combination of these specific traits would be used to predict who are more likely to become entrepreneurs. As examples in section 2.2 suggest: after a certain trait theory had been posed, it then experienced verification by some empirical studies as well as refutation by others. According to Lakatos (1978), even if a theory is refuted by the data, the theory should not be abandoned. Instead, researchers should make adjustment to the theory by adding auxiliary hypotheses so as to explain the disconformity between the theory and the data. If the predictive power of the adjusted theory is improved, then the knowledge in the field actually makes progress. Have scholars in this field given up on trait theory? And what auxiliary hypotheses do they make to protect the hard core: the difference assumption.

The voice that entrepreneurship research focus should shift from trait theory to other topics has been very strong from the end of the 1980s when interest in traits appeared to die down (Gregoire et al., 2006). Gartner (1985) strongly doubted trait theory by arguing that trait theory has a hidden assumption that all entrepreneurs are the same and the ventures created by them are the same too. In addition, the differences between one entrepreneur and another can be larger than the difference between an entrepreneur and a non-entrepreneur (Gartner, 1985). Perry (1990) also made suggestions that scholars avoid trait theories in the entrepreneurship domain.

However, some scholars believe that trait theory may help identify those people who are more likely to recognize entrepreneurial opportunities (Baum et al., 2000; Collins et al., 2004; Stewart and Roth, 2007). They admit the crisis of research about entrepreneurial traits, but they think that more questions are left unanswered about how traits affect entrepreneurial behaviors (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000). Though there have been many studies that focus on the types of venture, the industrial environment, the entrepreneurial opportunity, and so on, if we don’t understand the trait and motivation of the people involved, entrepreneurship research will be incomplete since entrepreneurship is an individual-opportunity nexus (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000).

25

New evidence further supported trait theory. During the turn of the new millennium, some empirical research did find that trait and motivational factors are significantly related to the entrepreneurial process (Baum et al., 2000; Stewart and Roth, 2001). The results of meta-analysis also show that personality studies are a valuable direction for entrepreneurship research (Collins et al., 2004; Stewart and Roth, 2007).

Though variance analysis in trait theory is verified by new evidences, this method is still not without problems in explaining who are more likely to be entrepreneurs. Statistically, variance analysis is based on the inductive inference which is flawed in the aspects of generalizing regularities observed between events of interest to conclusive knowledge because a theorist cannot exhaust all cases (Chalmers, 1999).

In addition, no matter whether a trait can be assumed to differentiate entrepreneurs from non-entrepreneurs is verified or rejected, the conclusion cannot be drawn concerning whether this trait causes the generation of entrepreneurial intentions. In the complex settings of social phenomenon, causal reasoning might lead to higher explanatory power.

Three ideas that arise from the central of causal reasoning are: “the idea of a causal mechanism connecting cause and effect, the idea of a correlation between two or more variables, and the idea that one event is a necessary or sufficient condition for the other”

(Little, 1991, pp: 14). Some variance analysis in the entrepreneurial intentions field focus only on the correlation between certain traits and entrepreneurial intentions, others propose theories that link certain traits with entrepreneurial intentions, but variance analysis often does not obey all the three central ideas of causal reasoning. Relationship analysis might be able to perform better in the search for an explanation of entrepreneurial intentions.

2.2.5.2 Toward Relationship Analysis

Although the variance part of the question might be abandoned because of refutation, the research on the relationship part on the other hand has been gaining ground in the analysis.

If a trait cannot be used to differentiate entrepreneurs from non-entrepreneurs, this result only suggests that these two groups of people have no significant difference with regard to this trait, but this trait cannot be ruled out as one in a bundle of influencing factors that

26

may lead to entrepreneurial career choice. Possibilities exist that this particular trait may act together with a group of factors to drive one to choose to be managers, but the same particular trait may act together with another group of factors to lead one to choose to be entrepreneurs. In both situations, this particular trait is a prerequisite. However, by variance analysis, in this case, entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs can be found to have no difference in this particular trait. As such, it is worthwhile to study the causal factors that lead to entrepreneurial career choice.

A causes B if and only if A is a necessary condition for the occurrence of B, and A belongs to a set of conditions C that are jointly sufficient to give rise to B (Little, 1991). A specific trait can be the necessary condition for the formulation of an individual’s entrepreneurial intentions, and it can be one of a set of conditions C that are jointly sufficient to give rise to the formulation of the individual’s entrepreneurial intentions. However, this same specific trait can also be the necessary condition for an individual to choose to be managers, and it can be in the set of conditions D that are jointly sufficient to give rise to this career choice. C and D obviously share some common factors, and this specific trait is one of them. As such, though this specific trait cannot be used to differentiate entrepreneurs from non-entrepreneurs, it is worthwhile to study it because when linked to other conditions, it may cause an individual to have entrepreneurial intentions.

Personal trait is just one of the many classes of factors that can influence the formulation of entrepreneurial intentions, if scholars limit their interest by just focusing on this area, the research may end up in a blind alley. The presence of oxygen and the presence of dry paper and the presence of a spark together can cause combustion (Little, 1991). Examining only the properties of oxygen cannot explain the combustion. If we compare entrepreneurship to combustion, then restricting the study to personal traits only cannot explain who wish to choose to be entrepreneurs. As such, the task for the scholars in the area is to find other factors that may form a complete set of sufficient conditions that cause an individual to formulate entrepreneurial intentions. It is exactly by following this direction that the entrepreneurship domain become prosperous again, i.e. cognition, information distribution, entrepreneurial opportunities (Hayek, 1945; Kirzner, 1973; Shane and Venkataraman, 2000) can be used to explain entrepreneurship.

27