Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by VGTU Press. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. The material cannot be used for commercial purposes. ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN CRISIS: THE DETERMINANTS OF SYRIAN STUDENTS’ ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTIONS Sulaiman MOUSELLI1, Bayan KHALIFA2 1Department of Accounting and Finance, Faculty of Business Administration, Arab International University, Mazzeh-High Way, Damascus, Syria 2Centre for Higher Education Governance Ghent, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium E-mails: 1s-mousele@aiu.edu.sy (corresponding author); 2bayan.khalifa@outlook.com Received 17 November 2017; accepted 2 December 2017 Abstract. This study aims at investigating the factors that affect the entrepreneur- ial intentions of university students in Syria. The impact of three groups of factors was investigated, demographic, personal, and external factors. The questionnaire survey method was applied. Data was collected from two major universities in Syria: Damascus University and Arab International University and two faculties: Business and Economics, and Informatics and Communication Engineering. We analyze 183 responses from the above-mentioned faculties to understand wheth- er differences exist in entrepreneurial intentions between students from differ- ent universities and faculties. Also, we use ordinary least squares to uncover the determinants of entrepreneurial intentions for those students. The results show higher entrepreneurial intentions for Informatics and Communication Engineer- ing and for male students. Moreover, self-efficacy, information and communica- tion, institutional environment come to have positive and significant impacts on entrepreneurial intentions. We recommend that more polices should be directed towards developing female entrepreneurial intents. Also, entrepreneurship train- ing courses should be offered to Informatics and Communication Engineering to enable them turn their intentions into projects. Furthermore, universities should consider establishing entrepreneurship centers, incubators and science parks that foster innovative ideas and support start-ups. Keywords: entrepreneurial intentions self-efficacy, information and communica- tion, institutional environment, business and economics, and informatics and com- munication engineering. JEL Classification: I23, L26, O31. 1. Introduction The current war in Syria had severe consequences on all economic and social aspects, and entrepreneurship is not an exception. According to recent figures published by the World Bank in 2017, the Syrian GDP declines by 63% in the period between 2011 and B U S I N E S S, MA N AG E M E N T A N D E D U C AT I O N ISSN 2029-7491 / eISSN 2029-6169 2017, 15(2): 159–173 doi:10.3846/bme.2017.386 160 S. Mouselli, B. Khalifa. Entrepreneurship in crisis: the determinants of Syrian students’ entrepreneurial intentions 2016. Moreover, unemployment rate rose from 8.6 percent in 2010 to the alarming 52.9 percent in 2015. In addition, 9 million Syrians of working age are not taking part in any economic value generation with 2.9 million unemployed and 6.1 million inactive. Small to Medium Enterprises (SMEs) are one of the main leader engines to accelerate job creation and enhance the economic growth. In MENA countries, SMEs are major contributors to employment, representing between 80 percent and 90 percent of all for- mal sector enterprises according to the World Bank (2015). It is important to mention that creating SMEs requires enhancing employability and entrepreneurship competencies of university graduates. The above mentioned startling figures highlight the importance of understanding the determinants of entrepreneurial intentions especially in this war period. Understanding the determinants of entrepreneurial intentions is essential at national, institutional, and also at the individual level to make better future plans related to in- troducing new entrepreneurial modules, opening new programs on entrepreneurship or establishing new entities to support entrepreneurship activities. In this vein, this study explores why students establish the intention to start up a business, especially in crisis contexts. The research on entrepreneurship intentions in Syria is scarce with the exception of Medyanik and Al-Jawni (2017) who investigate the determinants of Syrian students’ social entrepreneurial intentions. However, they use a simple correlation analysis and restrict their study to social science students without explicitly considering the current war conditions in their analysis. This study, however, aims to fill this gap by not re- stricting the investigation to social entrepreneurial intentions but to all entrepreneurship intentions. In addition, it clearly considers the current war conditions and their impact on students’ entrepreneurial intentions in the analysis and covers Informatics and Tel- ecommunication Engineering students in addition to Business and Economics students. Doing so, it implicitly considers the impact of students’ entrepreneurial education on forming their entrepreneurial intentions. We find that females have less entrepreneurial intentions than males. However, no significant differences are noticed in entrepreneurial intentions between students from public vs. private universities. Surprisingly, the results confirm higher entrepreneurial intentions for Informatics and Communication Engineering students compared to Busi- ness and Economics students. Also, we find that self-efficacy, information and com- munication, institutional environment have positive and significant impacts on entre- preneurial intentions. The remaining parts of this paper is distributed as follows. Section one reviews the literature on models that explain the determinants of entrepreneurial intentions. The second section defines the examined variables and discusses their potential impact of forming entrepreneurial intentions. Section three highlights the sample and methodology applied in investigating the factors affecting entrepreneurial intentions. The forth sec- tion outlines the research results and is followed by conclusions and recommendations. 161 Business, Management and Education, 2017, 15(2): 159–173 2. Literature review The evolution of the models that try to explain the entrepreneurship phenomenon can be traced back to the pioneering work of Shapero (1982) who proposes the Entrepreneurial Event Model (EEM). He argues that three variables only determine entrepreneurial inten- tions, namely, desirability, feasibility and entrepreneur’s tendency to act. Ajzen (1991) builds a model based on the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) and suggests three differ- ent groups of variables that formulate entrepreneurial intentions. Those groups are person’s attitudes towards his/her behavior, subjective norms, and behavioral control variables. In the same year, Robinson et al. (1991) propose Entrepreneurial Attitude Orientation (EAO) model. They construct an EAO scale that predicts entrepreneur’s attitude using four variables (achievement, self-esteem, personal control, and innovation) and three dif- ferent reactions (cognitive, conative, or affective). Then, Krueger and Carsrud (1993) generate the Basic Intention Model (BIM) that attributes entrepreneurial intentions to both attitudes and behavior. One year later, Krueger and Brazeal propose Entrepreneurial Po- tential Model (EPM) that is built on the previous contributions of Shapero (1982). Krueger and Brazeal (1994) argue that desirability, feasibility, propensity to act explain entrepre- neurial intentions. Several empirical articles have used this model and previous models such as (Crant 1996; Walstad, Kourilsky 1998; Veciana et al. 2005; Guerrero et al. 2008). Davidsson (1995a) suggests a model that combines a number of economic and psy- chological variables in a set of general attitudes and domain attitudes (ability, necessity, opportunity, values and attitudes) to determine entrepreneurial intentions. Those vari- ables are comparable to perceived self-efficacy variables included in previous models of BIM and EPM. Davidsson (1995b) empirically examines this model and finds that attitudes act as mediators for the influence of personal background variables. Lüthje and Franke (2003) later suggest a modified structural model of the TPB that considers personal traits and contextual factors. A more recent strand in entrepreneurial intentions research consider socio-cultural variables as important determinant of entrepreneurial intentions. This strand of research is based on Shapero and Sokol (1982), Aldrich and Zimmer (1986), Hyde (1998), Scherer et al. (1989) and Kolvereid’s (1996) models which try to identify factors encouraging en- trepreneurial initiative, and which claim that social or environmental factors can explain entrepreneurial behavior. These factors are formal, such as laws and rules, or informal, such as ideas, beliefs, attitudes, social values and codes of conduct (Thornton et al. 2011). Krueger (2009) integrates the TPB model and EEM into a single model called Krueger’s Entrepreneurial Intentions (KEI) Model. This model combines desirability, feasibility and propensity to act from the EEM with social norms and self-efficacy from TPB model in addition to collective efficacy. Esfandiar et al. (2017) develop KEI model to explicitly distin- guishes between entrepreneurial goal intention and entrepreneurial implementation intention. The model (Fig. 1), we test in this paper, is based on a combination of Davidsson’s model and a number of socio-cultural factors suggested in the literature to affect entrepreneurial 162 S. Mouselli, B. Khalifa. Entrepreneurship in crisis: the determinants of Syrian students’ entrepreneurial intentions intentions. Those factors are need for achievement, locus of control, self-efficacy, informa- tion and communication and institutional environment. We add to those factors another factor that is specific to the Syrian content to capture the current war condition called crisis effect. 3. Variables’ definition Need for achievement. The first factor that we examine whether it affects entrepreneur- ial intentions is the motivation for achievement. It refers to performance comparison between the individual and his/her internal standards. This factor is among the most used psychological variables in entrepreneurship research (McClelland 1961; Wärneryd 1988; Davidsson 1989, 1991). The general conclusion from empirical research is that achievement motivation positively affects entrepreneurial intentions, yet it is not the ma- jor determinant. However, Kristiansen and Indarti (2004) find that the need for achieve- ment has no impact on entrepreneurial intentions. Locus of control. Another personality factor that is expected to affect entrepreneurial intentions is locus of control. It reflects how much an individual feels he/she has control over his/her life. Rotter (1966) indicates that people have internal locus of control if they think they master their own fate and they are able to reach their desired outcomes. Green et al. (1996) define locus of control as the degree at which individual attributes his/her success or failure to his/her personal initiatives. Hence, acquiring such trait should result in better planning, self-motivation and not to wait others to tell what to do. A number of studies show that locus of control predicts entrepreneurial intentions (Bygrave 1989; Robinson et al. 1991). However, Kristiansen and Indarti (2004) find no impact for locus of control on entrepreneurial intentions. Fig. 1. The study model (created by authors) Entrepreneurial intentions Demographic variables: Gender Age Year of study University Faculty Work Experience Personal factors: Need for achievement Locus of control Self-efficacy External factors: Information and communication Institutional environment Crisis effect 163 Business, Management and Education, 2017, 15(2): 159–173 Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy represents individual’s belief in his/her ability to do a certain task (Bandura 1977). Self-efficacy is at the core of Ajzen’s (1991) TPB model as it represents the perceived feasibility of conducting a specific behavior. Self-efficacy is also in the center of Shapero’s (1982) EEM where entrepreneurial intentions are derived from feasibility (self-efficacy), desirability, and propensity to act upon oppor- tunities. Boyd and Vozikis (1994) propose that self-efficacy is an important mediator in determining both the strength of entrepreneurial intentions and their likelihood to turn into actions. Kristiansen and Indarti (2004) and Peng et al. (2012) document a positive and significant impact of self-efficacy on entrepreneurial intention. Information and communication. We mean by information and communication the set of contextual factors that affect entrepreneurial intentions. Those factors are access to capital, information access and social networks. Limited access to capital can be seen as restriction to individuals’ perception of entrepreneurial opportunities which might negatively affect their entrepreneurial intentions. This is a major concern not only for individuals in developing countries, with weak credit and venture capital institutions, but also in developed economies with high entry barriers. Social networks reduce uncertainty and transaction costs and increase access to business ideas. Kristiansen and Indarti (2004) argue that contextual factors, includ- ing the availability of business information, are important to initiate a new enterprise. Institutional environment. More attention has been paid recently to the impact of institutional factors on entrepreneurial intentions. The contribution of institutions as referred to “rules of the game” to entrepreneurial activities and long term economic development has been studied extensively theoretically and empirically (Van de Ven 1993; Stephen et al. 2005). Stephen et al. (2005) argue that environmental formal vari- ables such as legal rules and government support measures and procedures (number and complexity) are critical in start-up decisions. Crisis effect. Crisis could be of conflicting impact of entrepreneurial intentions. On the one hand, crisis motivates individuals to defend their financial and social status through supporting their entrepreneurial intentions. On the other hand, crisis may limit the available financial resources and harm their psychological and mental conditions. 4. Methodology This study aims at investigating the factors that might affect the entrepreneurial inten- tions of university students in Syria. In order to achieve the study purpose, a question- naire survey method was applied. The questionnaire consists of a cover letter to explain the purpose of the study and to assure the privacy of answers. Then, an introductory section was displayed to explore the students’ profiles (i.e. gender, age, year of study, university, faculty, and work experience). After the introductory section, the body of the questionnaire came, which contained the scales targeting the purpose of the study. The scales of the following factors were developed by Kristiansen (Kristiansen, In- darti 2004): need for achievement, locus of control, self-efficacy, and information and 164 S. Mouselli, B. Khalifa. Entrepreneurship in crisis: the determinants of Syrian students’ entrepreneurial intentions communication. However, the institutional environment scale was developed based on the Global Competitiveness Report. The crisis effect scale was developed by the au- thors. Finally, the entrepreneurial intentions item was adopted from Block et al. (2013). The questionnaire was originally in English language. Though, to assure students’ ac- curate understanding of the items, the items were translated into Arabic by one of the authors and reviewed by the other. Responses were assessed on a 5-point Likert scale. Questionnaires were distributed online through the Facebook groups of the Syrian universities. The responses reached 215, mainly from Damascus University and Arab International University. Thus, the few responses that came from other universities and faculties were not included in the analyses. The remaining cases were 183. The profile of the respondents is presented in Table 1. The data was treated through SPSS version 20. Table 1. Students’ profile (created by authors) Variable Frequency % Gender Female 95 51.9 Male 88 48.1 Age Less than 20 20 10.7 20–25 139 76.3 More than 25 24 13.0 Year of study 1 5 2.5 2 31 16.7 3 37 20.2 4 93 51.5 5 17 9.1 University Damascus University 108 50.0 Arab International University 75 34.8 Faculty Business and Economics 141 77.1 Informatics and Communication Engineering 42 20.0 Work Experience None 101 55.6 Public or government sector 11 6.1 Private sector 48 26.2 Business owner 23 12.1 165 Business, Management and Education, 2017, 15(2): 159–173 Ta bl e 2. E xp lo ra to ry fa ct or a na ly si s an d re lia bi lit y te st (c re at ed b y au th or s) C on st ru ct It em Fa ct or lo ad in g E ig en va lu e C ro nb ac h’ s al ph a F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 N ee d fo r ac hi ev em en t 1. 89 5 0. 61 4 I w ill d o ve ry w el l i n fa ir ly d iffi cu lt ta sk s re la t- in g to m y st ud y an d m y w or k. .6 40 I w ill tr y ha rd to im pr ov e on p as t w or k pe rf or - m an ce . .6 53 I w ill s ee k ad de d re sp on si bi lit ie s in j ob s as - si gn ed to m e. .6 01 C ris is m ot iv at es m e fo r f ur th er a ch ie ve m en t. .4 53 L oc us o f c on tr ol 1. 81 4 0. 64 8 A tte nt iv en es s an d ha rd w or k us ua lly l ea d to su cc es s. .6 05 If I do n ot su cc ee d on a ta sk , I d o no t g iv e up . .7 97 I d o no t r ea lly b el ie ve in lu ck . .7 64 I a m fa irl y m an ag in g m y fin an ci al s itu at io n. .6 58 I a m a g oo d tim e- m an ag er . .8 05 In g en er al , I am a bl e to k ee p a se lf a nd a l if e ba la nc e du ri ng th e cr is is p er io d. .4 95 Se lf -e ffi ca cy 2. 40 9 0. 75 7 I h av e le ad er sh ip s ki lls th at a re n ee de d to b e an en tr ep re ne ur . .7 19 I ha ve m en ta l m at ur ity t o st ar t to b e an e nt re - pr en eu r. .8 26 M y pe rs on al c om pe te nc e is a bl e to c om m er ci al - iz e. .7 40 I h av e th e ex pe ri en ce to ru n a bu si ne ss . .6 09 In fo rm at io n an d C om m un ic at io n 2. 66 3 0. 75 9 I ha ve a cc es s to c ap ita l to s ta rt t o be a n en tr e- pr en eu r. .5 38 166 S. Mouselli, B. Khalifa. Entrepreneurship in crisis: the determinants of Syrian students’ entrepreneurial intentions C on st ru ct It em Fa ct or lo ad in g E ig en va lu e C ro nb ac h’ s al ph a F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 I ha ve g oo d so ci al n et w or ks ( e. g. , re la tiv es , fr ie nd s, e tc .) fr om w ho m I c an b en efi t w he n I de ci de to b e an e nt re pr en eu r. .7 89 I ha ve a cc es s to s up po rt in g in fo rm at io n (i nf or - m at io n ab ou t m ar ke ts a nd s ou rc es o f in pu ts , te ch no lo gi ca l so lu tio ns , de si gn , go ve rn m en t ru le s an d re gu la tio ns , e tc .) to s ta rt to b e an e n- tr ep re ne ur . .7 36 T he re qu ir ed la bo r f or m y bu si ne ss is a va ila bl e. .6 39 I ha ve a cc es s to b us in es s in cu ba to rs t ha t ca n su pp or t m e in m y bu si ne ss . .5 37 In st itu tio na l E n- vi ro nm en t 1. 80 1 0. 60 7 I do n ot fi nd d iffi cu lti es ( bu re au cr ac y) i n th e pr oc ed ur es o f re gi st er in g an d ru nn in g co m pa - ni es . .7 24 I d o no t h av e pr ob le m s re la te d to th e in fr as tr uc - tu re ( e. g. in te rn et c on ne ct io n, e le ct ri ci ty , t ra ns - po rt at io n, e tc .) .7 34 I t hi nk th at ta xe s a re w ith in a n ac ce pt ab le ra ng e. .6 76 C ri si s E ff ec t 2. 45 7 0. 76 2 M y fin an ci al s itu at io n ha s be en a ff ec te d dr a- m at ic al ly b y th e cr is es . .7 98 M y ps yc ho lo gi ca l si tu at io n ha s be en a ff ec te d dr am at ic al ly b y th e cr is es . .7 41 M y so ci al s itu at io n ha s be en a ff ec te d dr am at i- ca lly b y th e cr is es . .7 66 C ri si s re st ri ct s re so ur ce s th at a re n ec es sa ry t o st ar t u p bu si ne ss . .7 04 N ot e: E xt ra ct io n m et ho d: P ri nc ip al c om po ne nt a na ly si s. R ot at io n m et ho d: V ar im ax w ith K ai se r n or m al iz at io n. E nd o f T ab le 2 167 Business, Management and Education, 2017, 15(2): 159–173 To explore and assess the dimensionality of the scales in the questionnaire, two analyses were conducted. Firstly, an exploratory factor analysis was utilized using the principal component analysis method and the varimax rotation (Table 2). Each item that had a minus factor loading or a loading that is lower than 0.3 was deleted. The proce- dure ended up with six factors with Eigen values and factor loadings that exceeded 1 and 0.3, respectively, which satisfied the minimum values suggested by Creswell (2012). Moreover, the minimum number of items for each factor came to be 3, which responded to the criteria of defining a factor (Brown 2015). Consequently, the authors named the factors based on the meaning of their items. Secondly, the authors applied Cronbach’s alpha to measure the internal consistency of the generated factors. The values exceeded 0.6 for all of the factors, which satisfied the minimum suggested by DeVellis (2012). 5. Results In order to investigate the significant contributions of the demographic variables to the entrepreneurial intentions, t-test and ANOVA were applied. First, independent sample t-test was applied for gender, university, and faculty. Second, ANOVA was utilized for the variables of age, year of study, and work experience. Table 3 shows a significant impact of gender on entrepreneurial intentions. Males have the average entrepreneurial intentions of 4.08 compared to 3.60 for females al- though it is only at 10 percent level of significance. This result gets along with Yıldırım et al. (2016) who find lower entrepreneurial intent for females compared to males in two Turkish universities and for two similar faculties to those examined by our research. Mazzarol et al. (1999) also find that males were generally more likely to be founders of new businesses than females. It is also consistent with Kolvereid (1996) who illustrates that females had significantly less entrepreneurial intention than males in a Scandina- vian context, also Haus et al. (2013) find that men have higher average entrepreneurial intentions than women. Table 3. T-test for assessing the impact of gender, university, and faculty on entrepreneurial intentions (created by authors) Construct t Df Sig. Gender –2.683 213 0.078** University 2.380 180 0.445 Faculty –2.520 197 0.008* *’** indicates significance at 0.05 and 0.10 respectively However, Table 3 illustrates that there are no significant differences in entrepre- neurial intentions between students from private and public universities. Nevertheless, there is a significant impact for faculty on the entrepreneurial intentions, with the means of 4.29 and 3.72 for the faculty of Informatics and Communication Engineering and the 168 S. Mouselli, B. Khalifa. Entrepreneurship in crisis: the determinants of Syrian students’ entrepreneurial intentions faculty of Business and Economics, respectively. This result indicates that managerial skills usually taught to Business and Economics students have less impact on forming entrepreneurial intentions compared to technical skills taught to Informatics and Com- munication Engineering students. Table 4. ANOVA for assessing the impact of age, year of study, and work experience on entre- preneurial intentions (created by authors) Construct F Df Sig. Age 1.163 2 0.315 Year of study 0.963 4 0.429 Work Experience 5.976 3 0.001* *significant at 0.05 Table 4 shows no significant impacts for age and year of study on entrepreneurial intentions. However, there is a significant impact for work experience on entrepreneurial intentions. The means were 4.62, 4.07, 3.59, and 3.38 for the groups of business owner, private sector employee, not worker, and public or government sector employee, re- spectively. Thereafter, a multiple regression analysis was run to investigate the impact of the six extracted factors: need for achievement, locus of control, self-efficacy, information and communication, institutional environment, and crisis effect on entrepreneurial inten- tions. Table 5 below illustrates the results from running this multiple regression. Table 5. Direct effects’ coefficients (created by authors) The relationship Estimate P-value Entrepreneurial Intentions <--- Need for achievement 0.055 0.707 Entrepreneurial Intentions <--- Locus of control 0.127 0.440 Entrepreneurial Intentions <--- Self-efficacy 0.416 0.000* Entrepreneurial Intentions <--- Information and Communication 0.441 0.000* Entrepreneurial Intentions <--- Institutional Environment 0.186 0.053** Entrepreneurial Intentions <--- Crisis Effect 0.026 0.763 *’** indicates significance at 0.05 and 0.10 respectively Table 5 shows insignificant impacts for the need for achievement and locus of con- trol on the entrepreneurial intentions of Syrian students. This result is consistent with Kristiansen and Indarti (2004) for both Norwegian and Indonesian students. However, there are significant and positive impacts for self-efficacy and information and com- munication on the entrepreneurial intentions, with a greater impact for information and communication. This also consistent with Kristiansen and Indarti (2004), Peng et al. 169 Business, Management and Education, 2017, 15(2): 159–173 (2012) and Esfandiar et al. (2017) who document a positive and significant impact of self-efficacy on entrepreneurial intention. Institutional environment is only significant at 10 percent level of significance. This gets along with the argument of Stephen et al. (2005) that environmental formal vari- ables such as legal rules and government support measures and procedures (number and complexity) are critical in start-up decision. The crisis effect seems insignificant determinant of entrepreneurial intentions. Crisis neither motivates students to establish their entrepreneurial intentions nor harm their entrepreneurial intentions. 6. Conclusions and recommendations This paper illustrates the state of entrepreneurial intentions among a sample of Syrian students in two major universities; Damascus University (public) and Arab International University (private). It explores the differences in entrepreneurial intentions among stu- dents from different faculties at those universities. The results clearly indicate supe- riority in entrepreneurial intentions for Informatics and Communication Engineering students with no significant difference in entrepreneurial intentions between universities. The lower entrepreneurial intentions among females compared to males is a source of concern. It may reflect the result of social context (e.g., traditions and norms) that determine gender roles as suggested by Welter (2011) more than a result of discrimina- tion in market access (Sullivan, Meek 2012). However, investigating the causes of such differences in the Syrian context deserves further investigation. This research clearly indicates the importance of self-efficacy on forming entrepre- neurial intentions. The self-confidence of acquiring the necessary skills and competencies to start-up ventures seem to be crucial determinants in forming entrepreneurial intentions. Hence, providing students with training on job-market skills and providing them with traineeship as part of their study programs would enhance their entrepreneurial intentions. Information and communication and institutional environment affect students’ en- trepreneurial intentions. This is expected given the lack of financial resources in Syria during the crisis and the difficulty in obtaining information. Having social networks, easy access to funds and information reduce uncertainty and provide students with the required assurance to form their entrepreneurial intentions. This research has a number of implications on individual, institutional and national levels. First, Informatics and Communication Engineering students should develop their entrepreneurial skills to turn their intentions into enterprises. This can be achieved through following formal and informal training on different entrepreneurial skills. Sec- ond, students from both faculties are advised to form teams to share and mix ideas and complement their skills. Hence, universities could organize entrepreneurial activities that mix students from different genders and disciplines in major events such as start-up weekends. Third, establishing university-attached incubators and science parks would 170 S. Mouselli, B. Khalifa. Entrepreneurship in crisis: the determinants of Syrian students’ entrepreneurial intentions provide students with excellent venues to develop their ideas and strengthen their rela- tions with funding bodies and industry which are expected to enhance students’ entre- preneurial intentions. Forth, the Syrian government should make more efforts to reduce bureaucracy and taxes and improve infrastructure to enhance students’ entrepreneurial intentions. Three caveats can be mentioned here. First, this research does not distinguish, while examining the impact of investigated factors, between faculties or universities. In other words, students from different faculties and universities may differently be affected by attributes and contexts. Second, although we attempt to disentangle the impact of Syr- ian war in forming entrepreneurial intentions from other factors, we should admit that it may still be implicit in other factors. Third, other important variables that affect the forming of entrepreneurial intentions may be at work but not considered in the paper. We suggest the following possible venues of future research. First of all, a careful analysis of the factors that affect the formation and development of entrepreneurial intentions for each faculty could be performed to consider the special attributes of each discipline. Then, given that entrepreneurial intentions are formed from the interaction of internal and external factors, an examination of how the Syrian war affects not only the individual factors but also the interaction between those factors could reveal interesting remarks. Next, the investigation of the impact of entrepreneurial education on forming entrepreneurial intentions is also a gap and an interesting topic that deserves further research in the Syrian context. Acknowledgments Authors are thankful to the respondents who devoted their time generously to fill out the questionnaires. Our appreciation is also extended to the editor and two anonymous review- ers of Business, Management and Education. We are also thankful for Dr. Kinaz Al Aytouni for the valuable comments and suggestions which helped us to improve the questionnaire. Disclosure statement The authors declare that they do not have any competing financial, professional, or personal interests from other parties. References Aldrich, H. E.; Zimmer, C. 1986. Entrepreneurship through social networks, in D. Sexton and R. Smi- lor (Eds.). The art and science of entrepreneurship. New York: Ballinger, 3–23. Ajzen, I. 1991. Theory of planned behavior, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50: 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749–5978(91)90020-T Bandura, A. 1977. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 171 Business, Management and Education, 2017, 15(2): 159–173 Block, J.; Hoogerheide, L.; Thurik, R. 2013. Education and entrepreneurial choice: an instrumental variables analysis, International Small Business Journal 31(1): 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242611400470 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: 63–77. Brown, T. A. 2015. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. 2nd ed. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Bygrave, W. D. 1989. The entrepreneurship paradigm (II): chaos and catastrophes among quantum jumps, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 14(2): 7–30. Crant, J. M. 1996. The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions, Journal of Small Business Management 34(3): 42–49. Creswell, J. W. 2012. Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. 4th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc. Davidsson, P. 1989. Continued entrepreneurship and small firm growth. Stockholm: The Economic Research Institute (diss.). Davidsson, P. 1991. Continued entrepreneurship: ability, need, and opportunity as determinants of small firm growth, Journal of business venturing 6(6): 405–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883–9026(91)90028-C Davidsson, P. 1995a. Small firms: has their role as job creators been exaggerated? Paper presented at the 40th ICSB World Conference, Sydney, June 18–21. Davidsson, P. 1995b. SMEs and job creation in Sweden. Report submitted to the OECD. DeVellis, R. F. 2012. Scale development: theory and applications. Los Angeles: Sage. Esfandiar, K.; Sharifi-Tehrani, M.; Pratt, S.; Altinay, L. 2017. Understanding entrepreneurial inten- tions: a developed integrated structural model approach, Journal of Business Research (forthcoming). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.10.045 Green, R.; David, J.; Dent, M.; Tyshkovsky, A. 1996. The Russian entrepreneur: a study of psycho- logical characteristics, International Journal of Entrepreneurship Behavior and Research 2(1): 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552559610110718 Guerrero, M.; Rialp, J.; Urbano, D. 2008. The impact of desirability and feasibility on entrepreneurial intentions: a structural equation model, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 4(1): 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365–006–0032-x Haus, I.; Steinmetz, H.; Isidor, R.; Kabst, R. 2013. Gender effects on entrepreneurial intention: a meta-analytical structural equation model, International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship 5(2): 130–156. https://doi.org/10.1108/17566261311328828 Hyde, A. 1998. Silicon Valley’s high‐velocity labor market, Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 11(2): 28–37. Kolvereid, L. 1996. Prediction of employment status choice intentions, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 21(1): 47–58. Kristiansen, S.; Indarti, N. 2004. Entrepreneurial intention among Indonesian and Norwegian students, Journal of Enterprising Culture 12(1): 55–78. https://doi.org/10.1142/S021849580400004X Krueger, N. F. 2009. Entrepreneurial intentions are dead: long live entrepreneurial intentions, in A. Carsrud, M. Brännback (Eds.). Understanding the entrepreneurial mind: opening the black box. New York: Springer, 51–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/978–1-4419–0443–0_4 172 S. Mouselli, B. Khalifa. Entrepreneurship in crisis: the determinants of Syrian students’ entrepreneurial intentions Krueger, N.; Carsrud, A. 1993. Entrepreneurial intentions: applying the theory of planned behavior, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 5: 315–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985629300000020 Krueger, N. F.; Brazeal, D. V. 1994. Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs, Entrepre- neurship Theory and Practice 18: 91–104. Lüthje, C.; Franke, N. 2003. The “making” of an entrepreneur: testing a model of entrepreneurial intent among engineering students at MIT, R&d Management 33(2): 135–147. Mazzarol, T.; Volery, T.; Doss, N.; Thein, V. 1999. Factors influencing small business start-ups: a comparison with previous research, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 5(2): 48–63. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552559910274499 McClelland, D. 1961. The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1037/14359–000 Medyanik, O.; Al-Jawni, F. 2017. An investigation of students’ social entrepreneurial intentions in Syria: an empirical test, Modernizing Academic Teaching and Research in Business and Economics, 85–114. Peng, Z.; Lu, G.; Kang, H. 2012. Entrepreneurial intentions and its influencing factors: a survey of the university students in Xi’an China, Creative Education 3: 95–100. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2012.38B021 Robinson, P. B.; Stimpson, D. V.; Huefner, J. C.; Hunt, H. K. 1991. An attitude approach to the predic- tion of entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 15(4): 13–31. Rotter, J. B. 1966. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external locus of control of reinforce- ment, Psychological Monographs 80: 1–28. Scherer, R. F.; Adams, J. S.; Carley, S.; Wiebe, F. A. 1989. Role model performance effects on de- velopment of entrepreneurial career preference, Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice 13(3): 53–71. Shapero, A. 1982. Social dimensions of entrepreneurship, in C. Kent, D. Sexton and K. Vesper (Eds.). The encyclopedia of entrepreneurship. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 72–90. Shapero, A.; Sokol, L. 1982. The social dimensions of entrepreneurship, in C. Kent, L. Sexton and K. Vesper (Eds.). Encylopedia of entrepreneurship. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 72–90. Stephen, F. H.; Urbano, D.; Van Hemmen, S. 2005. The impact of institutions on entrepreneurial activ- ity, Managerial and Decision Economics 26(7): 413–419. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.1254 Sullivan, D. M.; Meek, W. R. 2012. Gender and entrepreneurship: a review and process model, Journal of Managerial Psychology 27(5): 428–458. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941211235373 Thornton, P. H.; Ribeiro-Soriano, D.; Urbano, D. 2011. Socio-cultural factors and entrepreneurial activity: an overview, International Small Business Journal 29(2): 105–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242610391930 Van de Ven, A. H. 1993. The development of an infrastructure for entrepreneurship, Journal of Busi- ness Venturing 8(3): 211–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883–9026(93)90028–4 Veciana, J. M.; Aponte, M.; Urbano, D. 2005. University students’ attitudes towards entrepreneur- ship: a two countries comparison, The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 1(2): 165–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365–005–1127–5 Veldhoven, G. M.; Wärneryd, K-E. (Eds.). Handbook of economic psychology. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Wärneryd, K. E. 1988. The psychology of innovative entrepreneurship, in van W. F. Raaij, G. M. van Veldhoven, K. E. Wärneryd (Eds.). Handbook of economic psychology. Springer, Dordrecht. 173 Business, Management and Education, 2017, 15(2): 159–173 Walstad, W. B.; Kourilsky, M. L. 1998. Entrepreneurial attitudes and knowledge of black youth, En- trepreneurship Theory and Practice 23: 5–18. Welter, F. 2011. Contextualizing entrepreneurship – conceptual challenges and ways forward, Entre- preneurship Theory and Practice 35(1): 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540–6520.2010.00427.x World Bank. 2017. The toll of war: the economic and social consequences of the conflict in Syria 2017. World Bank working paper, Report number 117331, Vol. 2. World Bank. 2015. Small enterprises in the Middle East and North Africa face risks and rewards in the public market. World Bank. Yıldırım, N.; Çakır, Ö.; Aşkun, O. B. 2016. Ready to dare? A case study on the entrepreneurial inten- tions of business and engineering students in Turkey, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 229: 277–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.07.138 Sulaiman MOUSELLI. Lecturer in Finance and dean of the faculty of Business Administration, Arab International University. Damascus, Syria. He is also the head of the center for research and training support in Business Administration at AIU. He has a number of publications in high ranking journals such as The British Accounting Review (BAR), ABACUS, International Review of Financial Analysis, Business: Theory and Practice, Journal of Applied Accounting Research, Journal of Risk Finance and Journal of the Knowledge Economy. Research Interest: stock market anomalies, asset pricing models, corporate governance, entrepreneurship, and macroeconomic risk. Bayan KHALIFA. Affiliated with the Centre for Higher Education Governance Ghent, Ghent University. Bayan Khalifa is also a volunteering qualitative data analyst at Erasmus Mundus Student and Alumni Association, EU. Khalifa holds BA and MA in Economics and Management from Damascus University, Syria. She was the Chair of the National Higher Education Reform Experts’ Team in Syria, Erasmus+ Programme, EU. Khalifa was also a Lecturer at the Arab International University, Syria. She is also an author and reviewer to several international academic journals published by Emerald and Elsevier.