Mối quan hệ giữa chánh niệm, cảm hứng và ý định khởi sự kinh doanh xã hội TT TIENG ANH

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY BUI NGOC TUAN ANH THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MINDFULNESS, INSPIRATION, AND SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP INTENTION Major: Business Administration Code: 62 34 01 02 PhD DISSERTATION SUMMARY Ho Chi Minh city, 2022 This dissertation is implemented at Ho Chi Minh city Open University Supervisors : Assoc Prof Dr Pham Xuan Lan Dr Van Thi Hong Loan Reviewer 1:………………………………………………………………………… Reviewer 2:………………………………………………………………………… Reviewer 3:………………………………………………………………………… This dissertation will be defended at Ho Chi Minh city Open University At…… date…… The dissertation is stored at : - The library of Ho Chi Minh city Open University - The national library of Vietnam 1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 The necessity of researching the dissertation topic 1.1.1 The practical context The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) defines: “Social enterprises are organizations operating under different legal forms that apply entrepreneurship to pursue both targets at the same time: social and economic goals Social enterprises often provide social services and work for disadvantaged groups in both urban and rural areas In addition, social enterprises also provide community services, in the fields of education, culture, and environment This type of enterprise has provided innovative models to actively solve social problems, filling the gaps of national social welfare programs (Gupta et al., 2020) Because of the benefits of social entrepreneurship, policymakers and scientists are trying to find ways to promote this phenomenon (Brieger & De Clercq, 2019; Tiwari et al., 2017a) In addition, the GEM 2015 report showed that out of 58 economies surveyed, 1.1% of adults started a business in Vietnam and engaged in social activities In more detail, the percentage of adults doing business in social enterprises in Vietnam is very low, only 0.45% compared to 1.1% in social activities and 13.7% in common business activities (Bosma et al., 2016) For having reasonable support policies in encouraging the establishment of social enterprises, it is necessary to study and analyze the factors affecting the thinking process of individuals Although most research in the international context focuses on individual-level analyses, much of it has focused on examining the premises and prerequisites needed to encourage entrepreneurial activities Social entrepreneurship is associated with specific regions and countries (UK et al., 2021; Brieger & De Clercq, 2019) Therefore, there is very few studies have been conducted in the context of emerging countries (Tiwari & Bhat, 2020) Previous research results may not be appropriate when applied to the specifics of social entrepreneurship intention in Vietnam With the above arguments, the dissertation focuses on Vietnam as a case study, to demonstrate the practical application of social entrepreneurship in an emerging country 1.1.2 The theoretical context Since becoming one of the topics of interest from both the professional and academic community, social entrepreneurship research has increased markedly (Rey-Martí et al., 2016) However, the understanding of the social entrepreneurship intention still has many theoretical gaps that need to be clarified Firstly, the theories of planned behavior (TPB), the Shapero and Sokol model of Entrepreneurial Event (SEE) although still playing an important role in explaining the social entrepreneurship intention, are limited in explaining aspects of social cognition Therefore, approaching new theories such as Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT), which views becoming a social entrepreneur as a career decision, and whose influence on social cognitive factors is necessary Second, there are currently no studies approaching from an emotional and cognitive perspective through personality traits such as inspiration, mindfulness to explain what happens in the behavior of social entrepreneurs due to the interplay Their interaction with the outside world (perceived social support) gives rise to the intention to participate in the social entrepreneurship process Third, previous studies focusing on mainly students have ignored many other potential subjects, so the dissertation has a broader and extended approach with many different constituents Fourth, the background of a social entrepreneur is different from that of a commercial entrepreneur in the role of gender and previous occupation, so it is necessary to clarify the influence of these two characteristics on the social entrepreneurship intention In Vietnam, studies on the topic of Social Enterprises have been carried out very early The first mentioned issues are the marketing support for social enterprises (Truong Thi Nam Thang et al., 2005) Subsequent studies have introduced and defined different types of social enterprises (Nguyen Van Truc, 2011) In the following years, the research direction has focused on shaping the legal basis and policy recommendations for this type of enterprise (Ngoc Hai Hoang, 2015; Nguyen Minh Thao, 2014; Nguyen Thi Dung, 2017; Nguyen Thi Nhu Ai, 2019; Nguyen Thi Yen & Tran Thi Bao Anh, 2017; Pham Vu Thang & Cao Tu Oanh, 2015; Phan Thi Thanh Thuy, 2015; Phung Thi Yen, 2016) In the aspect of social entrepreneurship, only three studies have been conducted so far Tran and Von Korflesch (2018) suggest that complementary role and activity models will influence social entrepreneurship intention, while Le et al (2020) discover that empathy will affect intentions through pro-social behavior Luc (2018) shows that perceived financial accessibility only indirectly increases business intention through attitude towards behavior and perceived behavior It can be seen that there have not been many studies in Vietnam on social entrepreneurship, although the direction of business startup research has received a lot of attention in recent years Furthermore, the few announcements of social entrepreneurship intention done in Vietnam have not yet resolved the issues argued above This motivates the dissertation to investigate what factors affect the formation of the social entrepreneurship intention to contribute theoretically as well as practically in Vietnam For the above reasons, the topic "The relationship between mindfulness, inspiration, and social entrepreneurship intention" was selected as the research topic for the doctoral dissertation 1.2 Research questions and objectives 1.2.1 Research questions 1.2.2 Research objectives To answer the questions is expected to contribute to the theoretical basis, management implications and solutions to promote the force of Social Enterprises, contributing to increasing the quantity and quality of Social Enterprises in Vietnam, the research focuses on the following issues, with the following specific objectives: 1/ Analyze the relationship and evaluate the influence of inspiration on social entrepreneurship intention 2/ Analyze the relationship and evaluate the influence of mindfulness on social entrepreneurship intention 3/ Analyze the relationship and evaluate the influence of perceived social support on social entrepreneurship intention 4/ Determining the mediating role of cognitive competence, outcome expectations in the relationship between inspiration, mindfulness, perceived social support and social entrepreneurship intention from the theoretical context of SCCT 5/ Determining job and gender roles in the model of social entrepreneurship intention 6/ Propose implications and recommendations for policymakers and communities to promote social entrepreneurship 1.3 Object and scope of the research 1.3.1 Object of the research The research object of the dissertation is mindfulness, inspiration, perceived social support, social entrepreneurship intention and the linkages around intention in SCCT theory Survey object: Social entrepreneurship is an unpopular phenomenon in Vietnam, so the overall sample of the dissertation is individuals who have a certain understanding of this field The sampling frame includes individuals who have participated in activities organized or jointly organized by the Supporting Social Enterprise Community (SSEC) 1.3.2 Scope of the research Scope of research content: The study was limited to the factors of mindfulness, inspiration, perceived social support, social entrepreneurship intention, and associations around intention in the context of SCCT theory Scope of content: Although there are many approaches and many theoretical models to research on intention to start a social business, this dissertation only applies and expands SCCT theory to explore the impact of social entrepreneurship The influence of environmental factors, context and personal characteristics on the social entrepreneurship intention Scope of time: The dissertation was carried out in the period from 2016 to 2021, during the period when social business activities begin to be noticed and included in the agendas, annual evaluation reports of the Central Institute for Economic Management (CIEM) The data collection survey was carried out in 2020 Scope of location: Social entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship intention are still very new in Vietnam For ensuring that the survey respondents have enough knowledge to complete the survey questionnaire, the dissertation only selected individuals who have attended programs hosted or co-organized by SSEC 1.4 Methodology 1.4.1 Qualitative research method In the early stages of the research process, qualitative research is used (preliminary research) to develop a theoretical model and to form a scale An overview study was carried out to systematize the theoretical basis in the field of social entrepreneurship as well as find research gaps that need to be clarified, thereby developing the research hypotheses The results from the literature review help form the research model as well as build the first draft scale After that, group discussions were conducted with experts who have deep knowledge in the field of social entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurs, and lecturers to confirm the proposed model, clarify and refine the measuring scale in the practical context of Vietnam The result of this step helps to form a second draft scale and this scale is tested with 30 people selected by a simple random method based on the list of students who have participated in programs organized by SSEC This preliminary interview aims to assess the completeness of the content and form of the statements before becoming the official scale for the dissertation 1.4.2 Quantitative research method The formal sample used in the dissertation was selected by the convenience sampling method In the process of collecting information with support from SSEC, a questionnaire designed using Google Form was sent to the appropriate respondents through a link with an introduction and the purpose of the study Through the filtering process, the study collected 502 valid questionnaires for further data analysis Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was chosen to test the development and extension of SCCT theory as recommended by Lowry and Gaskin (2014) and Hair et al (2017) PLS-SEM also has advantages when the data not follow a normal distribution, even when there is a problem of multicollinearity and when the model contains many intermediate relationships (Hair et al., 2017) PLS-SEM is suitable for complex models, as well as for exploratory studies (Hair et al., 2016) SmartPLS 3.2.8 software is used in the research to evaluate measurement models and test hypotheses 1.5 Meaning and contribution of the research 1.5.1 Theoretical contributions First of all, the dissertation confirms that the SCCT theory can predict the social entrepreneurship intention with two premises including outcome expectations and social entrepreneurial self-efficacy This confirms the role of these mediating variables in SCCT theory to describe decision-making behavior associated with occupational problems Then, in addition to the Big five model, mindfulness and inspiration were shown to have the ability to explain the social entrepreneurship intention well The combination of personality traits (inspiration, mindfulness), context (perceived social support) and SCCT theory helps to form a new potential model, perfecting the theory of social entrepreneurship Finally, the research results help clarify the answer of who can become a social entrepreneur (H Cohen et al., 2019) The dissertation has further explored two potential personality traits (inspiration, mindfulness) as well as the influence of background (gender, occupation) that have the potential to impact an individual's intention to engage in social business This contribution helps to expand the application of personality theory, gender theory as well as open up new research directions for the model of social behavioral intention to consider more the impact of demographic factors 1.5.2 Practical contributions The study has explained the social entrepreneurship intention from the perspective of choosing a career and provided new explanations for policymakers, organizations that support social enterprises, and also for potential social entrepreneurs themselves Firstly, the dissertation contributes a set of scales adjusted in the Vietnamese context to filter suitable potential social entrepreneur candidates and a tool to evaluate the effectiveness of implemented programs Secondly, policymakers and organizations supporting social enterprises have new suggestions based on three additional factors: mindfulness, inspiration, and perceived social support as well as attention to the differences of occupation and gender This discovery helps policymakers have more suggestions to develop appropriate strategies for starting social enterprises as well as expanding potential candidates Finally, this study helps policymakers to identify the priority factors in setting up specific support programs for the social enterprise's sector In addition, organizations that support the promotion of social enterprises will have better choices in designing course structures and activities to help promote potential social entrepreneurs when changing "their hearts and minds" 1.6 Dissertation structure Chapter Introduction Chapter Theoretical background and research models Chapter Research methodology Chapter Research results Chapter Conclusion and managerial implications CHAPTER THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH MODELS 2.1 Social enterprise The dissertation uses the concept of social enterprise according to the British Government (2002): “Social enterprise is a business model established to realize social goals, and using profits to reinvest for that goal or for the community, instead of maximizing profits for shareholders or owners” 2.2 Social entrepreneur 2.2.1 Entrepreneur Entrepreneurs are also called commercial entrepreneurs to distinguish them from social entrepreneurs in this study Commercial entrepreneurs are those who start businesses by bringing innovations to the market (Schumpeter, 1982) Becoming an entrepreneur is also seen as a career choice (Liguori et al., 2020) They start, organize, manage and take responsibility for a business, accepting the challenge to be self-employed rather than employed (Segal et al., 2005) 2.2.2 Social entrepreneur From the above definitions, the dissertation proposes a definition of social entrepreneurs as follows: "Social entrepreneurs are individuals who are guided by a social mission and come from a compassionate heart They start up through creative solutions to social problems with a deep understanding, persistence with their ambition to contribute to society, and a commitment to it” 2.2.3 Distinguish between commercial entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurs Martin and Osberg (2007) observe that while the two types of entrepreneurs are both motivated by business opportunities, they differ in the purpose of value While social entrepreneurs maximize some form of social impact, commercial entrepreneurs maximize profits or shareholder value (Bornstein & Davis, 2010; Visser, 2011) According to Emerson and Twersky (1996), commercial entrepreneurs can create social value in the process of creating private benefits Meanwhile, social entrepreneurs can create private interests in the process of creating social value 2.3 Social entrepreneurship intention 2.3.1 Entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship According to Schumpeter (1982), entrepreneurship is about providing new solutions to the market According to Kirzner (2015), entrepreneurship is the ability to identify and exploit market advantages The definition of social entrepreneurship is inherited from Mair and Noboa (2006): “an innovative approach to solving problems in the fields of education, environment, health, community” 2.3.2 Distinguish social entrepreneurship and similar concepts 2.3.2.1 Difference between social entrepreneurship and corporate social responsibility (CSR) In social entrepreneurship, the social mission comes first and profit is the means to achieve this mission; therefore, must be at least partially reinvested in the project and not primarily occupied by shareholders While in socially responsible businesses, profit maximization is still the ultimate goal and aims to bring value to shareholders (Busch & Friede, 2018) The above arguments show that social entrepreneurship is distinct from CSR 2.3.2.2 Difference between social entrepreneurship and sustainable entrepreneurship Sustainable entrepreneurship can be distinguished from social entrepreneurship in its simultaneous pursuit of three rather than two goals: (1) social benefit, (2) economic viability, and (3) reducing environmental degradation (N Thompson et al., 2011) According to Shepherd and Patzelt (2011), research on social entrepreneurship is geared towards the discovery of profitable social problem-solving opportunities but does not include maintaining the current state of nature nature, life support, and community 2.3.3 Social entrepreneurship intention (SEI) Intention plays an important role in explaining social behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1980) The intention is even considered the best single predictor of behaviors (Ajzen, 2011) The social entrepreneurship intention is often considered in terms of psychological behavior and is a cognitive and planning process (Hockerts, 2017; Mair & Noboa, 2006) The concept of social entrepreneurship intention in the dissertation is understood as “a perceived belief of an individual who intends to operate a social enterprise and intends to plan to so at a certain time in the future” (E.R Thompson, 2009) 2.4 The studies of social entrepreneurship intention 2.4.1 First approach: Testing and developing research models on social entrepreneurship intention Most research models of social entrepreneurship are inherited from previously applied behavioral theories (Anh et al., 2021) Studies of social entrepreneurship intention revolve around four models: the theory of planned behavior (TPB) of (Ajzen, 1991) (Cavazos-Arroyo et al., 2017; Ernst, 2011; Jemari et al., 2017; Luc, 2018, 2020a); entrepreneurial potential model (EPM) of Krueger and Brazeal (1994) (Mair & Noboa, 2005); Shapero and Sokol's model of entrepreneurial event (SEE) (1982) (Hockerts, 2013, 2017; Ip et al., 2018; Lacap et al., 2018; Mair & Noboa, 2006) In addition, in this topic, Tran and Von Korflesch (2016) introduce a new research approach using a model based on Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) 2.4.1.1 Approach from Ajzen's Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) (1991) 2.4.1.2 Approach from Shapero and Sokol's model of entrepreneurial event (SEE) (1982) 2.4.1.3 Approach from Krueger and Brazeal’s entrepreneurial potential model (EPM) (1994) 2.4.1.4 Approach from Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) of Lent et al (1994) 2.4.1.5 Synthetic review of theories 2.4.2 Second approach: Focus on the characteristics of social entrepreneurs Big trait (1) Personal characteristic (2) Cognitive characteristic Business personality Social personality (3) Foundational factors Figure 2.1: Research aspects of social entrepreneurs 2.4.2.1 The approach according to personality traits The “common personality” traits are often described around the Big five model (Goldberg, 1990) These common characteristics show a relationship with social entrepreneurship intention (Aure, 2018; C.-Y Hsu & Wang, 2019; Ip et al., 2018; İrengün & Arıkboğa, 2015; Nga & Shamutanathan, 2010) Overall, for the five major personality traits, social entrepreneurship did not show much difference from commercial entrepreneurship (Lukes & Stephan, 2012) In terms of "business personality", studies suggest that social entrepreneurs are similar to commercial entrepreneurs, sharing similar personality traits (Shaw & Carter, 2007) These two types of entrepreneurs exhibit similar characteristics such as personal initiative, intrinsic control, risk-taking, fear of failure, creativity and willingness to take responsibility (Bacq et al., 2016; Chipeta & Surujlal, 2017; Kedmenec et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2020) However, social entrepreneurs themselves prioritize the goal of profit to create social wealth (Mair & Martí, 2006), suggesting that the nature of entrepreneurial traits is still not fully explained Thus, studies on the business personality of this type of entrepreneur have not yet clearly shown the motivation to promote social enterprises In the field of social entrepreneurship, discovered social traits such as sympathy, empathy, compassion, and moral obligation have been shown to motivate individuals to pursue social entrepreneurship (Bacq & Alt, 2018; McMullen & Bergman, 2017; Miller et al., 2012; Waddock & Steckler, 2016) With the factors of “social personality” explored, it can be seen that a person with a degree of empathy or moral judgment would choose to become a social entrepreneur after being exposed to a social problem (trigger event) However, Mair and Noboa (2006) argue that not everyone with empathy and moral judgment becomes a social entrepreneur These factors are only necessary conditions, which according to Mair and Noboa (2006) are not comprehensive enough in explaining the social entrepreneurship intention Souitaris et al (2007) suggest that further research should be done more extensively about an individual's background, personality or perception Souitaris et al (2007) further questioned whether individuals have “love” for social entrepreneurship and/or a business opportunity motivated by personal feelings and preferences rather than rational judgment 2.4.2.2 Cognitive approach In the field of social entrepreneurship, cognitive factors that have been explored include perceived desire, perceived feasibility, social support (Mair & Martí, 2006), difficulties in life and moral judgment competence (Kedmenec et al., 2015), human capital and social capital (Jemari et al., 2017), cognitive style (Tiwari et al., 2017a), financial perceived knowledge (Luc, 2018) Surprisingly, although cognitive factors were heavily exploited, individual differences were shown to be the highest predictors of action effectiveness, but, cognitive aspects have not received much attention in the field of social entrepreneurship 2.4.2.3 Approach on basic factors Gender, age, and education are three of the most frequently mentioned variables that have been shown to influence social entrepreneurship intention (Marín et al., 2019) However, gender is an important factor but has not been adequately explained in terms of effects when gender and occupation have many differences between social entrepreneurs and commercial entrepreneurs (Estrin et al., 2013) ) On the other hand, whether gender has been studied for a direct effect (Bacq & Alt, 2018), or a control variable (Hockerts, 2017; Urban & Kujinga, 2017), the moderating effect of gender on The relationship between social entrepreneurship intention and its determinants has not been studied (Latif & Ali, 2020) In addition, most of the publications on women's social entrepreneurship are contextualized in developed country contexts So the contributions of which still need to be validated from the perspective of emerging economies (Rosca et al associates, 2020) Therefore, it is necessary to explore the role of basic factors as a moderator in social entrepreneurship models In addition, Shumate et al (2014) found that there are two ways to start a social enterprise: social activities and entrepreneurial activities Earlier, Leadbeater (1997) explained that the origin of social entrepreneurship comes from main sources: “public sector”, “private sector” and “voluntary sector” These findings point to a research gap from a survey respondent perspective as previous studies in the field of social entrepreneurship have focused mainly on students (Hockerts, 2017; Politis et al., 2016; Tiwari & Bhat, 2020) The above arguments show that exploring the influence of gender, occupation is necessary for explaining social entrepreneurship intention 2.4.3 Third approach: Focus on contextual factors 2.4.4 The research gaps 2.4.4.1 Gaps in the background theories The approach to explaining behavior initiated by theories such as TPB and SEE has limitations when it focuses too much on individual perception and does not consider individual interactions in the context of social cognition (Hindle et al., 2009) Neither of them explicitly mentions the role of the desired goal of behavioral intention 2.4.4.2 Gaps about research subjects Social personality traits are only a necessary but not sufficient condition in shaping the social entrepreneurship intention because the relationship with motivation is not clear (Mair 11 2.5.5.4 Influence of mindfulness in the social entrepreneurship model H3.1: Mindfulness (MFN) has a positive impact on social entrepreneurship intention (SEI) H3.2: Mindfulness (MFN) has a positive impact on social entrepreneurial self–efficacy (SEF) H3.3: Mindfulness (MFN) has a positive impact on social outcome expectations (SOE) 2.5.5.5 Influence of perceived social support in the social entrepreneurship model H4.1: Perceived social support (PSS) has a positive impact on social entrepreneurship intention (SEI) H4.2: Perceived social support (PSS) has a positive impact on social entrepreneurial self–efficacy (SEF) H4.3: Perceived social support (PSS) has a positive impact on social outcome expectations (SOE) 2.5.5.6 Mediating effects of self-efficacy and outcome expectations H5.1a: Self-efficacy mediates the relationship from inspiration to social entrepreneurship intention H5.1b: Outcome expectations mediate the relationship from inspiration to social entrepreneurship intention H5.2a: Self-efficacy mediates the relationship from mindfulness to social entrepreneurship intention H5.2b: Outcome expectations mediate the relationship from mindfulness to social entrepreneurship intention H5.3a: Self-efficacy mediates the relationship from perceived social support to social entrepreneurship intention H5.3b: Outcome expectations mediate the relationship from perceived social support to social entrepreneurship intention 2.5.6 Proposed research model At the first level, the social entrepreneurship intention is positively influenced by two factors, namely the social entrepreneurial self-efficacy and the outcome expectations Selfefficacy also positively affects outcome expectations At the second level, the relevance of the effects of individual and contextual factors on the social entrepreneurship intention, social entrepreneurial self-efficacy and the outcome expectations are considered The influencing factors studied were inspiration, mindfulness, and perceived social support Furthermore, the relationships between individual and contextual factors and intention are hypothesized to be mediated by self-efficacy and outcome expectations For the direct relationships between all factors, the proposed research model is presented in Figure 2.2 12 Inspiration (INS) H2.1 H2.2 H2.3 H3.2 social entrepreneurial self-efficacy (SEF) Mindfulness H1.1 Ý định khởi KDXH (SEI) H3.1 (MFN) H1.3 H3.3 H1.2 social outcome expectations (SOE) H4.2 Perceived social support (PSS) H4.3 H4.1 Hypothesis H5.1, H5.2, H5.3: Mediating effects of self-efficacy and outcome expectations from social entrepreneurship Figure 2.2: Formal research model of the dissertation (Source: proposed by the author ) CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 Research approach 3.1.1 Methodology 3.1.2 Research process Stage 1: Preliminary research (qualitative) 3.1.2.1 Step 1: Systematic review, research model establishment, research hypothesis, construction of a first draft scale 3.1.2.2 Step 2: Expert group discussion 3.1.2.3 Step 3: Draft interview Stage 2: Official research (quantitative) 13 3.1.2.4 Step 4: Quantitative research State Preliminary (qualitative) research Research problem Phase Official research (quantitative) Objectives of the study Systematic literature review Evaluation of scale reliability Proposing research Draft model scale Group Discussion(N=7) Official research Draft model Evaluation of discriminant and convergence Quantitative Research (N=502) Structural Model SEM scale Test Interview (N=30) Official Questionnaire Conclusion and managerial implications Figure 3.1: Research process 3.2 Qualitative research 3.2.1 Results of literature review Planning - Research question: "What factors affect social entrepreneurship intention” Searching - Keyword “social”, “entrep*" and “intent*” - Database Scopus, Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic - Collect before date 20/12/2020 Screening - Eliminate duplication - Remove inappropriate articles Extraction and Reporting - Coding - Synthesizing Figure 3.2: Literature review process (Source: compiled by the author) Scopus (138), Google Scholar (145), Microsoft Academic (206) 51 articles - Descriptive analysis - Thematic analysis 14 3.2.2 Results of the group discussion 3.2.2.1 Plan 3.2.2.2 Results 3.2.2.3 The scale of Inspiration The dissertation uses the inspiration scale developed by Thrash Elliot (2003) 3.2.2.4 The scale of Mindfulness Of all the mindfulness scales, the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) by (Brown & Ryan, 2003) is the most widely cited (Park et al., 2013; Siegling & Petrides, 2014) 3.2.2.5 The scale of Perceived social support The scale consists of observed variables based on Hockerts (2015), which is 100% agreed by experts on expressive semantics 3.2.2.6 The scale of Social entrepreneurship intention Inheriting from the scale of Liñán and Chen (2009) in the field of commerce, the scale of social entrepreneurship intention includes observed variables The results of the group discussion suggested some specific changes such as: “I will my best to start and run my own social enterprise” to “I will work hard for my social business start-up being successful”; “I intend to start a social enterprise someday” is changed to “I intend to start a social business in the future” 3.2.2.7 The scale of Social entrepreneurial self–efficacy Social entrepreneurial self–efficacy of an individual is measured through the scale of (Hockerts, 2017) The statement “Solving social problems is something that each of us can contribute” was discussed by a group of experts and reached a consensus when expressed as “Solving social problems is something that each of us have a responsibility for” The statement “I can find a way to solve the problems facing society” was added more words for clear clarity 3.2.2.8 The scale of Social outcome expectations In this study, the social outcome expectations scale was inherited from Krueger et al (2000) including observed variables which widely applied in the field of business startup research (Liguori et al., 2000) The detailed explanations have been agreed by experts and some words have been adjusted to make them clearer and facilitate the respondents In the statement "Securing the family (about the future for relatives, starting a business to inherit, )", two experts have the opinion that the word "inherit" should be changed They think that this is a social mission, if the next generations follow, they need to continue to perform Finally, with the agreement of 6/7 experts, this measure was adjusted to: "Securing the family (about the future for relatives, starting a business so that the next generation can continue )" As for the "stress, pressure" section, experts agree that the pressure that drives social entrepreneurs is to fulfill their aspirations to change society To make it clearer, the author repeats the definition of social entrepreneurship that is used in aspects ranging from various social impacts such as job creation (Vidal, 2005) to poverty reduction (Seelos & Mair, 2005) or sometimes environmental protection, sustainable development (Salamzadeh et al., 2013) After discussion, the group agreed to these activities Therefore, through discussion (with the 15 consensus of 5/7 experts), the observation "stress, pressure" is interpreted into "Social impact (job creation, poverty reduction, preserving environmental resources, )" 3.2.3 The test interview results Through the study and interview with 30 individuals, who are experts in social business, it shows that the observed variables in the scales are satisfactory The respondents understand and correctly answer the questions in the survey The form of layout, word use also did not receive any comments from the respondents Therefore, the questionnaire (second draft scale) with 39 observed variables was validated and used in the official quantitative study The official questionnaire is presented in Appendix 3.3 Quantitative research 3.3.1 Survey objects The sample used in the study is a collection of individuals who already have a basic understanding of the field The sampling frame includes participants attending various programs organized or jointly organized by SSEC 3.3.2 Sampling method Due to the limitations mentioned above, a convenience sampling method was applied for the study This research has 39 observed variables, selected according to the ratio 10/1 and the necessary number of samples is 390 samples, which is in the good range as suggested by Tabachnick et al (2007) 3.3.3 Data analysis techniques The data analysis section was used SmartPLS version 3.2.8 The sequence of performing the quantitative analysis was followed by the process recommended by Hair et al (2019) CHAPTER RESEARCH RESULTS 4.1 Analysis of the research sample Table 4.1 Demographic statistics Tiêu chí Gender Male Female Age Under 25 25 - 35 36 - 45 Over 45 Education level High school College/ University Post-Graduate Major/Occupation Student Manager/Director Employees Self-Employers Other Sample size N 246 256 191 131 120 60 38 410 54 167 43 131 85 76 502 Percent 49.00% 51.00% 38.05% 26.10% 23.90% 11.95% 7.57% 81.67% 10.76% 33.27% 8.57% 26.10% 16.93% 15.14% 100.00% 16 Source: Statistical results of survey samples 4.2 Evaluation of the measurement model 4.2.1 Convergence test and internal consistency reliability 4.2.2 Testing the discriminant value between the contructs in the research model Figure 4.1: Measurement model analysis results Source: Research results 4.3 Evaluation of the structural model 4.3.1 Evaluation of the phenomenon of multicollinearity 4.3.2 Evaluation of coefficient of determination (R2) and effect size (f2) 4.3.3 Evaluation of predictive relevance (Q2) 4.4 Evaluation of the relationship and testing of research hypothesis Table 4.2 Bootstrapping results of structural model and hypothesis testing Hypothesis Relationship β H1.1 H1.2 H1.3 H2.1 H2.2 H2.3 H3.1 H3.2 H3.3 H4.1 SEF -> SEI SOE -> SEI SEF -> SOE INS -> SEI INS -> SEF INS -> SOE MFN -> SEI MFN -> SEF MFN -> SOE PSS -> SEI 0.324 0.184 0.107 0.165 0.170 0.184 0.162 0.158 0.358 0.127 Standard deviation tvalue p-value Results 0.056 0.061 0.050 0.074 0.071 0.078 0.080 0.076 0.076 0.055 5.830 2.994 2.144 2.243 2.380 2.357 2.032 2.091 4.688 2.302 0.000** 0.003** 0.032** 0.025** 0.017** 0.018** 0.042** 0.037** 0.000** 0.021** Accept Accept Accept Accept Accept Accept Accept Accept Accept Accept 17 Hypothesis Relationship β H4.2 H4.3 PSS -> SEF PSS -> SOE 0.484 0.217 Standard deviation 0.053 0.067 tvalue p-value Results 9.139 0.000** Accept 3.223 0.001** Accept Source: Research results 4.5 Test for mediating effects Table 4.3 The results of testing mediating hypotheses Hypothesis statement Result H5.1a Social entrepreneurial self–efficacy mediates the relationship from Accept inspiration to social entrepreneurship intention (INS -> SEF -> SEI) H5.1b Outcome expectations mediate the relationship from inspiration to Rejected social entrepreneurship intention (INS -> SOE -> SEI) H5.2a Social entrepreneurial self–efficacy mediates the relationship from Rejected mindfulness to social entrepreneurship intention (MFN -> SEF -> SEI) H5.2b Outcome expectations mediate the relationship from mindfulness Accept to social entrepreneurship intention (MFN -> SOE -> SEI) H5.3a Social entrepreneurial self–efficacy mediates the relationship from Accept perceived social support to social entrepreneurship intention (PSS -> SEF -> SEI) H5.3b Outcome expectations mediate the relationship from perceived Accept social support to social entrepreneurship intention (PSS -> SEF -> SEI) Source: Research results 4.6 Assessing the influence of occupation on the model of social entrepreneurship intention The results from Table 4.10 show that, for both the Student group and the Staff/Expert group, the relationship between inspiration and social entrepreneurship intention is not statistically significant at 95% Significant differences were found between the two groups including: the effect of inspiration on the self–efficacy (INS -> SEF: Δβ= 0.404; p=0.005), the effect of mindfulness on social entrepreneurship intention (MFN -> SEI: Δβ= -0.482; p=0.003), perceived social support on social entrepreneurship intention (PSS -> SEI: Δβ= 0.228; p= 0.035) The results from Table 4.11 show that, for both the Student group and the Manager/Director/Self-Employers group, mindfulness, the relationship between outcome expectations and the social entrepreneurship intention has no statistical significance at the 95% confidence level Significant differences were found between the two groups including: influence of inspiration on social entrepreneurship intention (INS -> SEI: Δβ = -0.489; p = 0.029), effect of mindfulness on self–efficacy (MFN -> SEF: Δβ = -0.499; p = 0.021), perceived social support on social entrepreneurship intention (PSS -> SEI: Δβ = 0.231; p = 18 0.037) The difference in the relationship between self–efficacy and outcome expectations, although statistically significant (p = 0.001), is not significant because it does not lead to the formation of social entrepreneurship intention The results from Table 4.12 show that, for both the group of Employees/experts and the group of Managers/Directors/ Self-Employers, the relationship between perceived social support and social entrepreneurship intention is the same not statistically significant at the 95% level Significant differences were found between the two groups including: influence of inspiration on social entrepreneurship intention (INS -> SEI: Δβ= -0.644; p = 0.005), influence of mindfulness on social entrepreneurship intention (MFN -> SEI: Δβ= 0.353; p=0.046) The difference in the relationship between self–efficacy and outcome expectations, although statistically significant (p = 0.002), is not significant because it does not lead to the formation of social entrepreneurship intention 4.7 Assessing gender differences in social entrepreneurship models The results from Table 4.13 show that a statistically significant difference at 95% confidence level is found between the two groups of male and female including: the influence of inspiration on the social entrepreneurship intention (INS -> SEI: Δβ=0,312; p = 0.024), perceived social support on social entrepreneurship intention (PSS -> SEI: Δβ= -0.299; p = 0.002) and self–efficacy for entrepreneurship intention (SEF -> SEI: Δβ=-0.293; p = 0.002) 4.8 Discussion of research results 4.8.1 SCCT-based model and its components in the context of social entrepreneurship The results from the thesis show that the order of impact of the theoretical components of SCCT on intention is the self–efficacy (β=0.324), outcome expectation (β=0.184) Meanwhile, the research results of Aure et al (2019) show a rather large difference In their study, outcome expectations (β=0.261) had an important influence on social entrepreneurship intention, followed by self–efficacy with a rather modest influence (β=0.090) In addition, in the model of Aure et al (2019), the level of explanation of social entrepreneurship intention (R2=0.395) is also different from the research results from the thesis (R2=0.649) This difference can be explained by differences due to the survey subjects and different social and institutional contexts between the two studies (Sahasranamam & Nandakumar, 2020) In their research, the survey subjects were students while the thesis's access to participants was expanded to include many different occupational components (including students) Furthermore, the survey subjects in this study had a certain understanding of social enterprises, different from the students in the study of Aure et al (2019) The above arguments show that the proposed research model has good explanatory capacity in the field of social entrepreneurship 4.8.2 Perceived social support The analysis showed that perceived social support was a strong predictor of social entrepreneurial self–efficacy This finding explains that social support is not a strong motivating factor for the social entrepreneurship intention in emerging economies such as Brazil, China, or Vietnam in this study Research shows that perceived social support is an important complementary factor for SCCT when explaining social entrepreneurship intention because of its full impact on all three components of this theory 19 4.8.3 Inspiration Research results confirm that inspiration is a necessary factor in explaining why one chooses to be an entrepreneur (or social entrepreneur) In addition, the findings from the study also provide implications for managers about how to increase social entrepreneurial self– efficacy from influencing inspiration 4.8.4 Mindfulness The study results confirm previous findings by scholars suggesting that mindfulness is a relevant factor explaining the motivation for social entrepreneurship (Gelderen et al., 2019; Plaskoff, 2012) 4.8.5 Influence of occupation on social entrepreneurship intention The first is the Student group This group desperately needs the help of society to be able to form the intention of social entrepreneurship Previous studies have suggested that it is necessary to strengthen the inspiration factor (from theory and practice) to integrate it into the start-up training programs for this target group (Cui et al., 2019; Nabi et al., 2019) The second is a group of Employees/Experts with specific expertise in the fields they are undertaking For this group, the element of inspiration did not play a role in promoting initiation, but instead mindfulness It can be said that mindfulness is the most important factor promoting this group of people to start a social business In addition, social support helps this subject have more confidence (social entrepreneurial self–efficacy) and have positive visualizations from his or her actions (social outcome expectations), thereby increasing social entrepreneurship intention Finally, there is a group of Managers/Directors/Self-Employers This group often initiates social startups based on inspiration On the other hand, this group also found that practicing mindfulness helped them become more confident about their decision to become social entrepreneurs to bring practical help to the community As a result, they have higher expectations about the good results brought by the development of social enterprises 4.8.6 Effect of gender on social entrepreneurship intention Inspiration is an important factor that drives men's social entrepreneurship intention (Maes et al., 2014) As for women, the role of perceived social support is quite important in shaping the intention to start a social business The last difference shows that social entrepreneurial self–efficacy plays an important role in the formation of social entrepreneurship intention in women higher than in men CHAPTER CONCLUSION AND MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS 5.1 Conclusion 5.1.1 The research results The study uses SCCT as a basis to explain the relationships The research method consists of two phases: preliminary (performed by qualitative research) and formal (implemented by quantitative research method) Preliminary research results help the dissertation confirm the proposed research model and a questionnaire consisting of 39 observed variables for research concepts including inspiration, mindfulness, perceived social support, entrepreneurial self–efficacy, outcome expectations, and social ... Dung, 2017; Nguyen Thi Nhu Ai, 2019; Nguyen Thi Yen & Tran Thi Bao Anh, 2017; Pham Vu Thang & Cao Tu Oanh, 2015; Phan Thi Thanh Thuy, 2015; Phung Thi Yen, 2016) In the aspect of social entrepreneurship,... Inspiration (INS) H2.1 H2.2 H2.3 H3.2 social entrepreneurial self-efficacy (SEF) Mindfulness H1.1 Ý định khởi KDXH (SEI) H3.1 (MFN) H1.3 H3.3 H1.2 social outcome expectations (SOE) H4.2 Perceived social... Stage 2: Official research (quantitative) 13 3.1.2.4 Step 4: Quantitative research State Preliminary (qualitative) research Research problem Phase Official research (quantitative) Objectives of