Next Article in Journal
A Network-Level Methodology for Evaluating the Hydraulic Quality Index of Road Pavement Surfaces
Next Article in Special Issue
Internationalisation at Home: Developing a Global Change Biology Course Curriculum to Enhance Sustainable Development
Previous Article in Journal
Scoping Review (SR) via Text Data Mining on Water Scarcity and Climate Change
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 1
10.3390/su15010069
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Improving the Entrepreneurial Competence of College Social Entrepreneurs: Digital Government Building, Entrepreneurship Education, and Entrepreneurial Cognition

by
Xiyuan Xiang
1,†,
Jing Wang
2,†,
Zehai Long
2,* and
Yangjie Huang
1,*
1
JingHengyi School of Education, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou 311121, China
2
School of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou 325035, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Sustainability 2023, 15(1), 69; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010069
Submission received: 31 October 2022 / Revised: 27 November 2022 / Accepted: 17 December 2022 / Published: 21 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Education for Sustainable Development: Fostering the New Generations to Build a Sustainable Society)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study examines the pathway of entrepreneurship education (EE), digital government building (DGB), and gender differences on entrepreneurial competence of college social entrepreneurs and analyzes the role of entrepreneurial cognition (EC). A sample of 20,134 college students from higher education institutions in 31 provinces of China was used to test the hypothesis. This study found that EE and DGB have positive influence on entrepreneurial competence of social entrepreneurs; compared with men, female social entrepreneurs have a higher level of social entrepreneurship competence. Moreover, EC plays a mediating role among EE, DGB and entrepreneurial competence of social entrepreneurs; however, EC plays a masking role in the relationship between gender and entrepreneurial competence of social entrepreneurs. This study empirically analyzed the mechanisms that influence college social entrepreneurs and provides a new perspective on the role of EC in entrepreneurial competence. It is suggested to strengthen the building of a digital government and entrepreneurship education of college students’ social entrepreneurs in the future, and to pay attention to the important role of individual psychological cognition in individual social entrepreneurship ability.

1. Introduction

While the new crown epidemic presented many challenges, it also presented new opportunities for entrepreneurship [1]. The essential role of entrepreneurship in economic growth and job creation [2] showed a new direction amidst the new crown epidemic. Social entrepreneurship is a new form of entrepreneurship that has emerged during society’s development process. With the emergence of economic and social problems, it is an essential factor in promoting sustainable development [3]. Especially at a time of global economic difficulties, entrepreneurs are beginning to focus more on the social economic sector, believing that social entrepreneurship has greater potential to address the pressing social issues in a poor economy and contribute to the global economic and social development [4,5]. Social entrepreneurship is closely related to people’s concern for social issues, their living environment, and special groups. Through its duality of pursuing social and economic goals [6], it can provide benefits for the development of society as well as create value for different groups. In the process of implementing social entrepreneurship, the quality and competence structure of social entrepreneurs, as the main and core actors in the implementation process, play a crucial role in the success or failure of the entrepreneurial project and the operation and development of the organization related to entrepreneurship. Social entrepreneurs are at the forefront of solving complex social problems [7]. College student social entrepreneurs act as a new important force among them. However, college students’ social entrepreneurship often has a short life span and a high failure rate, and it is therefore crucial to enhance their entrepreneurial ability.
Although it is imperative to improve the entrepreneurial competence of university social entrepreneurs and despite the significant role that universities play in promoting entrepreneurial activities among students, only a few studies have been conducted in this regard [8]. The university’s mission of talent cultivation and social service and its inseparable link with economic and social development make it closely related to the cultivation of social entrepreneurs. Universities educate students about the importance of sustainability [9], foster a sense of responsibility among university students who are social entrepreneurs, and continuously improve their entrepreneurial skills so that they can solve social problems via innovative approaches [10,11]. Entrepreneurial competency is vital to business success [12,13], and entrepreneurship education provided by universities is effective in influencing college students’ entrepreneurial abilities [14,15]. While there is growing interest in this area, little is known about what competencies social entrepreneurs need and how to acquire them [16,17]. Therefore, it is crucial to investigate the capabilities and influencing factors of social entrepreneurs.
The gender perspective is an essential consideration in social entrepreneurship research [18]. In business entrepreneurship, men have a stronger presence, while in social entrepreneurship, men and women are similarly engaged [19]. It is likely that women are better at social entrepreneurship than men [20]. Social entrepreneurship is a complex activity, influenced not only by entrepreneurship education in universities but also by the government [21]. It should be noted that technological innovations brought about by the increase in digitalization provide important support for the innovation and diversification of social entrepreneurial activities, and the digitalization reform of government is urgent. Moreover, from the perspective of social psychology, entrepreneurial cognition plays a crucial role in capacity enhancement [22].
Accordingly, this research constructed a model to analyze the mechanisms by which gender, digital government building, and entrepreneurship education influence the entrepreneurial competencies of social entrepreneurs, and the role entrepreneurial cognition plays in this. This research investigated 20,134 college students’ social entrepreneurs, and the samples were from all kinds of universities and disciplines in China. The research results are more representative. This research enriches the theoretical and practical research on social entrepreneurship, focuses on how entrepreneurship education affects college students’ social entrepreneurial competence, expands the application scope of entrepreneurial cognition in the field of social entrepreneurship research, and provides reference for educators, researchers and national policy makers to attach importance to providing college students with entrepreneurship education system and social entrepreneurship support.

2. Theoretical Background and Development of Hypotheses

2.1. Social Cognitive Theory

Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) is a psychological perspective on human functioning that emphasizes the critical role of the social environment in motivation, learning, and self-regulation [23]. SCT postulates that any interaction between an individual and the environment may influence their actions and attitudes [24]. Human behavior is explained in terms of mutual environmental, cognitive, and behavioral factors. Entrepreneurial behavior evolves in response to changes in social structural factors, including education and subsequent learning that operate through individual psychological mechanisms [25]. An individual’s interaction with the external environment in order to acquire education, knowledge, and learning not only affects their development, but also changes their behavior in response to entrepreneurial activities. Therefore, through the use of classroom-based theory and application-driven interaction and opportunities in the environment, entrepreneurship education enables students to enhance their entrepreneurial competencies and helps them to develop into highly responsible social entrepreneurs.
Based mainly on Bandura’s work on SCT, this study investigated the internal and external factors that enhance or constrain the entrepreneurial competence of college social entrepreneurs [24]. In particular, we focused on entrepreneurial cognition, desired outcomes and goals (entrepreneurial competencies), and their association with others (gender), context (government digital reform), and experiential/learning factors (entrepreneurship education). This theoretical approach integrates cognitive, behavioral, and environmental perspectives to provide a more comprehensive framework for examining human behavior and its outcomes, rather than focusing on any one of these dimensions and categories of variables. In this regard, SCT provides a useful theoretical framework for identifying the mechanisms that influence entrepreneurial competencies.

2.2. Social Entrepreneurship and Entrepreneurial Competence

Since the 1980s, entrepreneurship research has become more and more dynamic. Entrepreneurship is regarded as the creative activity of innovators [26], or the process of identifying and utilizing opportunities in the market to establish and manage a business [27]. Although scholars have defined entrepreneurship from different perspectives, all studies agree that entrepreneurship plays an important role in creating new employment opportunities, solving poverty problems and promoting economic development [28,29,30,31]. Entrepreneurship is a concept involving innovation, value creation, sustainability, uniqueness, pursuit of profits, organization creation and many other connotations [32]. Different from entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurship, as a new entrepreneurial method, has attracted more and more researchers’ attention [11,33,34]. A major difference between traditional entrepreneurship and SE lies in the business priority. SE places a higher priority on creating social value in lieu of merely capturing pecuniary value [35,36]. It can be seen that social entrepreneurship consists of two parts: “society” and “entrepreneurship”. The former focuses on social problems, while the latter focuses on innovative business models. That is, social entrepreneurship means solving social problems by using commercial means [37,38]. In terms of company operation, traditional enterprises rely on income from economic activities to maintain operations, while social entrepreneurship enterprises are more maintained through charity and philanthropy [39]. The origin and driving force of social entrepreneurship is the innovative creation of social value between commercial and non-profit organizations, and the public sector [40], and the innovative process of using and combining resources to promote social change and meet social needs [41]. Social entrepreneurial behavior includes social tasks that benefit social development. Moreover, social entrepreneurship implies profit-seeking; it is an act of establishing corresponding organizational structures and relationships, implementing specific methods, and constructing corresponding economic structures for special social groups or to achieve corresponding social purposes [42]. To sum up, this study believes that social entrepreneurship is a process in which social entrepreneurs use traditional business methods to solve social problems in an innovative way. For example, Grameen Bank, a village bank founded by Professor Mohamed Yunus of Bangladesh, focuses on providing micro loans to the poorest Bangladeshis to help the poor achieve their own entrepreneurship. Social entrepreneurs are the core implementers of social entrepreneurship, and they need entrepreneurial competence. There is a considerable quantity of research on the concept of competence [43]. Lans et al. regard entrepreneurial competence as the set of knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to identify and pursue opportunities [44], and Slisane et al. view entrepreneurial competence as encompassing knowledge, skills, and an innovative mindset [45]. Accordingly, this study argues that entrepreneurial competence includes three elements: entrepreneurial knowledge, entrepreneurial skills, and innovation spirit.

2.3. Gender and Entrepreneurial Competence

Entrepreneurial activity has long been considered a male-dominated field [46]. The features of aggressiveness, risk-taking, and innovation stereotypically associated with men are compatible with the high risk and uncertainty of entrepreneurial activities. Although women generally encounter more obstacles in the entrepreneurship process [20], the gender gap in social entrepreneurship has narrowed [47]. Women tend to prefer social enterprises to commercial ones [20]. They are more likely to highlight social value goals than men [48]; as a result, they tend to be highly motivated and have more confidence and ability to deal with social issues. In a study on college students’ social entrepreneurship groups with different academic backgrounds, there are significant differences between men and women in each sub-competency of social entrepreneurship. Female college students have a higher mastery of social value, one of the most distinctive components of social entrepreneurship in the context of engineering and architecture [18]. Consequently, the following hypothesis is formulated:
Hypothesis 1 (H1). 
Gender affects the entrepreneurial competence of college social entrepreneurs.

2.4. Digital Government Building and Entrepreneurial Competence

Governments play a major role in shaping the social entrepreneurial environment [49]. With the continuous development of digital technologies such as 5G, big data, and blockchain; unprecedented connectivity and new production and life relationships have been formed between various subjects. Digitalization has become one of the strongest drivers of global development today, bringing many entrepreneurial opportunities [50]. In response to the digital trend, national governments are seeking to transform their public administration, i.e., promote digital governance to adapt to and make full use of the opportunities brought by digitalization and improve their economic competitiveness [51]. Government support fosters an environment that enhances the entrepreneurial skills of entrepreneurs [52]. Governments participate in the digital age by increasing the level of technology and improving digital management systems, thereby encouraging local entrepreneurship through a range of effective measures such as building social networks for multi-collaboration and identifying favorable entrepreneurial opportunities [53]. Therefore, this study believes that the building of a digital government refers to the all-round service system that the government provides the public with higher service efficiency and entrepreneurial opportunities by strengthening the construction of an efficient information data processing platform. People can learn about entrepreneurship-related policies and information through digital government platforms. In addition, digital government building can dramatically simplify the approval process, improve efficiency, and optimize the business environment. Based on the above analysis, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 2 (H2). 
Digital government building positively affects the entrepreneurial competence of college social entrepreneurs.

2.5. Entrepreneurship Education and Entrepreneurial Competence

Promoting entrepreneurial activity not only increases employment and income options, but also has positive implications for vertical mobility, equality, and justice in society [54]. Higher education institutions undertake significant missions such as personnel training, scientific research, social services, etc. To this end, universities actively provide entrepreneurship education to cultivate students’ entrepreneurial ability and provide talent for the development of society [55]. Since the value of social entrepreneurship was gradually proved, universities began to introduce unique business models to students, encourage students to create social values, and make contributions to social welfare undertakings. For example, world famous universities, such as Harvard University, Stanford University, and Berkeley University, became the first universities to offer social entrepreneurship courses in the 1990s [56]. Kirby and Ibrahim believe “if young people are made aware of the concept of social entrepreneurship, recognize its role and importance to society and believe they have the ability to create a new venture, they will do so” [57]. Entrepreneurship education stimulates students’ interest in acquiring entrepreneurial knowledge and skills [58]. As an integral part of entrepreneurship training, entrepreneurship courses play an irreplaceable role in both entrepreneurial knowledge transfer and capability development [59,60]. Shahverdi et al. argue that although social entrepreneurship courses are relatively recent, universities have begun to pay more attention to them and use them as a means of developing entrepreneurial skills and instilling social responsibility in their students [61]. Through social entrepreneurship courses, students can engage in solving social problems, improve their learning skills, and develop a professional attitude [62].
Teachers are an essential element of entrepreneurship education [63]. If entrepreneurship education is not provided by good caliber faculty members, the quality of entrepreneurship education will not be fundamentally guaranteed [64]. San-Martín et al. found that entrepreneurship teachers, due to their specific knowledge and skills, are viewed by students as entrepreneurial role models, thus significantly increasing students’ willingness, cognitions, and abilities to start their own businesses, ultimately ensuring the success of their entrepreneurship [65].
Entrepreneurial competitions simulate the uncertainties and risks in the real market, and the problem-solving skills that students gain in such competitions cannot possibly be provided in the classroom [66]. Entrepreneurship competitions promotes student collaboration, professional ethics, and social skills [67]. A variety of social entrepreneurship competitions can effectively stimulate the enthusiasm of students to engage in social entrepreneurship [60,68], and continuously enhance their entrepreneurial capabilities.
Based on the above analysis, the following hypotheses were formulated:
Hypothesis 3 (H3). 
Entrepreneurship courses positively affect the entrepreneurial competence of college social entrepreneurs.
Hypothesis 4 (H4). 
Entrepreneurship faculty positively affects the entrepreneurial competence of college social entrepreneurs.
Hypothesis 5 (H5). 
Entrepreneurship competitions positively affect the entrepreneurial competence of college social entrepreneurs.

2.6. The Mediating Role of Entrepreneurial Cognition

Entrepreneurial cognition is the knowledge structure that people use to assess, judge or decide on opportunity assessment, risk creation, and growth [69]. It is the mental process of the entrepreneur [70]. The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) project report refers to self-efficacy, social networks, cognition of opportunity, and fear of failure as “cognition and connection”. Numerous scholars have effectively studied entrepreneurial cognition [71,72,73]. In this study, based on previous studies, the three indicators of self-efficacy, perceived entrepreneurial opportunities, and social networks are used to represent entrepreneurial cognitions.
Gender differences have been reported in entrepreneurial cognition [74,75]. Low levels of female entrepreneurship might be the result of poor entrepreneurial cognition among female entrepreneurs [72]. Governments have the ability to improve female entrepreneurs’ awareness and have a positive impact on their ability to identify and take advantage of entrepreneurial opportunities, thus promoting more creative entrepreneurial choices [71].
Entrepreneurship education is considered a key tool to enhance entrepreneurial intentions, improve entrepreneurial skills, and positively impact students’ creativity [76]. Students who receive entrepreneurship education perform better in the areas of opportunity recognition, self-efficacy, and creative problem solving [77]. Entrepreneurship courses in higher education contribute to shaping students’ entrepreneurial attitudes and behaviors [78], reinforce their cognitions, and improve entrepreneurial effectiveness [79]. In turn, students develop the ability to make the most of their entrepreneurial expertise.
In addition to the entrepreneurship courses, entrepreneurship faculty members also have an impact on students’ entrepreneurial cognition and entrepreneurial competence, acting as role models. One study noted that entrepreneurship teachers who exist as entrepreneurial role models are effective in increasing students’ willingness to start their own businesses. Many students believe that entrepreneurship in teachers enhances self-awareness and remove barriers and fears of starting a business [65].
Entrepreneurial competitions are an integral part of the entrepreneurial support system and a powerful force for entrepreneurial activity [80]. While the above studies suggest that entrepreneurship curricula, entrepreneurship faculty, and entrepreneurial cognitions are related, some scholars argue that entrepreneurship competitions are better than entrepreneurship education courses in improving students’ entrepreneurial awareness, and that students’ risk thinking and self-efficacy are enhanced through entrepreneurship competitions [81].
In summary, we propose the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 6 (H6). 
Entrepreneurial cognition mediates the association between gender and the entrepreneurial competence of college social entrepreneurs.
Hypothesis 7 (H7). 
Entrepreneurial cognition mediates the association between digital government building and the entrepreneurial competence of college social entrepreneurs.
Hypothesis 8 (H8). 
Entrepreneurial cognition mediates the association between entrepreneurship courses and the entrepreneurial competence of college social entrepreneurs.
Hypothesis 9 (H9). 
Entrepreneurial cognition mediates the association between the entrepreneurship faculty and the entrepreneurial competence of college social entrepreneurs.
Hypothesis 10 (H10). 
Entrepreneurial cognition mediates the association between entrepreneurship competitions and the entrepreneurial competence of college social entrepreneurs.
Based on the above assumptions, the entrepreneurial competence of social entrepreneurs (ECSE) theoretical model is proposed, as shown in Figure 1.

3. Methodology

3.1. Sample

The data used in this study are from the research questionnaire of key programs of the National Social Science Foundation of China. After an extensive literature review and expert discussion, the research team conducted a trial test on 98 colleges that carry out innovation and entrepreneurship courses. Finally, online questionnaires were officially distributed to college students and graduates who had received entrepreneurship education in 31 provinces of China through the liaison personnel of colleges and universities. A total of 187,914 questionnaires were collected, and 17,150 invalid questionnaires, such as short answer time and invalid school names, were excluded, of which 170,764 were valid, accounting for 90.87% [82,83]. According to the research theme, this study screened the data and finally selected 20,134 college students who had started a social entrepreneurship studio as the research sample.

3.2. Measures

This study uses and adopts scales from previous studies in which the items and responses appear on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1: “I completely disagree” to 5: “I completely agree”. Table 1 shows all measurements.

3.2.1. Dependent Variables

Entrepreneurial competence. According to Bacigalupo et al., who compiled the scale, the scale was originally designed to test general competency [84]. This was adopted into a three-item instrument to measure entrepreneurial competence an example of one of these items is “Innovation spirit”. Cronbach’s α for the scale was 0.924.

3.2.2. Independent Variables

Gender. Gender was set as a dummy variable, 1 for male and 0 for female.
Digital government building. The China Center for Information Industry Development’s Digital Economy Environment index was used. It is composed of three secondary indicators (new government media, online government services, and government data resources) and eight tertiary indicators.
Entrepreneurship course. The measurement of entrepreneurship course was based on the rationale proposed by Nichols and Armstrong [85]. For example, “Diverse types of entrepreneurship education course”. Cronbach’s α for the scale is 0.881.
Entrepreneurship faculty. For this dimension, we adopted the scale developed by Seikkula-Leino et al. into a three-item section to measure the level of the entrepreneurship faculty [86]. For example, “Teachers with entrepreneurial experience”. Cronbach’s α for the scale is 0.905.
Entrepreneurship competition. This construct was measured by excerpts from scales defined by Watson and McGowan [87] and validated by Li et al. [83]. Students were asked to what extent they agreed with three items referring to entrepreneurship competition, for example, “Entrepreneurship competition projects are easier to land”. Cronbach’s α for the scale is 0.895.
Entrepreneurial cognition. The scale was adopted from the GEM report, it has been applied by numerous scholars [72,73]. We modified the scale for Chinese conditions. Respondents were asked to rate their level of entrepreneurial cognition, e.g., “Overall good entrepreneurial opportunities in your province”. Cronbach’s α for the scale was 0.747.

3.3. Reliability and Validity Checks

We undertook several steps to ensure the validity of our measures; Table 1 provides an overview of the results of these checks. The results of the exploratory factor analysis showed that the factor loadings of the rotated question items were all greater than 0.6, ranging from 0.797 to 0.934, with no cross-factor phenomenon.
A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using AMOS 24. First, we measured the overall model fit index and the results were as follows: the absolute fit indexes: RMR = 0.020 (<0.05), RMSEA = 0.055 (<0.08), GFI = 0.968 (>0.9), AGFI = 0.953 (>0.9); the relative fit indexes: CFI = 0.980 (>0.9), NFI = 0.980 (>0.9), TLI (NNFI) = 0.974 (>0.9), IFI = 0.980 (>0.9), RFI = 0.974 (>0.9); the minimalist adaptation index: PCFI = 0.747 (>0.5), PGFI = 0.646 (>0.5), PNFI = 0.747 (>0.5).
The CFA indicated that all factor loading values ranged from 0.60 to 0.95 and were significant (p < 0.01), indicating that there was a good measurement relationship between the measurement items and the factors, and the validity was favorable. To evaluate the internal consistency of the indicators, we estimated the composite reliability (CR) for each latent variable. The CR values were all above 0.6, as required. In addition, the convergent validity was also assessed by the average variance extracted (AVE) for each latent variable. All variables had AVE values higher than 0.5, which met the requirements.

3.4. Common Method Variance

We tested for the presence of common method bias by following commonly used methods commonly [88]. We used AMOS v.24 to load all the variables onto a single factor to build a new model that outputs the relevant overall fitness index. The results were as follows. The absolute fit indexes: RMR = 0.030 (<0.05), RMSEA = 0.050 (<0.08), GFI = 0.975 (>0.9), AGFI = 0.959 (>0.9); the relative fit indexes: CFI = 0.985 (>0.9), NFI = 0.984 (>0.9), TLI (NNFI) = 0.978 (>0.9), IFI = 0.985 (>0.9), RFI = 0.978 (>0.9) minimalist adaptation index: PCFI = 0.703 (>0.5), PGFI = 0.609 (>0.5), PNFI = 0.703 (>0.5). By comparing these results with the baseline model, we found that the magnitude of change was not significant; therefore, there was no serious common method bias in this study.

4. Results

4.1. Total Effect Test

A causal stepwise regression test was used for mediating effects, and stratified regression was used for the study. The regression results of the three equations were obtained using SPSS 25.0, as shown in Table 2.
Equation (1) is the regression result of independent variables (gender, digital government building, entrepreneurship course, entrepreneurship faculty, entrepreneurship competition) to the dependent variable (entrepreneurial competence). Gender had a significant impact on entrepreneurial competence (β = −0.054, p < 0.001); women were found to have stronger entrepreneurial competence. Thus, H1 is supported. Digital government building (β = 0.015, p < 0.01) had a significant positive influence on entrepreneurial competence; thus, H2 is supported. Entrepreneurship course (β = 0.161, p < 0.001), entrepreneurship faculty (β = 0.176, p < 0.001), and entrepreneurial competition (β = 0.417, p < 0.001) all had a significant positive impact on the entrepreneurial competence of college students’ social entrepreneurs; therefore, H3, H4, and H5 are supported.

4.2. Mediating Effect Test

Equation (1) above showed that the total effect of each variable on the dependent variable was significant. For Equation (2), the regression coefficient of gender was 0.152 (p < 0.001), indicating that men have a higher level of entrepreneurial cognition. In addition, digital government building had a significant positive impact on entrepreneurial cognition (β = 0.060, p < 0.001). Entrepreneurship course (β = 0.270, p < 0.001), entrepreneurship faculty (β = 0.085, p < 0.001), and entrepreneurship competition (β = 0.144, p < 0.001) all had a significant positive influence on entrepreneurial cognition.
For Equation (3), the regression coefficient value of gender was −0.061 (p < 0.001), meaning that gender had a significant positive impact on entrepreneurial competence. In addition, digital government building (β = 0.013, p < 0.05), entrepreneurship course (β = 0.148, p < 0.001), entrepreneurship faculty (β = 0.172, p < 0.001), entrepreneurship competition (β = 0.410, p < 0.001), and entrepreneurial cognition (β = 0.049, p < 0.001) all had a significant positive influence on entrepreneurial competence.
By integrating the three equations, the results of the mediation effect were obtained, as shown in Table 3; the path from gender→entrepreneurial cognition→entrepreneurial competence presents a masking effect, meaning that H6 is not valid. Except for gender, the results are significant in the other four paths. In addition, the 95% confidence interval calculated by Bootstrap sampling did not include zero, indicating that there was a mediating effect. Moreover, c/ is significant, which is part of the mediation effect, that is, entrepreneurial cognition played a partial mediation role between the building of digital government and the entrepreneurial competence of social entrepreneurs, indicating that H7 is established. Entrepreneurial cognition played a partial mediation role between entrepreneurship course and the entrepreneurial competence of social entrepreneurs, illustrating that H8 is supported. Entrepreneurial cognition played a partial mediation role between entrepreneurship faculty and the entrepreneurial competence of social entrepreneurs; thus, H9 is supported. Entrepreneurial cognition played a partial intermediary role between entrepreneurship competition and the entrepreneurial competence of social entrepreneurs; thus, H10 is confirmed.

5. Discussion

5.1. Conclusions

This study sought to examine the pathway of entrepreneurship education, digital government building, entrepreneurial cognition and gender differences on entrepreneurial competence of university social entrepreneurs through a large-scale empirical study. The results suggest that entrepreneurship education and digital government building have positive influence on entrepreneurial competence of social entrepreneurs; compared with men, female social entrepreneurs have a higher level of social entrepreneurial competence. Moreover, entrepreneurial cognition plays a partial mediating role among entrepreneurship education, digital government building and entrepreneurial competence of social entrepreneurs. However, entrepreneurial cognition plays a masking role in the relationship between gender and entrepreneurial competence of social entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurial cognition masks female social entrepreneurs’ advantage in entrepreneurial competence. In other words, female social entrepreneurs have higher entrepreneurial competence, but their entrepreneurial cognition hides their advantage.
Since women are better suited to social entrepreneurship than men, they are more likely to become social entrepreneurs [89]. Gender creates psychological and behavioral differences, with women generally feeling more compassionate and empathetic than men [90]; they tend to care more about others [48,89]. Women are acutely aware of the plight of others; hence, in social entrepreneurship, women may be more likely to be able to identify social problems, and are expected to solve the problem through their own ability [91]. Nevertheless, entrepreneurship itself is characterized by high uncertainty and risk. Under the influence of traditional gender stereotypes, entrepreneurship tends to be dominated by men who are more adventurous and aggressive [20]. Women tend to know fewer entrepreneurs than men and have limited access to critical capital. In entrepreneurial activities, women generally face more obstacles and challenges [92], for example, in terms of experiencing motherhood [93] (Brush et al., 2009), gender stereotyping [72], skill barriers [94], and traditional culture [95]. As a result, women’s entrepreneurial behaviors are often questioned and rejected. Consequently, entrepreneurial cognition becomes a masking factor.

5.2. Theoretical Implications

This study was based on SCT. Through an empirical investigation of 20,134 Chinese university and college student social entrepreneurs who had social entrepreneurship experience, we explored the mechanisms underlying the impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial competence in the context of digital government reforms. A research model linking gender, digital government building, entrepreneurship education (entrepreneurship course, entrepreneurship faculty, and entrepreneurship competition), entrepreneurial cognition, and entrepreneurial competence was constructed. Our study makes several important theoretical contributions to existing research.
First, previous studies focused more on the effect of entrepreneurship education on college students’ business entrepreneurship competence [14]. This study demonstrates how entrepreneurship education can improve the entrepreneurial competence of college student social entrepreneurs. It further promotes the research and development of social entrepreneurship theory in the context of higher education.
Second, the mechanism underlying the associations between entrepreneurship education, the building of digital government, and the entrepreneurial competence of university and college social entrepreneurs is explained by exploring the mediating role of entrepreneurship cognition. Applying SCT to social entrepreneurship provides a more complete landscape through differences in entrepreneurial cognition, expanding the boundaries of SCT research in the field of entrepreneurship. In addition, this study cuts into the digital perspective in entrepreneurial activities, exploring the impact of digital government building on the entrepreneurial competence of university and college social entrepreneurs in the context of government digital reform, contributing to filling the still scarce quantitative research in digital entrepreneurship ecosystem studies [96].
Third, the study extends the study of gender theory, responding to Zhao et al. call for attention to gender differences in entrepreneurship research [97]. It showed a masking effect of gender on the path from entrepreneurial cognition to entrepreneurial competence. Women social entrepreneurs have higher entrepreneurial competence, and this is consistent with previous studies [89]; however, entrepreneurial cognition masks their strengths empirical evidence further demonstrates the significant role of individual psychological-level cognition in the entrepreneurial process [98].

5.3. Practical Implications

This study has important practical implications for university and college students, universities, and government agencies that are related to the social entrepreneurial activities of university and college students.
First, university and college students’ social entrepreneurship activities have economic benefits and social value. Although social entrepreneurship is slightly different from traditional entrepreneurship to create economic benefits, social entrepreneurship can create economic benefits while solving social problems. Universities and colleges should offer entrepreneurship courses with rich contents and in line with best practices and focus on cultivating students’ humanism and social responsibility in entrepreneurship education; universities and colleges also have to strengthen connections with the government and society and sign cooperation agreements to create excellent entrepreneurship projects that produce economic and social benefits and promote the sustainable development of society.
Second, college students must accept the entrepreneurship education provided by the university and college, take the initiative to learn the theory of entrepreneurship, and actively participate in entrepreneurship competitions. In addition, university and college students should use digital platforms to pay more attention to social issues in their daily life and improve their sense of social responsibility. They also need to focus on information related to entrepreneurship, such as classic entrepreneurial cases and typical entrepreneurial figures, and learn the traits of successful entrepreneurs from them.
Third, the government must increase its support for college social entrepreneurs and strengthen the building of digital services, simplify the approval process, improve efficiency, optimize the business environment, and make the entrepreneurial environment more open and inclusive. Furthermore, government should use its digital platforms to disseminate information on social entrepreneurship policies related to university and college students and raise awareness about it among university students.

5.4. Limitations and Future Research

This study tapped into the digital perspective in entrepreneurial activities and empirically explored the relationship between the role of digital government building and the entrepreneurial competence of college social entrepreneurs, investigated the mechanism underlying the role of entrepreneurship education on the entrepreneurial competence of college social entrepreneurs, and proposed solutions to improve the entrepreneurial competence of college social entrepreneurs. However, the current study has some limitations that need to be improved in future studies. First, this study adopted a purely quantitative research method, which lacks an in-depth study of the research subjects. Qualitative research methods such as interviews with relevant subjects and case studies should be combined with a quantitative approach. Second, although this study had a sufficiently large sample size and a wide coverage, the data used are cross-sectional. However, heterogeneity cannot be observed. Future research should enhance the collection of time-series tracking data. Finally, this study hypothesized from previous research and real-world experience that women social entrepreneurs have more entrepreneurial competence than men, but entrepreneurial cognition obscures their advantages. The reason for this may be that entrepreneurial women face greater obstacles and challenges than men. However, entrepreneurial activity is dynamic, and in the future, we can explore the obstacles and challenges that women entrepreneurs specifically face in the digital age.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, X.X. and J.W.; methodology, Z.L.; software, Z.L.; validation, X.X. and J.W.; formal analysis, X.X. and Y.H.; investigation, J.W. and Y.H.; resources, Y.H.; data curation, X.X., J.W. and Z.L.; writing—original draft preparation, X.X., J.W. and Z.L.; writing—review and editing, Y.H.; visualization, Z.L.; supervision, Y.H.; project administration, X.X. and J.W.; funding acquisition, Y.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was funded by the Key Project of the Chinese National Social Science Fund, “Research on Barriers and Policy Support Mechanisms for Female Entrepreneurship in the Digital Era” (20ASH012).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Hangzhou Normal University.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. GEM. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2021/2022 Global Report. 2022. Available online: https://www.gemconsortium.org/file/open?fileId=50900 (accessed on 3 September 2022).
  2. Novejarque Civera, J.; Pisá Bó, M.; López-Muñoz, J. Do contextual factors influence entrepreneurship? Spain’s regional evidences. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2021, 17, 105–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Al-Qudah, A.A.; Al-Okaily, M.; Alqudah, H. The relationship between social entrepreneurship and sustainable development from economic growth perspective: 15 ‘RCEP’countries. J. Sustain. Financ. Invest. 2022, 12, 44–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Sonnino, R.; Griggs-Trevarthen, C. A resilient social economy? Insights from the community food sector in the UK. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2013, 25, 272–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Aquino, R.S. Community change through tourism social entrepreneurship. Ann. Tour. Res. 2022, 95, 103442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Shin, C.; Park, J. How social entrepreneurs’ value orientation affects the performance of social enterprises in Korea: The mediating effect of social entrepreneurship. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Davis, P.E.; Bendickson, J.S.; Muldoon, J.; McDowell, W.C. Agency theory utility and social entrepreneurship: Issues of identity and role conflict. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2021, 15, 2299–2318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Astebro, T.; Bazzazian, N.; Braguinsky, S. Startups by recent university graduates and their faculty: Implications for university entrepreneurship policy. Res. Policy 2012, 41, 663–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ely, A.V. Experiential learning in “innovation for sustainability” An evaluation of teaching and learning activities (TLAs) in an international Masters course. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2018, 19, 1204–1219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Worsham, E.L. Reflections and insights on teaching social entrepreneurship: An interview with Greg Dees. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 2012, 11, 442–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Halberstadt, J.; Timm, J.M.; Kraus, S.; Gundolf, K. Skills and knowledge management in higher education: How service learning can contribute to social entrepreneurial competence development. J. Knowl. Manag. 2019, 23, 1925–1948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lofstrom, M. Does self-employment increase the economic well-being of low-skilled workers? Small Bus. Econ. 2013, 40, 933–952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Hasan, S.M.; Khan, E.A.; Nabi, M.N.U. Entrepreneurial education at university level and entrepreneurship development. Educ. Train. 2017, 59, 888–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hahn, D.; Minola, T.; Bosio, G.; Cassia, L. The impact of entrepreneurship education on university students’ entrepreneurial skills: A family embeddedness perspective. Small Bus. Econ. 2020, 55, 257–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Potocan, V.; Nedelko, Z.; Mulej, M.; Dabic, M. How university’s activities support the development of students’ entrepreneurial abilities: Case of Slovenia and Croatia. J. Knowl. Econ. 2021, 12, 22–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Miller, T.L.; Wesley, C.L.; Williams, D.E. Educating the minds of caring hearts: Comparing the views of practitioners and educators on the importance of social entrepreneurship competencies. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 2012, 11, 349–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. García-González, A.; Ramírez-Montoya, M.S. Social entrepreneurship competency in higher education: An analysis using mixed methods. J. Soc. Entrep. 2020, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Vázquez-Parra, J.C.; García-González, A.; Ramírez-Montoya, M.S. Social entrepreneurship competency: An approach by discipline and gender. J. Appl. Res. High. Educ. 2020, 13, 1357–1373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Gupta, V.K.; Wieland, A.M.; Turban, D.B. Gender Characterizations in Entrepreneurship: A Multi-Level Investigation of Sex-Role Stereotypes about High-Growth, Commercial, and Social Entrepreneurs. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2019, 57, 131–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Dickel, P.; Eckardt, G. Who wants to be a social entrepreneur? The role of gender and sustainability orientation. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2021, 59, 196–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Choi, D.; Park, J. Local government as a catalyst for promoting social enterprise. Public Manag. Rev. 2021, 23, 665–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Chaston, I.; Sadler-Smith, E. Entrepreneurial cognition, entrepreneurial orientation and firm capability in the creative industries. Br. J. Manag. 2012, 23, 415–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Schunk, D.H.; Usher, E.L. Social Cognitive Theory and Motivation. In The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2012; Volume 2, pp. 11–26. Available online: https://xs2.studiodahu.com/books?hl=zh-CN&lr=&id=j9ShDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA11&dq=Social+cognitive+theory+and+motivation&ots=loKQ-fV66l&sig=sRsQROD3dzmIJK5FHaLqKqwP_gY (accessed on 10 September 2022).
  24. Bandura, A. The Explanatory and Predictive Scope of Self-Efficacy Theory. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 1986, 4, 359–373. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/openview/6e81ca1f814052425052eaddac79552d/1?cbl=1818750&pq-origsite=gscholar&parentSessionId=u2Plh%2Fp7q2%2Br7T579PhEpH2GQ4AqFTe3AQTGGt9p87E%3D (accessed on 9 September 2022). [CrossRef]
  25. Bandura, A. Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2001, 52, 21–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Cunningham, J.B.; Lischeron, J. Defining Entrepreneurship. J. Small Bus. Manag. 1991, 29, 45–61. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270820230 (accessed on 13 September 2022).
  27. Garfield, C.A. Peak Performers: The New Heroes of American Business; William Morrow & Company: New York, NY, USA, 1986; ISBN 0688042430. [Google Scholar]
  28. Alshebami, A.S. Psychological features and entrepreneurial intention among Saudi small entrepreneurs during adverse times. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Alshebami, A.S.; Seraj, A.H.A. Exploring the influence of potential entrepreneurs’ personality traits on small venture creation: The case of Saudi Arabia. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 885980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Huang, Y.; Li, S.; Xiang, X.; Bu, Y.; Guo, Y. How can the combination of entrepreneurship policies activate regional innovation capability? A comparative study of Chinese provinces based on fsQCA. J. Innov. Knowl. 2022, 7, 100227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zhu, R.; Zhao, G.; Long, Z.; Huang, Y.; Huang, Z. Entrepreneurship or Employment? A Survey of College Students’ Sustainable Entrepreneurial Intentions. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gartner, W.B. What are we talking about when we talk about entrepreneurship? J. Bus. Ventur. 1990, 5, 15–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Saebi, T.; Foss, N.J.; Linder, S. Social entrepreneurship research: Past achievements and future promises. J. Manag. 2019, 45, 70–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ranville, A.; Barros, M. Towards Normative Theories of Social Entrepreneurship. A Review of the Top Publications of the Field. J. Bus. Ethics 2022, 180, 407–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zahra, S.A.; Gedajlovic, E.; Neubaum, D.O.; Shulman, J.M. A typology of social entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. J. Bus. Ventur. 2009, 24, 519–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mair, J.; Marti, I. Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. J. World Bus. 2006, 41, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bhatt, B.; Qureshi, I.; Riaz, S. Social entrepreneurship in non-munificent institutional environments and implications for institutional work: Insights from China. J. Bus. Ethics 2019, 154, 605–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Malsch, F.; Guieu, G. How to get more with less? Scarce resources and high social ambition: Effectuation as KM tool in social entrepreneurial projects. J. Knowl. Manag. 2019, 23, 1949–1964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. García-Jurado, A.; Pérez-Barea, J.J.; Nova, R.J. A new approach to social entrepreneurship: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Austin, J.; Stevenson, H.; Wei-Skillern, J. Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both? Entrep. Theory Pract. 2006, 30, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Pless, N.M. Social Entrepreneurship in Theory and Practice—An Introduction. J. Bus. Ethics 2012, 111, 317–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Dees, J.G. Taking social entrepreneurship seriously. Society 2007, 44, 24–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ferreras-Garcia, R.; Hernandez-Lara, A.B.; Serradell-Lopez, E. Entrepreneurial competences in a higher education business plan course. Educ. Train. 2019, 61, 850–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Lans, T.; Biemans, H.; Mulder, M.; Verstegen, J. Self-Awareness of Mastery and Improvability of Entrepreneurial Competence in Small Businesses in the Agrifood Sector. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 2010, 21, 147–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Slisane, A.; Lama, G.; Rubene, Z. Self-Assessment of the Entrepreneurial Competence of Teacher Education Students in the Remote Study Process. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Garg, S.; Agarwal, P. Problems and prospects of woman entrepreneurship-a review of literature. IOSR J. Bus. Manag. 2017, 19, 55–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Nicolás, C.; Rubio, A. Social enterprise: Gender gap and economic development. Eur. J. Manag. Bus. Econ. 2016, 25, 56–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Hechavarría, D.M.; Terjesen, S.A.; Ingram, A.E.; Renko, M.; Justo, R.; Elam, A. Taking care of business: The impact of culture and gender on entrepreneurs’ blended value creation goals. Small Bus. Econ. 2017, 48, 225–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Chan, C.H.; Chui, C.H.K.; Chan, K.S.T.; Yip, P.S.F. The role of the social innovation and entrepreneurship development fund in fostering social entrepreneurship in Hong Kong: A study on public policy innovation. Soc. Policy Adm. 2019, 53, 903–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Reuschke, D.; Mason, C.; Syrett, S. Digital futures of small businesses and entrepreneurial opportunity. Futures 2021, 128, 102714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ivanova, V.; Poltarykhin, A.; Szromnik, A.; Anichkina, O. Economic policy for country’s digitalization: A case study. Entrep. Sustain. Issues 2019, 7, 649–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Malebana, M.J. Knowledge of entrepreneurial support and entrepreneurial intention in the rural provinces of South Africa. Dev. S. Afr. 2017, 34, 74–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Rodrigues, M.; Franco, M. Digital entrepreneurship in local government: Case study in Municipality of Fundão, Portugal. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 73, 103115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Yan, X.H.; Gu, D.X.; Liang, C.Y.; Zhao, S.P.; Lu, W.X. Fostering Sustainable Entrepreneurs: Evidence from China College Students’“Internet Plus” Innovation and Entrepreneurship Competition (CSIPC). Sustainability 2018, 10, 3335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Barba-Sánchez, V.; Atienza-Sahuquillo, C. Entrepreneurial intention among engineering students: The role of entrepreneurship education. Eur. Res. Manag. Bus. Econ. 2018, 24, 53–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Brock, D.D.; Steiner, S. Social Entrepreneurship Education: Is It Achieving the Desired Aims? SSRN: Rochester, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kirby, D.A.; Ibrahim, N. The case for (social) entrepreneurship education in Egyptian universities. Educ. Train. 2011, 53, 403–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Iwu, C.G.; Opute, P.A.; Nchu, R.; Eresia-Eke, C.; Tengeh, R.K.; Jaiyeoba, O.; Aliyu, O.A. Entrepreneurship education, Course and lecturer-competency as antecedents of student entrepreneurial intention. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2021, 19, 100295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Foster, J.; Lin, A. Individual differences in learning entrepreneurship and their implications for web-based instruction in e-business and e-commerce. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2003, 34, 455–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Solomon, G.T.; Alabduljader, N.; Ramani, R.S. Knowledge management and social entrepreneurship education: Lessons learned from an exploratory two-country study. J. Knowl. Manag. 2019, 23, 1984–2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Shahverdi, M.; Ismail, K.; Qureshi, M.I. The effect of perceived barriers on social entrepreneurship intention in Malaysian universities: The moderating role of education. Manag. Sci. Lett. 2018, 8, 341–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Thomsen, B.; Muurlink, O.; Best, T. Backpack bootstrapping: Social entrepreneurship education through experiential learning. J. Soc. Entrep. 2019, 12, 238–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ruskovaara, E.; Pihkala, T. Entrepreneurship Education in Schools: Empirical Evidence on the Teacher’s Role. J. Educ. Res. 2015, 108, 236–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ding, Y.Y. The constraints of innovation and entrepreneurship education for university students. J. Interdiscip. Math. 2017, 20, 1431–1434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. San-Martín, P.; Fernandez-Laviada, A.; Perez, A.; Palazuelos, E. The teacher of entrepreneurship as a role model: Students’ and teachers’ perceptions. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2021, 19, 100358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Wen, C.T.; Chen, Y.W. The innovation process of entrepreneurial teams in dynamic business plan competition: From sense-making perspective. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 2007, 39, 346–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Pardo-Garcia, C.; Barac, M. Promoting employability in higher education: A case study on boosting entrepreneurship skills. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Gupta, P.; Chauhan, S.; Paul, J.; Jaiswal, M.P. Social entrepreneurship research: A review and future research agenda. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 113, 209–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Mitchell, R.K.; Busenitz, L.; Lant, T.; McDougall, P.P.; Morse, E.A.; Smith, J.B. Toward a theory of entrepreneurial cognition: Rethinking the people side of entrepreneurship research. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2002, 27, 93–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Baron, R.A. The cognitive perspective: A valuable tool for answering entrepreneurship’s basic “why” questions. J. Bus. Ventur. 2004, 19, 221–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Stenholm, P.; Acs, Z.J.; Wuebker, R. Exploring country-level institutional arrangements on the rate and type of entrepreneurial activity. J. Bus. Ventur. 2013, 28, 176–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Wu, J.; Li, Y.; Zhang, D. Identifying women’s entrepreneurial barriers and empowering female entrepreneurship worldwide: A fuzzy-set QCA approach. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2019, 15, 905–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Boudreaux, C.J.; Nikolaev, B.N.; Klein, P. Socio-cognitive traits and entrepreneurship: The moderating role of economic institutions. J. Bus. Ventur. 2019, 34, 178–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Brush, C.; Edelman, L.F.; Manolova, T.; Welter, F. A gendered look at entrepreneurship ecosystems. Small Bus. Econ. 2019, 53, 393–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Cetindamar, D.; Gupta, V.K.; Karadeniz, E.E.; Egrican, N. What the numbers tell: The impact of human, family and financial capital on women and men’s entry into entrepreneurship in Turkey. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2012, 24, 29–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Wang, C.; Mundorf, N.; Salzarulo-McGuigan, A. Entrepreneurship education enhances entrepreneurial creativity: The mediating role of entrepreneurial inspiration. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2021, 20, 100570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Okolie, U.C.; Igwe, P.A.; Ayoola, A.A.; Nwosu, H.E.; Kanu, C.; Mong, I.K. Entrepreneurial competencies of undergraduate students: The case of universities in Nigeria. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2021, 19, 100452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Dou, X.; Zhu, X.; Zhang, J.Q.; Wang, J. Outcomes of entrepreneurship education in China: A customer experience management perspective. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 103, 338–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Wardana, L.W.; Handayati, P.; Narmaditya, B.S.; Wibowo, A.; Patma, T.S.; Suprajan, S.E. Determinant factors of young people in preparing for entrepreneurship: Lesson from Indonesia. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus. 2020, 7, 555–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Fichter, K.; Tiemann, I. Impacts of promoting sustainable entrepreneurship in generic business plan competitions. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 267, 122076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Din, B.H.; Anuar, A.R.; Usman, M. The effectiveness of the entrepreneurship education program in upgrading entrepreneurial skills among public university students. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016, 224, 117–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Long, Z.; Zhao, G.; Wang, J.; Zhang, M.; Zhou, S.; Zhang, L.; Huang, Z. Research on the drivers of entrepreneurship education performance of medical students in the digital age. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 733301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Li, G.; Long, Z.; Jiang, Y.; Huang, Y.; Wang, P.; Huang, Z. Entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurship policy and entrepreneurial competence: Mediating effect of entrepreneurship competition in China. Educ. Train. 2022; ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Bacigalupo, M.; Kampylis, P.; Punie, Y.; Van den Brande, G. EntreComp: The Entrepreneurship Competence Framework 2016, Volume 10, 593884.
  85. Nichols, S.P.; Armstrong, N.E. Engineering entrepreneurship: Does entrepreneurship have a role in engineering education? IEEE Antennas Propag. Mag. 2003, 45, 134–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Seikkula-Leino, J.; Satuvuori, T.; Ruskovaara, E.; Hannula, H. How do Finnish teacher educators implement entrepreneurship education? Educ. Train. 2015, 57, 392–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Watson, K.; McGowan, P. Rethinking competition-based entrepreneurship education in higher education institutions: Towards an effectuation-informed coopetition model. Educ. Train. 2019, 62, 31–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Hechavarría, D.M.; Brieger, S.A. Practice rather than preach: Cultural practices and female social entrepreneurship. Small Bus. Econ. 2022, 58, 1131–1151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Muntean, S.C.; Ozkazanc-Pan, B. Feminist perspectives on social entrepreneurship: Critique and new directions. Int. J. Gender Entrep. 2016, 8, 221–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Rosca, E.; Agarwal, N.; Brem, A. Women entrepreneurs as agents of change: A comparative analysis of social entrepreneurship processes in emerging markets. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 157, 120067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Chen, C.C.; Greene, P.G.; Crick, A. Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? J. Bus. Ventur. 1998, 13, 295–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Brush, C.G.; Bruin, A.D.; Welter, F. A gender-aware framework for women’s entrepreneurship. Int. J. Gender Entrep. 2009, 1, 8–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Botha, M.; Nieman, G.; Vuuren, J.V. Enhancing female entrepreneurship by enabling access to skills. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2006, 2, 479–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Ghouse, S.; McElwee, G.; Meaton, J.; Durrah, O. Barriers to rural women entrepreneurs in Oman. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2017, 23, 998–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Sussan, F.; Acs, Z.J. The digital entrepreneurial ecosystem. Small Bus. Econ. 2017, 49, 55–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Zhao, Y.; Lee, J.; Ellenwood, C. The Persistent Influence of Gender Stereotypes in Social Entrepreneurial Financing. J. Soc. Entrep. 2021, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Kiani, A.; Ali, A.; Biraglia, A.; Wang, D. Why I persist while others leave? Investigating the path from passion to persistence in entrepreneurship. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2021, 1–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 00069 g001 550
Figure 1. ECSE theoretical model.
Figure 1. ECSE theoretical model.
Sustainability 15 00069 g001
Table
Table 1. Exploratory factor analysis and Confirmatory factor analysis.
Table 1. Exploratory factor analysis and Confirmatory factor analysis.
FactorConstruct (source)/IndicatorFactor LoadStandardized Factor LoadSignificanceCRAVE
Entrepreneurship CourseDiverse types of entrepreneurship education courses0.870.816-0.8840.718
The content of entrepreneurship courses is closely integrated with the professional knowledge0.9130.852***
The content of the entrepreneurship courses is closely aligned with the cutting-edge trends of the times0.9150.873***
Entrepreneurship FacultyTeachers have various teaching styles0.9070.866-0.9050.761
Teachers with entrepreneurial experience0.9170.865***
Teachers with extensive experience in teaching entrepreneurship education0.9250.885***
Entrepreneurship CompetitionVariety of entrepreneurship competitions0.9090.866-0.8960.741
Entrepreneurship competition projects are easier to land0.9160.866***
High degree of integration of entrepreneurship competition projects
with the profession		0.9030.851***
Entrepreneurial CognitionHave enough knowledge, skills and experience to start a business themselves0.8310.729-0.7490.5
Knows a classmate or friend who started a business within the past year0.7970.645***
Overall good entrepreneurial opportunities in your province0.820.743***
Entrepreneurial Competenceentrepreneurial knowledge0.9340.903-0.9240.802
innovation spirit0.9340.899***
entrepreneurial skills0.9270.884***
Notes: N = 20,134. CR, composite reliability; AVE, average variance extracted; ***, p < 0.001.
Table
Table 2. Regression equation results.
Table 2. Regression equation results.
Equation 1 E-CompetenceEquation 2: E-CognitionEquation 3: E-Competence
βTPβTPβTP
intercept0.024 ***3.6220.000−0.068 ***−8.2160.0000.027 ***4.1210.000
Gender−0.054 ***−5.4050.0000.152 ***12.2600.000−0.061 ***−6.1360.000
DGB0.015 **3.1310.0020.060 ***9.8090.0000.013 *2.5350.011
E-course0.161 ***13.6530.0000.270 ***18.3680.0000.148 ***12.4590.000
E-faculty0.176 ***18.3840.0000.085 ***7.1280.0000.172 ***17.9620.000
E-competition0.417 ***40.7820.0000.144 ***11.3110.0000.410 ***40.0420.000
E-cognition------0.049 ***8.6150.000
R20.5140.2460.516
F ValueF (5,20128) = 4264.942, p = 0.000F (5,20128) = 1310.200,
p = 0.000		F (6,20127) = 3579.417,
p = 0.000
Notes: N = 20,134. *, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01; ***, p < 0.001. E-competence: Entrepreneurial competence; DGB: Digital government Building; E-course: Entrepreneurship course; E-faculty: Entrepreneurship faculty; E-competition: Entrepreneurship competition; E-cognition: Entrepreneurial cognition. Equation (1): Regression analysis of independent variable (X) and dependent variable (Y) Y = c X + e 1 , Equation (2): Regression analysis of independent variable (X) and intermediate variable (M) M = a X + e 2 , Equation (3) Regression analysis of independent variable (X), intermediate variable (M) and dependent variable (Y) Y = c / X + b M + e 3 .
Table
Table 3. Test results of the mediating effect.
Table 3. Test results of the mediating effect.
Path c (Total Effect) a b a b (Mediating Effect) a b (95% Boot CI) c / (Direct Effect) Hypothesis
Gender→E-cognition→E-competence−0.054 ***0.152 ***0.049 ***0.0070.003~0.005−0.061 ***Masking effect
DGB→E-cognition→E-competence0.015 **0.060 ***0.049 ***0.0030.002~0.0040.013 *Partial mediation
E-course→E-cognition→E-competence0.161 ***0.270 ***0.049 ***0.0130.010~0.0170.148 ***Partial mediation
E-faculty→E-cognition→E-competence0.176 ***0.085 ***0.049 ***0.0040.002~0.0050.172 ***Partial mediation
E-competition→E-cognition→E-competence0.417 ***0.144 ***0.049 ***0.0070.004~0.0090.410 ***Partial mediation
Notes: N = 20,134. *, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01; ***, p < 0.001. 95% Boot CI denotes the 95% confidence interval calculated by Bootstrap sampling.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Xiang, X.; Wang, J.; Long, Z.; Huang, Y. Improving the Entrepreneurial Competence of College Social Entrepreneurs: Digital Government Building, Entrepreneurship Education, and Entrepreneurial Cognition. Sustainability 2023, 15, 69. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010069

AMA Style

Xiang X, Wang J, Long Z, Huang Y. Improving the Entrepreneurial Competence of College Social Entrepreneurs: Digital Government Building, Entrepreneurship Education, and Entrepreneurial Cognition. Sustainability. 2023; 15(1):69. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010069

Chicago/Turabian Style

Xiang, Xiyuan, Jing Wang, Zehai Long, and Yangjie Huang. 2023. "Improving the Entrepreneurial Competence of College Social Entrepreneurs: Digital Government Building, Entrepreneurship Education, and Entrepreneurial Cognition" Sustainability 15, no. 1: 69. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010069

APA Style

Xiang, X., Wang, J., Long, Z., & Huang, Y. (2023). Improving the Entrepreneurial Competence of College Social Entrepreneurs: Digital Government Building, Entrepreneurship Education, and Entrepreneurial Cognition. Sustainability, 15(1), 69. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010069

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop