Volume 7 No 2 (2018) | ISSN 2158-8708 (online) | DOI 10.5195/emaj.2018.134 | http://emaj.pitt.edu University-related Factors influencing Technological Entrepreneurial Intentions of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Students: A Comparative Study of Private and Public Universities Clement Mwaanga Mulungushi University, Zambia | e-mail: mwaangac@mu.ac.zm Edwin Moyo Mulungushi University, Zambia | e-mail: emoyo@mu.ac.zm Kelly Chungu Mulungushi University, Zambia | e-mail: kchungu@mu.ac.zm Abstract This study aims to establish university-related factors that influence the formation of technological entrepreneurial intentions (TEIs) among STEM students in Zambia. The article extends the Ajzen Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) model by including environmental factors that were tested using a comparative study of public and private students, with quantitative data obtained from a sample of 400 STEM students and analyzed using structural equation Modelling (SEM). This paper contributes to emerging literature on TEIs by incorporating environmental variables into the TPB model to explain the formation of STEM students' TEIs. This study provides insights into the significance of pressure from friends, family and other networks and positive perception of technological entrepreneurial activities on the formation of TEIs in students. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to utilize the extended TPB on STEM Students in Zambia. This research also contributes to the existing literature on technopreneurship by comparing the formation of TEIs of STEM students in private and public universities. The findings suggest that attitudes towards entrepreneurship (ATE), subjective norms (SN) and perceived behavioral control (PBC) have a direct impact on TEIs for private university students and ATE and PBC for public university students. University support (US) influences TEIs through (SN) for both private and public university students. Additionally, the university environment affects TEIs through three antecedents (ATE, SN and PBC) for private university students, while teaching methods (TM) show no association with TEIs. Keywords: Technopreneurship, Technological Intentions, University Support, University Environment, Teaching Methods *The study was supported by a research grant from Mulungushi University as an internal grant fund. The research was carried out under research program of Mulungushi University. New articles in this journal are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License. This journal is published by the University Library System of the University of Pittsburgh as part of its D-Scribe Digital Publishing Program, and is cosponsored by the University of Pittsburgh Press. Volume 13 No 2 (2023) | ISSN 2158-8708 (online) | DOI 10.5195/emaj.2023.312 | http://emaj.pitt.edu | mailto:mwaangac@mu.ac.zm mailto:emoyo@mu.ac.zm mailto:kchungu@mu.ac.zm http://www.library.pitt.edu/ http://www.pitt.edu/ http://www.library.pitt.edu/articles/digpubtype/index.html http://www.upress.pitt.edu/upressIndex.aspx http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/ Volume 13 No 2 (2023) | ISSN 2158-8708 (online) | DOI 10.5195/emaj.2023.312 | http://emaj.pitt.edu University-related Factors influencing Technological Entrepreneurial Intentions of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Students: A Comparative Study of Private and Public Universities Page |14| Emerging Markets Journal University-related Factors influencing Technological Entrepreneurial Intentions of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Students: A Comparative Study of Private and Public Universities Clement Mwaanga Edwin Moyo Kelly Chungu I. Introduction Given their critical role, technological entrepreneurship intentions (TEIs) play a role in enhancing growth through the elimination of economic inefficiencies, the introduction of innovations in the markets and employment creation. Studies on technological intentions have gained significant attention among policymakers and educators (Koe et. al., 2018). In the era of technological digitalization, technological entrepreneurship is regarded as the basis for competitiveness, sustainable economic growth and the promotion of social interests (Linan et. al., 2015). Technopreneurship as a field of study has continued to receive significant attention in developing countries because of positive student perceptions of technological growth and its effects on EIs (Nathani and Divedo, 2019). This calls for the need to increase the intensity of students' EIs, which may result in a change in mindset so that they can focus on self-employment rather than formal employment (Maheshwari et. al., 2022). The literature has identified universities as ideal places for establishing how technological entrepreneurs are developed and enhanced among students (Mosey, 2016), which has led to an increase in the number of studies exploring the influence of environmental factors such as university support, university environment and teaching methods on the formation of students' EIs. Prior studies have indicated that students entrepreneurial intentions are positively influenced by university support (Liu, Gargievski, Qi and Pass, 2022; Yi 2021; Qazi, Qureshi, Raza, Khan and Qureshi, 2020), university environment (Tommy and Pardede, 2020; Lopez and Alverez, 2019; Canever, Barrel and Ribeiro, 2017) and methods employed in teaching entrepreneurship education (Karim et. al., 2016; Hattab, 2014). Despite the recognized importance of these factors individually, a comprehensive understanding of how they synergistically contribute to or hinder the development of entrepreneurial aspirations among STEM students remains elusive. In the rapidly evolving landscape of entrepreneurship education, there exists a pressing need to comprehensively investigate the interplay between university support mechanisms, the overarching university environment, and diverse teaching methods to discern their collective influence on shaping entrepreneurial intentions among students (Aliedan, Elshaer, Alyahya and Sobaih, 2022). Furthermore, few studies have explored the concept of technological entrepreneurship, how technology enterprises are created, as well as what motivates and hinders individuals to engage in that behavior, especially among university graduates (Shane and Venkataraman, 2003). A systematic review conducted by Maheshwari et. al. (2022) proposed the need for the inclusion of environmental factors in the theory of planned behavior (TPB) model and examined them on students in other parts of the world, such as Africa, since most of the studies on EIs have been conducted in Asia. Additionally, several prior studies have called for more research to investigate the development of technological entrepreneurial intentions among STEM students (Wright et. al., 2017; Alves et. al., 2019; Wright et. al., 2019). Therefore, this research aims to bridge this gap by exploring the intricate relationships among university support structures, the overall entrepreneurial climate within the university and the effectiveness of various teaching methods in cultivating and enhancing entrepreneurial intentions among STEM students. Through a nuanced examination of these dimensions, this study seeks to provide actionable insights for educators, policymakers and institutions to refine entrepreneurial education strategies and foster an environment conducive to nurturing the next generation of innovative and enterprising individuals." II. Literature Review Technopreneurship Technopreneurship, or technological entrepreneurship, is a unique form of entrepreneurship that results from the combination of three aspects: Entrepreneurship, innovation and technology (Nacu and Avasilcai, 2014). A seminal author on technology entrepreneurship, Tony Bailetti defined technology entrepreneurship as the “Deployment of resources to create a project managed by specialised individuals with different expertise directly linked to scientific and technological knowledge to create and sustain value for the business”. Bailetti (2012) as well as Nathani and Dwivedi (2017) observed that technology entrepreneurship can occur in three distinct forms: Technology entrepreneurship (news business ventures or products resulting from research), digital technology entrepreneurship (a bath of new business ventures or products through ICT technologies) and digital entrepreneurship (new internet products/services). This study defines technology entrepreneurship as the combination of technological know-how with entrepreneurial skills and talent to create new products, processes and ventures (Yordanova, 2021). A recent study Volume 13 No 2 (2023) | ISSN 2158-8708 (online) | DOI 10.5195/emaj.2023.312 | http://emaj.pitt.edu Clement Mwaanga, Edwin Moyo, Kelly Chungu Emerging Markets Journal Page |15| by Nazarov et. al. (2017) suggested that human beings, expertise, experience and government support are key factors that influence the development of technology entrepreneurship. Entreprenurial Intentions In exploring the formation of students’ entrepreneurial intentions, several studies have employed three models, namely, Luthje and Franke’s model and Shapero and Ajzen’s TPB model (Gieure, Benavides- Espinosa and Roig-Dobón 2019; Karimi, Biemans, Mahdei, Lans, Chizari and Mulder, 2017; Nabi et.al., 2010). This study is anchored in Ajzen's TPB, an extension of the Theory of Reasoned Action (Saraih et. al., 2017) due to its increased utilization in entrepreneurial intention studies, its popularity and its strength in explaining behavioral intentions (Ajzen, 2011). The TPB model suggests that developing a positive perception influences entrepreneurial intentions, which in turn results in behavior (Vracheva, Abu-Rahma and Jacques, 2018). Positive perceptions of individual capacity and the ability to engage in business activities accepted by community members increase entrepreneurial intention. In this study, we extended the TPB model by incorporating three constructs as independent variables (teaching methods, university support and university environment). The extended TPB model presents an opportunity to establish the indirect effects of independent variables on the development of students’ entrepreneurial intentions in public and private universities. TPB utilizes three accurate constructs to predict human behavior and actions. These are attitudes towards entrepreneurship (ATE), subjective norms (SN) and perceived behavioral control (PBC) (Maheshwari et.al., 2022). An ATE is a representation of how an individual views the entrepreneurial outcome, which may be negative or positive. SN refers to one's perception of how the immediate environment (e.g., peers, family and networks) responds to the idea of venture creation. PBC relates to an individual's perception of available factors, which may promote or hinder entrepreneurial behaviors. These constructs have been applied in several EI studies and have proved significant in the formation of students (Srivastava and Misra, 2017; Agolla, Monametsia and Phera, 2019; Naushad, 2018). Furthermore, other studies have also supported the argument that TPB constructs play a significant role in students' entrepreneurial intentions (Said, Uthamaputhran, Zulkiffi, Hong and Wai, 2021; Nguyen, 2020; Ajum, Ramzani and Nazer, 2019; Karimi et. al., 2017; Gieure et al., 2019). Entrepreneurship Intentions Recently, several studies have used TPB to explain how students’ entrepreneurial intention has developed (Aloulou, 2016). Individuals decide to create a new business venture after conducting a serious analysis of the environment and developing attitudes as well as beliefs to act through proper planning. Intentions influence a person to engage in certain planned behaviors perceived to be rewarding, unique and timely (Nuseir, Basheer and Aljumah, 2020). A self-employed career is heavily dependent on one's developed intentions or is sometimes referred to as human behavior. Santos and Liguori (2019) described entrepreneurial intentions as individual beliefs that influence the interest in and decision to start a new business venture or engage in entrepreneurial activities. Several factors affect entrepreneurial intentions, especially among students in universities that can be public or private and that offer different institutional environments. This makes the time and place where students are instrumental in creating entrepreneurs (Dornelas, 2005). However, the development of intentions among students in private and public universities differs because of the different contingent variables found at each university. Studies have shown that students from private universities exhibit higher entrepreneurial intentions than their counterparts from public universities (Barral, Ribeiro and Canever, 2018; Silva and Teixeira, 2013; Perim, 2012). Therefore, this study assumes that the private university environment is more effective than the public environment in influencing students' entrepreneurial intentions. Environmental Factors Studies on the influence of environmental factors on entrepreneurial intentions have received much attention among scholars because of the significant role they play in the development of intentions (North, 2005). According to Lüthje and Franke (2003), the presence of environmental factors can influence, inspire or motivate an individual to recognize and exploit available business opportunities. However, in the context of developing countries such as Zambia, little has been done to explore the significance of environmental factors in the process of new venture creation (Bruton et. al., 2008). In this study, three environmental factors (university support, university environment and teaching methods) were explored to establish their direct and indirect effects on STEM students’ EI. According to Fishbein and Ajzen (2010), environmental factors can have direct or indirect effects on entrepreneurial intentions through TPB constructs. University Support Trivedi (2016) described university support (US) as programs aimed at stimulating students’ entrepreneurial behaviors, such as networking, counselling, coaching, mentoring, providing business advice and other business-related activities. These factors have been directly linked to students' entrepreneurial intentions in universities, especially in developed countries (Boh et. al., 2016). Institutions of higher learning are nuclear points of interaction in the development of students' entrepreneurial intentions (Saeed, Yousafzai and Muffatto, 2015). Students’ entrepreneurial intentions are enhanced by creating entrepreneurial awareness through the educational programs offered in these institutions and entrepreneurship education. Apart from educational support, universities provide other forms of support, such as advising students on business activities (Saeed et. al., 2015), training students in business concept development and other business development support services (Mustafa et. al., 2016). Students' positive evolution of education support, concept development support and other business development support services increase their entrepreneurial intentions. Similar studies have reported a positive relationship between university support and Volume 13 No 2 (2023) | ISSN 2158-8708 (online) | DOI 10.5195/emaj.2023.312 | http://emaj.pitt.edu University-related Factors influencing Technological Entrepreneurial Intentions of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Students: A Comparative Study of Private and Public Universities Page |16| Emerging Markets Journal entrepreneurial intention (Mustafa et. al., 2016; Trived, 2016; Saeed et. al., 2015; Lüthje and Franke, 2003) University Environment The University environment (UE) provides learners with opportunities to acquire the skills required to develop a career destination in a community (Gieure, 2018). The university environment may include people with business ideas, established business ventures and resources to assist students and infrastructure to support start-ups. Students who perceive these factors positively have a higher chance of developing intentions to engage in entrepreneurial activities (Franke and Lüthje, 2004). Therefore, university environmental factors may promote or hinder the development of entrepreneurial intention. Prior studies have acknowledged that university environment has a positive influence on entrepreneurial intentions (Maheshwari, 2022; Martinez-Clement et.al., 2018; Gieure, 2018; Kabok et.al, 2017; Minola et.al., 2016; Shirokova et.al., 2016). A study conducted by Wright et.al. (2017) identified university elements, such as accelerators, incubators, access to grants and competition among STEM students as significant factors in the development of technological entrepreneurship intentions. Similarly, a recent study conducted by Baubonienė, Hahn, Puksas and Malinauskienė (2018) described the university as a perfect environment for the creation of a start-up or new business venture. Teaching Methods The teaching methods (TMs) applied to relationship-related programs have a strong influence on students' interest in venturing into entrepreneurship, developing a community of entrepreneurs and enhancing their motivation towards start-ups (Souitaris et.al., 2007). Universities should design and operationalize teaching methods that promote entrepreneurial behavior. Therefore, universities should apply a combination of practices on how to start a business venture, the use of computer games and simulation, critical thinking and reflective teaching strategies to promote entrepreneurship among students (Neck and Green, 2011). A comparative study conducted at Lithuanian and South Korean universities reported a positive relationship between the use of practicals as a teaching pedagogy and students’ entrepreneurial intention (Baubonienė, Hahn, Puksas and Malinauskienė, 2018). Exposing students to business practices, such as business camps, competition and role- play significantly impacts their entrepreneurial intentions. III. Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses The hypotheses of research are formulated as follows: H1. ATE has a positive influence on STEM students’ technological entrepreneurial intentions. H2. SN has a positive influence on STEM students’ technological entrepreneurial intentions. H3. PBC has a positive influence on STEM students’ technological entrepreneurial intentions. H4. University support has direct effects on STEM students: (a) ATE, (b) SN, (c) PBC and (d) technological entrepreneurial intentions. H5. University environment has direct effects on STEM students (a) ATE, (b) SN, (c) PBC, and (d) technological entrepreneurial intentions. H6. Teaching methods have direct effects on STEM students (a) ATE, (b) SN, (c) PBC, and (d) technological entrepreneurial intentions. IV. Research Conceptual Framework This study will be anchored on insights from the theory of planned behavior (TPB) to develop hypotheses based on the constructs presented in this conceptual framework. Figure 1. Conceptual Framework Source: Baubonienė et.al., 2018; Ajzen, 2011; Mustafa et.al., 2016; Lüthje and Franke, 2003 V. Methodology In this study, a sample size of 400 STEM students from two public and two private universities in Zambia were surveyed between July and September 2022. Convenience sampling was utilized, as in other entrepreneurial intention studies (Boubker, Arroud and Quajdouni, 2021; Lu, Song and Pan, 2021; Karimi, 2019; Liu, Lin, Zhao and Zhao, 2019; Karimi et.al., 2017; Liñán and Chen, 2009; Krueger et.al., 2000). A total of 400 questionnaires were distributed and all completed questionnaires were returned, representing a 100% response rate. As per Hair, Black, Babin and Anderson (2010), the survey responses were scrutinized to check for missing data and possible outliers. The survey instrument contained items adopted from Baubonienė et.al. (2018) and was measured using a 5- point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). TEI was measured using seven items: ATE 3, SN 4, PBC 5, US and UE, while TM had four items. VI. Findings Table 1 shows that there were more (95.5%) students aged between 16 and 25 years in public universities than in private universities (76%). In terms of gender, public universities had more males (66.5%) than private universities (51.5%). This indicates that universities in Zambia are male-dominated. Furthermore, private universities reported a higher number (40%) of Volume 13 No 2 (2023) | ISSN 2158-8708 (online) | DOI 10.5195/emaj.2023.312 | http://emaj.pitt.edu Clement Mwaanga, Edwin Moyo, Kelly Chungu Emerging Markets Journal Page |17| students engaged in entrepreneurial activities and less work experience (47.5%). The results suggest that most students in public universities are more interested in getting employed than their counterparts in private universities are. Table 1: Demographic Profile of Respondents Source: Authors' compilation Regarding future career plans, 42% of the students from public universities considered working as an employee a priority, while 20.5% of them from private universities considered this a priority. On starting technology-related enterprises, more (67.5%) students from public universities agreed with this statement and 56% from private universities. The findings revealed that more students from public universities have plans to start their technology-related enterprises after completing their undergraduate studies, and only 52.5% of them were interested in postgraduate studies compared to private universities, where most of them (76.5%) would like to pursue postgraduate studies, as indicated in figure 2. Figure 2. Public and Private Universities Students’ Plans Source: Authors' compilation Factor Analysis Table 2 presents the factor loadings for the 36 items used to measure the seven constructs used in this study. All loadings were above .5, an indication of the reliability of factors and the acceptability of the research model for structural equation modelling (SEM). Table 2: Factor Loadings Source: Authors' compilation Structural Equation Modelling Table 3: Goodness of Fit Indices for the Proposed and Revised Models The first step was to check the reliability and construct validity of the measurement model using a confirmatory factor analysis, as proposed by Hair et.al. (2010). The results do not report a model fit, as indicated in Table 3. Adjustments were made to the model using a conservative strategy to achieve model fit. Additionally, discriminant validity was achieved by having factor loadings for all seven constructs greater than .5. Source: Authors' compilation The construct reliability for all the constructs was above the recommended value of .70 (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994) as indicated in Table 2. The second step was to test our hypotheses. Table 4 presents the evidence supporting the seven hypotheses. A positive association was found between ATE and EIs for both the public (coef. .511; p= 0.000), and private (Coef. .382; p=.001) universities. SN is positively related to EIs among private university students (Coef. .694; p= .000), whereas for Volume 13 No 2 (2023) | ISSN 2158-8708 (online) | DOI 10.5195/emaj.2023.312 | http://emaj.pitt.edu University-related Factors influencing Technological Entrepreneurial Intentions of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Students: A Comparative Study of Private and Public Universities Page |18| Emerging Markets Journal public university students, it was not statistically significant (Coef. .039; p= .679). We found evidence to support Hypotheses H1, H2 and H3. Table 4: Results of Structural Equation Modelling *p<.05 Source: Authors compilation Mixed results were observed for the association between the independent variables and antecedents of EIs. University support was found to be associated with both ATE (coef. -.024; p=.552: Coef. -.056; p=.240) and PBC (Coef. -.028; p=.619: Coef. .040; p= .485) for both public and private university students, whereas a positive interaction was observed in both cases (Coef. -.132; p=.008: Coef. .320; p=.000). Thus, hypotheses H4a and H4c are accepted, while hypothesis H4b is not. Furthermore, university environment was positively associated with ATE (Coef. .178; p=000), SN (Coef. .127; p=.016 and PBC (Coef. .175; p=.003) for public university students, providing evidence for hypotheses H5a, H5b, and H5c. For private universities, the interactions are not statistically significant (Table 4). Finally, no statistically significant relationships were observed between TM and ATE (Coef. .007; p=.907: Coef. .095; p= .165), SN (Coef. .106; p= .179: Coef.-.115; p= .258) and PBC (Coef. .164; p=.067: Coef. .140; p= .093) for both public and private university students. No evidence was found to support Hypotheses H6a, H6b, and H6c. VII. Discussion This study extends the TPB by including environmental constructs (university support, university environment and teaching methods) to establish whether they are directly or indirectly related to the EIs of STEM students in public and private universities in Zambia. The findings revealed two important aspects of TPB. First, the Ajzen (1991) TPB model is applicable to studies of students' entrepreneurial intentions. Second, TPB is not restricted to a specific economic situation (Iakovleva et.al., 2011). This confirms the universality of the TPB in that the theory can be utilized to explain the formation of students' EIs in a different context. This is contrary to the claims made by Bruton et.al. (2008) that the explanatory power of theories developed in efficiency-driven economies exhibits a low ability to explain the interactions between variables when applied to factor-driven economies such as Zambia. ATE and PBC for both public and private universities STEM students were positively associated with EIs, while SN reported a positive influence on the EIs of private university students only. The results confirm the findings of previous studies that reported the direct influence of the three antecedents on EI (Gieure, 2019; Hussain and Imran, 2018; Farrukh et.al., 2018). An explanation for this is that students in both public and private universities consider technology entrepreneurship as an attractive, satisfying, and advantageous career option and that they can identify new opportunities, create new products and services that satisfy customers’ needs, and successfully launch new ventures that influence their EIs. In contrast, the relationship between students' EIs and SN was not statistically significant for public university students, as reported in prior studies (Barba- Sanchez et.al., 2022; Agolla, Monametsi and Phera, 2018; Arrighetti et al., 2016; Buli and Yesuf, 2015). This is because public universities are characterized by many professors engaged in scientific research, sourcing for scholarships and funding that are made available to students (Barral, Ribeiro and Canever, 2018). The influence of professors could be stronger than that of friends, family or other networks, hindering the process of developing TEIs. Students in public universities value advice from professors more than advice from peers, while in private universities with small numbers of professors, advice from peers significantly influences their TEIs. The US was found to be directly related to SN for both public and private university students and indirectly related to TEI for private university students. This indicates that the US is indirectly related to students' EIs, as in similar studies (Veracheva, 2018; Trivedi, 2016; Rosique-Blasco et al., 2016). This can be attributed to the fact that private universities provide advice to students; access to well-developed infrastructure, finance, innovation centers and laboratories; good conditions for research; and competition for business ideas increases their social pressure expectations, which then influences their TEIs. However, there were no significant relationships between US, ATE and PBC for public and private university students. These results are contrary to the findings of previous studies that have reported a positive relationship between the antecedents of EIs (ATE and PBC) and EIs (Said et.al., 2021; Nguyen, 2020; Ajum, Ramzani and Nazer, 2019; Karimi et.al., 2019; Gieure et.al., 2019; Karimi et.al., 2014; Linan and Chen, 2009) and can be linked to a negative evaluation of US provided to students, which results in failure to stimulate the TPB elements. Fishbein and Ajzen described TPB elements as elements that are not intrinsic, but something that individuals develop during their daily encounters. Public and private universities have different environmental setups that may influence students' EIs differently (Barral et.al., 2018). Mixed results have been reported in this study. UE has been reported to have a direct impact on ATE, SN and PBC for public university students and no relationships have been found for private universities. Regarding students' TEIs, an indirect relationship was observed through ATE and PBC for both private and private universities, and through SN for private universities. The results suggest that students in public universities have a positive evaluation of university environmental variables (encouragement to pursue their business ideas, interaction with idea champions and role models, exposure to entrepreneurship education, access to Volume 13 No 2 (2023) | ISSN 2158-8708 (online) | DOI 10.5195/emaj.2023.312 | http://emaj.pitt.edu Clement Mwaanga, Edwin Moyo, Kelly Chungu Emerging Markets Journal Page |19| resources and infrastructure that support venture creation), which results in a positive evaluation of technology entrepreneurship behavior. In addition, their perception of the available factors increased their confidence and ability to start technology-related enterprises. These findings support those of recent studies (Maheshwari, 2022; Martinez-Clement et.al., 2018; Gieure, 2018; Kabok et.al., 2017). TM was not found to be related to ATE, SN, PBC or TEIs. Therefore, there is no indirect relationship between TM and TEIs in both public and private universities. This may be because the content of the programs developed and the methods of delivery being used are not effective in developing technology entrepreneurial intentions or the focus is on theories (Yordanova, 2021). When students are exposed to practical business sessions, computer games, simulations, workshops and other practical learning activities, they develop positive attitudes towards business venture creation. Several recent studies have stressed the significance of employing practical-based teaching methods to stimulate the development of TEIs among students (Samsone et.al., 2021; Onjewu et.al., 2021; Fiore et.al., 2019; Compose et.al., 2017). VIII. Practical Implications These findings have several implications for educators and policymakers. This study demonstrates the importance of extending the TPB by including environmental variables in exploring TEIs. By so doing, the study has made a significant contribution to the body of literature by testing the applicability of the Ajzen (1991) TPB model in different contexts (Karimi, 2017; Gupta, Javadian and Jalili, 2014) specifically in the Zambian context. The findings of this study have reported that STEM students' assessment of social pressure from friends, family and other networks did not influence TEIs. This indicates that there is a need to change students' perceptions of social pressure at public universities in Zambia. For example, Karimi et.al. (2017) stressed the need for students to make social or normative considerations and pay attention to other people's opinions to stimulate their EIs development. Since public universities are characterized by a large number of professors, they should take a leading role in mentoring and influencing students to engage in entrepreneurial behaviors (Yordanova, 2021). Policymakers and educators should see that professors and other academicians provide business advice to students and ensure that they value technopreneurship as a career option, in addition to conducting scientific research. University support-related factors were positively related to the TEIs of students in private universities. Providing well-organized and structured business support to STEM students that meets their technopreneurship expectations and needs increases their chances of establishing technology-related enterprises. According to Mustafa et.al. (2016), providing university support to students increases their entrepreneurship knowledge, skills and confidence in engaging in entrepreneurial activities. Therefore, policymakers and educators should ensure that policies and programs are developed and implemented in public universities that will strengthen the education support offered to students, concept development and other business development support services to promote the formation of TEIs among STEM students. The implementation of such policies will increase innovation and the creation of technology-related enterprises (Low and Isserman, 2015). Given that UE plays a significant role in the formation of TEIs of STEM students in both private and public universities in Zambia, more attention from policymakers and educators is needed to enhance university environmental variables. Although the university environment does not influence the EI of students in public and private universities differently, the entire environment alone is not adequate (Barral et.al., 2017) Hence, there is a need to develop programs to support the university environment, such as the formation of entrepreneurship clubs for students, inviting investors to partner with students' projects and organizing technology fairs for STEM students. TM as an environmental variable was not positively related to the TEIs of STEM students in either the public or private sector. This implies that the teaching methods utilized in both public and private universities in Zambia are not effective in influencing EI, mostly theoretically. Employing project-based and action-based teaching methods has proven effective in influencing the formation of students' EIs (Secundo et.al., 2020). Policymakers and educators should revise the curricula to ensure that the content focuses on entrepreneurship development and is suitable as a practical approach to teaching STEM students. Sansone et.al. (2021) argued that the use of practical TMs has a strong influence on behavior. IX. Conclusion and Recommendations Studies on technopreneurship have received much attention among scholars and policymakers because of the significant role technopreneurship plays in socio- economic development (Hoque, Awang and Siddiqui, 2017). More studies on technopreneurship are required to gain an in-depth understanding of the process of TEIs among STEM students and increase the formation of technology-related enterprises. The results of this study indicate a positive interaction between Ajzen’s (1991) TPB variables (ATE, SN, and PBC) and TEIs for private university students, while ATE and PBC reported a positive association with TEIs for public university students. Furthermore, the US and UE had a positive influence on the TEIs of STEM students in private universities, while the TEIs of students in public universities were only influenced by UE. TM did not influence the TEIs of STEM students in either public or private universities in Zambia. Similar to other studies, this study had several limitations. First, the sample size was not representative of the STEM student population in Zambia. This makes the findings more generalizable. Future research should consider increasing the number of public and private university STEM students participating in the study to generalize the findings. Second, they used a single source and method to collect primary data prone to errors and bias. Therefore, caution should be exercised when interpreting these results. Future research should employ a mixed method (surveys and interviews) to triangulate the results. Policymakers and educators should conduct interviews. Finally, in this study, the TPB model was extended and validated by incorporating environmental factors only. Volume 13 No 2 (2023) | ISSN 2158-8708 (online) | DOI 10.5195/emaj.2023.312 | http://emaj.pitt.edu University-related Factors influencing Technological Entrepreneurial Intentions of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Students: A Comparative Study of Private and Public Universities Page |20| Emerging Markets Journal Future studies should use an integrated model that includes personality and moderating variables that may influence TEIs. References Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), 179-211. Ajzen, I. (2011). Design and evaluation guided by the theory of planned behavior. Socpsychol Eval, Guilford Publications, 74-100. Aloulou, W. J. (2016). Predicting entrepreneurial intentions of final year Saudi university business students by applying the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 23(4), 1142-1164. Alves, A. C., Fischer, B., Vonortas, N. S. and Queiroz, S. R. R. D. (2019). Configurations of Knowledge- intensive Entrepreneurial Ecosystems. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 59(1), 242-257. Agolla, J. E., Monametsi, G. L. and Phera, P. (2019). Antecedents of entrepreneurial intentions among business students at a tertiary institution. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 13(2), 138-152. André Cherubini, A., Fischer, B., Schaeffer, P. R. and Queiroz, S (2019). Determinants of Student entrepreneurship: An assessment of higher education institutions in Brazil. Innovation & Management Review, 16 (1), 96–117. Anjum, T., Ramzani, S. R. and Nazar, N. (2019). Antecedents of entrepreneurial intentions: A Study of business students from universities in Pakistan. International Journal of Business and Psychology, 1(2), 72-88. Arrighetti, A., Caricati, L., Landini, F. and Monacelli, N. (2016). The entrepreneurial Intention in the time of crisis: A field study. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 22(6), 835-859. Barba-Sánchez, V., Mitre-Aranda, M. and Del Brío- González, J. (2022). The entrepreneurial The intention of university students: An environmental perspective. European Research on Management and Business Economics 28(2), 100184. Bailetti, T. (2012). Technology entrepreneurship: overview, definition, and distinctive aspects. Technology innovation management review, 2(2), 5-12. Barral, M. R. M., Ribeiro, F. G. and Canever, M. D. (2018). Influence of the university environment on the entrepreneurial intention of public and private universities. RAUSP Management Journal 53 (1), 122-133. Baubonienė, Ž., Kyong, H. H., Puksas, A. and Malinauskienė, E. (2019). Factors influencing Student entrepreneurship intentions: The case of Lithuanian and South Korean universities. Entrepreneurship and sustainability issues 6(2), 854-871. Boh, W. F., De-Haan, U. and Strom, R. (2016). University technology transfer through Entrepreneurship: Faculty and students in spinoffs. The Journal of Technology Transfer 41 (1), 661-669. Boubker, O., Arroud, M. and Ouajdouni, A. (2021). Entrepreneurship education versus management students’ entrepreneurial intentions. A PLS- SEM approach. The International Journal of Management Education, 19(1), 100450. Bruton, G. D., Ahlstrom, D. and Obloj, K. (2008). Entrepreneurship in emerging economies: Where are we today, and where should the research go in the future? Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 32(1), 1-14. Buli, B. M. and Yesuf, W. M. (2015). Determinants of entrepreneurial intentions: Technical-vocational education and training of students in Ethiopia. Education+ Training. 57 (8/9), 891-907. Campos, F., Frese, M., Goldstein, M., Iacovone, L., Johnson, H. C., McKenzie, D. and Mensmann, M. (2017). Teaching personal initiative beats traditional training in boosting small businesses in West Africa. Science, 357(6357), 1287-1290. Dornelas, J. C. A. (2005). Entrepreneurship: Turning ideas into business, (2nd ed.) Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier. Farrukh, M., Alzubi, Y., Shahzad, I. A., Waheed, A. and Kanwal, N. (2018). Entrepreneurial intentions: The role of personality traits from the perspective of the theory of planned behavior. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 12 (3), 399-414. Fiore, Eleonora, Guiliano Sansone, and Emilio Paolucci. (2019). Entrepreneurship education in a multidisciplinary environment: Evidence from an entrepreneurship Programme held in Turin. Administrative Sciences, 9, 28. Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (2010). “Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York. Psychology Press. Taylor and Francis. Franke, N. and Lüthje, C. (2004). Entrepreneurial intentions of business Students-A benchmarking study. International journal of innovation and technology management, 1(03), 269-288. Volume 13 No 2 (2023) | ISSN 2158-8708 (online) | DOI 10.5195/emaj.2023.312 | http://emaj.pitt.edu Clement Mwaanga, Edwin Moyo, Kelly Chungu Emerging Markets Journal Page |21| Gieure, C., Benavides-Espinosa, M. D. M. and Roig- Dobón, S. (2019). Entrepreneurial intentions in the international university environment. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 25(8), 1605-1620. Gupta, V. K., Javadian, G. and Jalili, N. (2014). Role of entrepreneur gender and Management style in influencing perceptions and behaviors of recruits: Evidence from the Islamic Republic of Iran. Journal of International Entrepreneurship 12 (1), 85-109. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. and Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: Global edition. Hoque, A. S. M. M., Awang, Z. and Siddiqui, B. A. (2017). Technopreneurial intention among University students of business courses in Malaysia: structural equation modelling. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small & Medium Enterprise (IJESME), 4(7), 1- 16. Hussain, S. and Imran Malik, M. (2018). Towards nurturing the entrepreneurial intentions of neglected female business students in Pakistan through their proactive personality, self- efficacy, and university support factors. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 12(3), 363-378. Iakovleva, T., Kolvereid, L. and Stephan, U. (2011). Entrepreneurial intentions in developing and developed countries. Education+ training, 53(5), 353-370. Kabók, J., Radišić, S. and Kuzmanović, B. (2017), “Cluster analysis of higher education competitiveness in selected European countries,” Economic research-Ekonomska istraživanja, 30 (1),845-857. Karimi, S., JA Biemans, H., Lans, T., Chizari, M. and Mulder, M. (2014). Effects of role Models and gender on students’ entrepreneurial intentions. European Journal of Training and Development, 38(8), 694-727. Karimi, S., Biemans, H. J., Naderi Mahdei, K., Lans, T., Chizari, M. and Mulder, M. (2017). Testing the relationship between personality characteristics, contextual factors, and entrepreneurial intentions in a developing country. International Journal of Psychology, 52(3), 227-240. Karimi, S.,Yaghoubi Farani, A., Izadi, N. and Ataei, P. (2019). Effect of virtual social networks on the entrepreneurial behavior of agricultural students in Iran. Applied Economics 51(21), 2326-2335. Koe, W. L., Alias, N. E., Ismail, S. and Mahphoth, M. H. (2018). A suggested model for studying technopreneurial intention in Malaysia. KnE Social Sciences, 3(10), 788-796. Krueger Jr, N. F., Reilly, M. D. and Carsrud, A. L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of business venturing, 15(5- 6), 411-432. Lu, G., Song, Y. and Pan, B. (2021). How does university entrepreneurship support affects College Students’ Entrepreneurial Intention: An Empirical Analysis from China. Sustainability 13(6), 3224. Liu, X., Lin, C., Zhao, G. and Zhao, D. (2019). Research on the effects of entrepreneurial education, and entrepreneurial self-efficacy in college students’ entrepreneurial intentions. Frontiers in Psychology 10, 869. Liñán, F. and Chen, Y. W. (2009). Development and cross-cultural application of a specific instrument to measure entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 33(3), 593-617. Liñán, F. and Fayolle, A (2015). A systematic literature review on entrepreneurial intentions: Citation, thematic analyses, and research agenda. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 11 (1), 907-933. Low, S. A. and Isserman, A. M. (2015). Where are the innovative entrepreneurs? Identifying innovative industries and measure innovative entrepreneurship. International Regional Science Review 38(2), 171-201. Lüthje, C. and 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. Maheshwari, G., Kha, K. L. and Arokiasamy, A. R. A. (2022). Factors affecting students’ entrepreneurial intentions: a systematic review (2005–2022) for future directions in theory and practice. Management Review Quarterly, 1-68. Martínez-Climent, C., Zorio-Grima, A. and Ribeiro- Soriano, D. (2018), “Financial return crowdfunding: Literature Review and Bibliometric Analysis,” International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 14 (3), 527-553. Minola, T., Donina, D. and Meoli, M. (2016). Students climbing the entrepreneurial ladder: Does university internationalization pay off? Small Business Economics, 47(1), 565-587. Mosey, S. (2016). Teaching and research opportunities in technology Entrepreneurship. Technovation, 57, 43-44. Volume 13 No 2 (2023) | ISSN 2158-8708 (online) | DOI 10.5195/emaj.2023.312 | http://emaj.pitt.edu University-related Factors influencing Technological Entrepreneurial Intentions of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Students: A Comparative Study of Private and Public Universities Page |22| Emerging Markets Journal Mustafa, M. J., Hernandez, E., Mahon, C. and Chee, L. K. (2016). Entrepreneurial intentions of university students in an emerging economy: the influence of university support and proactive personality on students’ entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 8(2), 162-179. Nabi, G., Holden, R. and Walmsley, A. (2010). Entrepreneurial intentions among students towards a re‐focused research agenda. Journal of small business and enterprise development, 17(4), 537-551. Nacu, C. M. and Avasilcăi, S. (2014). Technological entrepreneurship: success factors as perceived by potential young entrepreneurs. In Advanced Materials Research, 837(1), 639-644. Trans Tech Publications, Ltd. Nguyen, T. T. (2020). The impact of access to finance and environmental factors: The mediating role of entrepreneurial behavioral control on entrepreneurial intention. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review 8(2), 127-140. Naushad, M. (2018). A study on the antecedents of entrepreneurial intentions among Saudi students. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 5(3), 600-617. Nathani, N. and Dwivedi, G. (2019). Influence of technology entrepreneurship on Entrepreneurial intentions: cross-country analysis. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Digital Strategies for Organizational Success. Nazarov, M., Butryumova, N. and Sidorov, D. (2017). Development of technology entrepreneurship in a transition economy: An example of a Russian region with high scientific potential. Dubrovnik international economic meeting, 3 (1), 89-104. Neck, M. H. and Greene, G. P., (2011). Entrepreneurship Education: Known Words and New Frontiers. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 55-70. North, D. C. (2005). Understanding the process of economic change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Nuseir, M.T, Basheer, M. F. and Aljumah, A. (2020). Antecedents of entrepreneurial intentions In the Smart City of Neom Saudi Arabia: Does entrepreneurial education on artificial intelligence matter? Cogent Business & Management, 7(1), 1825041. Onjewu, A. E., Mohamed, Y. H. and Witold, N. (2021). The effect of entrepreneurship Education in nascent entrepreneurship. Industry and Higher Education, 35 (1), 09504222211014038. Perim, M. L. S. (2012). Teaching comparison and entrepreneurship practice in Public and Private higher education institutions in Boa Vista. Revistade Administra¸cão de Roraima-RARR, 2(1), 67-87. Rosique-Blasco, M., Madrid-Guijarro, A. and García- Pérez-de-Lema, D. (2016). Entrepreneurial skills and sociocultural factors: An empirical analysis of secondary education students. Education+ Training,58 (7/8). Said, N. M., Uthamaputhran, S., Zulkiffli, W. F. W., Hong, L. M. and Hong, C. W. (2021). The mediating effects of entrepreneurial education towards antecedents of entrepreneurial intention among undergraduate students. In The Importance of New Technologies and Entrepreneurship in Business Development: In the Context of Economic Diversity in Developing Countries: The Impact of New Technologies and Entrepreneurship on Business Development. Springer International Publishing, 2029-2040. Sansone, G., Ughetto, E. and Landoni, P. (2021). Entrepreneurial intention: An analysis of the Role of student-led entrepreneurial organizations. Journal of International Entrepreneurship 19(3), 399-433. Santos, S. C. and Liguori, E. W. (2020). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intentions: Outcome expectations as a mediator and subjective norms as the moderator. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 26(3), 400-415. Saraih, U. N., Aris, A. Z. Z., Mutalib, S. A., Ahmad, T. S. T., Abdullah, S. and Amlus, M. H. (2018). The influence of self-efficacy on entrepreneurial intention among engineering students. In MATEC Web of Conferences. EDP Sciences, 1 (150), 05051. Saeed, S., Yousafzai, S. Y. and Muffatto, M. (2015). Institutional theory and contextual Embeddedness of women's entrepreneurial leadership: Evidence from 92 countries. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(3), 587- 604. Secundo, G., Rippa, P. and Cerchione, R. (2020). Digital Academic Entrepreneurship: A structured literature review and avenues for the research agenda. Technological forecasting and social change 157, 120118. Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S (2003). Guest editors’ introduction to the special issue on technology entrepreneurship Research Policy, 32, 181-184. Volume 13 No 2 (2023) | ISSN 2158-8708 (online) | DOI 10.5195/emaj.2023.312 | http://emaj.pitt.edu Clement Mwaanga, Edwin Moyo, Kelly Chungu Emerging Markets Journal Page |23| Shirokova, G., Osiyevskyy, O. and Bogatyreva, K. (2016). Exploring the intention–behavior link in student entrepreneurship: moderating effects of individual and environmental characteristics. European Management Journal, 34(4), 386-399. Silva, W. and Teixeira, R. M. (2013). Entrepreneurial Intentions of Computer Students: a Comparative study between public and private universities. Anais of EATI. Anais, National Meeting of Information Technology. Souitaris, V., Zerbinati, S. and Al-Laham, A. (2007). Do entrepreneurship. programmes raise Entrepreneurial intentions of science and engineering students. Effects of learning, inspiration, and resources. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(4), 566-591. Srivastava, S. and Misra, R. (2017). Exploring antecedents of entrepreneurial intentions of Young Women in India: A Multi-Method Analysis. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies. Trivedi, R. (2016). Does the university play a significant role in shaping entrepreneurial intention? Cross- country Comparative Analysis. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 23(3), 790-811. Yordanova, D. (2021). Nascent Technology Entrepreneurship among Bulgarian STEM Students. Administrative Sciences, 11, 121. Vracheva, V. P., Abu-Rahma, A. and Jacques, P. (2019). Effects of context on the entrepreneurial intent of female students from the United Arab Emirates. Education+ Training, 61 (6), 700-717. Wright, M., Donaldm, S. and Philippe, M. (2017). An emerging ecosystem for student start-ups. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42 (1), 909- 922. Wright, M., Philippe M, and Donald S (2019). Student Start-Ups: The New landscape of Academic Entrepreneurship. World Scientific Series on Public Policy and Technological Innovation; Singapore: World Scientific, 1 (1), 1-200. Zhang, G., Xuebing P. and Jun L (2008). Technological entrepreneurship and Policy environment: A case study in China. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15 (1), 733-751.