Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite Discuss in SciProfiles

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

Family Entrepreneurship and Personal Career Preferences as the Factors of Differences in the Development of Entrepreneurial Potential of Students

Sustainability 2019, 11(20), 5693; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205693

by Slavica Mitrovic Veljkovic¹, Mia Maric², Mladen Subotic², Branislav Dudic^3,4,*

and Michal Greguš³

Reviewer 1:

Marcela Ramirez-Pasillas

Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Reviewer 4: Anonymous

Sustainability 2019, 11(20), 5693; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205693

Submission received: 25 June 2019 / Revised: 23 September 2019 / Accepted: 11 October 2019 / Published: 15 October 2019

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for inviting me to review the article “ Influence of Family Entrepreneurship and Personal Career Preferences on the Development of Entrepreneurial Potential”. I enjoyed reading the article due to its potential contributions to the literature on entrepreneurial potential. I have suggested a R&R with a major revision. I consider that the revision has risks but I think that the authors can manage it if they work addressing comments. General comments The article aims to contribute to the entrepreneurial potential literature. This literature needs to be very well discussed to better understand the focus and relevance of the research. It is not enough to relate to article by article (i.e., introduction section and theory section) or well-developed instruments (i.e., theory and method sections). Rather, there is a need to clarify and position within this literature by having a more concise and summative discussion of the literature. Think on the commonalities of the selected literature and how the literature supplements and/or contradicts findings, etc. This central to develop a good revised section. The problem gap is unclear and somewhat disintegrated; personally, the gap is clear to me. However, the authors need to discuss it and argue very well in the introduction of the paper. Tells us why family entrepreneurship background and choice of sector is a good gap (and how they are also linked/important to generate an entrepreneurial potential), what it is that we know about this and what we do not know about it. In the current version of the paper, the lack of a gap positioning becomes evident for instance, when there are adjustments made to the purpose (cf. compare purpose in the introduction and discussion sections). The aim of the paper needs a bit of fine-tuning. In the second part of the paper, it was a surprise to find out that choice of sector was related to simply private and state sector. This is fine but it needs to be clear since the beginning of the text. Also, what are your research questions? You need to discuss the contributions of the paper, i.e. if findings were expected, it makes me wonder if there is anything new in your research. Again, personally, it is clear to me. But you need to think on the 2-3 most important contributions and discuss them in the introduction of your paper. This contribution needs to be aligned to your discussion and conclusion at the end of the paper. Specific comments Abstract Double check that you do not repeat information. Please consider moving the rows 18-20 to the beginning of the paper. In sentence 26, consider adding a sentence with your most important findings. Introduction Rows 32 to 37 do not work. The introduction section currently starts “Transition economies..” but your sample includes students from Belgium. It seems that your section starts at row 39 or 41. Consider an alternative way to start your paper: for example, a developed/changed/adjusted sentence like the one in row 107 will help you immediately position your study in your topic, i.e., “entrepreneurial potential”. Then move to what we know on the literature about it in a paragraph. Then discuss what we do not know – this is where the family/sector environmental aspects come into play. Bring in family entrepreneurship background and sector here (i.e., are there connections between these two that can be better explored?). Also, you will need here a revised aim tied to a good research question. A good aim examines, explains or describes (cf., a good aim does not try to assess). Theoretical Framework This section lacks flow. The reader must do a little bit of guessing to figure out what the main aspects are. My suggestion is to break down the literature on the entrepreneurial potential in three parts: its overall definition, personal preferences, and environmental preferences. The relevance of family entrepreneurship background and sector need to be very well connected to career choice and personal characteristics based on literature. The authors could benefit if they develop a set of hypotheses. Since the authors expressed results as “expected”, a hypothesis will be confirmed or unconfirmed with the results (and thus add value to the study). It also seems that SEP and EQT are only employed as analytical tools rather than as models. Thus, the hypothesis will also help clarify what is tested later on. Think that at the end of the section, it needs to be very clear what concepts/relations/models you look into. Research methodology I suggest to re-number section 3.1. as 3. Please revise the first paragraph of this section, do not repeat the aim. Rather start “to asses our hypothesis or to examine X&X influence the entrepreneurial potential, instrument X & X were used in a sample XXXX. Move the hypothesis to the theory section (but break it into 2-3 revised set of). Tell why us the SEP and EQT instruments were chosen. I will not comment on method and data analysis since I am not a quantitative researcher. There are three aspects that need to be considered carefully. First, I mentioned above a potential ethical concern due to the use of surveys. Again I am not a quantitative researcher, thus I wonder did students give their consent to participate in the study or only the universities? Please state it. If they did not, it will be important to add it as a limitation. Second, did you consider testing differences in your results among samples (i.e., Serbia, Bosnia, and Belgium) or control for the country of origin? Third, why is the canonical discriminant analysis the suitable technique to examine your aim? Fourth, why is the family entrepreneurship background not added to the EQT or the SEP? I am not a quantitative researcher, thus, I do not know if this is technically possible. Results Your results start at row 243. In the EQT and SEP tests, I wonder if it is possible to also add the family entrepreneurship background. Ideally, try to have a discussion that builds up or adds complexity to the understanding and relevance of the family entrepreneurship background to the entrepreneurial potential. This is to me where the main challenge of the paper is. The article makes the reader curious, thus we do not just want to know that the family entrepreneurship background is important, we want to know why it is so. Discussion Rows 294 to 301 seem to be part of the theoretical section. In this section, there are good connections to literature. However, it is important to lift out the contribution, i.e., in what way your findings contribute to the literature or advance previous studies? The answer to this question is central to advance to the next stage in your revision. Conclusion There is a need to add a section of limitations and suggestions for future research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

we would like to inform you that me and my co-authors revised our manuscript and considered and responded to all comments. The manuscript has now endured major revision that was done according to the guidelines. I am sending you the revised manuscript along with the cover letter which contains details on how the manuscript was revised accordnig to the reviewers instructions. Thank you in advance

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper “Influence of Family Entrepreneurship and Personal Career Preferences on the Development of Entrepreneurial Potential of Students” examines the role of family factor and personal career preferences of student population and their influence on the development of entrepreneurial potential. However, I have some concerns that should be addressed.

First of all, it is not clear how the research is related to the sustainability. Furthermore, the number of keywords is insufficient.

Introduction

Though the research idea is briefly introduced, it is not clear what are the key reasons to examine family entrepreneurship and personal career preferences. This idea should be explained more comprehensively. Introduction section starts from the sentence: “Transition economies are those developing from a centralized <..>” what suggests the intentions to investigate only transition economies. However, the authors focus on Belgium (developed country). Why do you select these countries? This section has to be improved. Moreover, more empirical evidence on entrepreneurship trends of analyzed economies would be welcomed to demonstrate reasonability of the research idea. Existing gap(s) and research questions are not clearly specified in the introduction.

Literature review

Literature – needs broadening/deeper research. I suggest to focus on the research papers published in high ranked scientific journals (indexed in WoS with high IF). The paper also misses a number of literature positions. As insufficient literature review is a weakness of this paper, the author should therefore deepen the theoretical part of their considerations on the basis of subject literature, especially regarding family entrepreneurship, personal career and entrepreneurial potential of students. The literature review should end with a conclusive paragraph that ties better to materials and methods and introduces the hypothesis You should improve this section.

Materials and Methods

Though the part “3. Results” should disclose results of the research, the authors provide methods. I suggest to improve this. Furthermore, the part “Research methodology” is missing references. Why do you use “Questionnaire on Entrepreneurial Traits (QET) and the scale of entrepreneurial potential (SEP)”? Who are the authors? Why do you use these? What are the advantages and etc.?

Why did you select this method for data collection? How many students study at the universities? How did you solve the problem of common method bias and the potential no‐response bias? Considering measures, the authors have to present each measure separately with appropriate references. More specifically, the measures of family entrepreneurship, personal career and entrepreneurial potential of students have to be indicated. This part lacks more detail information on developed questionnaire. Thus, this part requires revisions.

Analytical approach has to present information on construct validity and reliability (of each item from QET and SEP). The information on Personal Career Preferences is missing in methodology part (how do you measure this).

Results

Results part has to present descriptive statistics (in detail) and hypothesis testing. What is the logic to use data from 3 absolutely different countries? What are the differences among countries?

Discussion

It would be worth addressing what your study has revealed and then juxtapose is with what is already known in the field. Discussion of the results should also involve empirical background, policy implications and country specific dimensions of the key outcomes of the paper.

Conclusions

What are the limitations of your study?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

There are so many papers which deal with entrepreneurial intentions among students... So the authors should in first place carry a sound literature review, especially indicating the context of post-socialist transition economies (Wach & Wojciechowski, 2016; Gubik & Farkas, 2016), as their history of family entrepreneurship is rather short (Surdej & Brzozowski, 2017; Marjański & Sułkowski, 2018). Then the authors should indicate the motivations and value added in their study. So: why you have chosen Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina all together? Why this region is so important? What is novel in your analysis as compared to existent studies in this topic?

Surdej, A., & Brzozowski, J. (2017). Assessing the Readiness to Family Firm Succession among CEE Students. Przedsiębiorczość i Zarządzanie, 18(6, cz. 1 Firmy rodzinne-rozwój teorii i praktyki zarządzania), 11-22.

Wach, K., & Wojciechowski, L. (2016). Entrepreneurial Intentions of Students in Poland in the View of Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 4(1), 83-94. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2016.040106

Gubik, A. S., & Farkas, S. (2016). Student entrepreneurship in Hungary: Selected results based on GUESSS Survey. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 4(4), 123.

Marjański, A., & Sułkowski, Łukasz. (2018). The Evolution of Family Entrepreneurship in Poland: Main Findings Based on Surveys and Interviews from 2009-2018. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2019.070106

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Revision Report Sustainability-545226

The manuscript deals with family entrepreneurship and career preferences as determinants of the entrepreneurial potential of students. This is a potentially interesting topic albeit some major issues need to be addressed. The first issue relates to the contribution of the specific case study and the new information that it provides. The second important issue is that the choice of the countries to be used in the empirical analysis is neither explained nor is it somehow justified. The overall macro environment, institutions, and cultural background are quite diverse and thus the content of the instruments used might also be different.

I would suggest that the authors consider revising their manuscript along the lines of clearly presenting a well-elaborated theoretical framework from within which the potential contribution of their case study might also be discerned. Also, I would suggest that the authors clearly justify the choice of countries and data used or diversify their analysis accordingly.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for resubmitting the revised article “ Influence of Family Entrepreneurship and Personal Career Preferences on the Development of Entrepreneurial Potential”. You have developed clear progress in your work. Good work. Please keep working with your paper; you are moving in a very good direction. I hope that my comments help you refine your arguments and improve the flow of the paper. Please note that these are suggestions.

Please find below my comments and suggestions for further development.

Abstract: in the abstract, you present first the results related to career preferences and then the results linked to the family entrepreneurship background. If you keep the current paper’s title, I would expect to read first the results on the background of family entrepreneurship followed up by the career preferences. This is central as to ‘grab’ the attention of the readers.

Further the following sentence “Young people whose family members are engaged in entrepreneurship and young people who prefer to build a career within their enterprise…” row 32-24, p.1 does not show a difference. Basically, it says that there are similarities. I invite the authors to reflect on the ‘differences’ obtained in the results and bring them forth on the abstract (and if results are similar, also discuss them more precisely). Further, the sentence “Results of this study can help foster factors that influence and significantly develop entrepreneurship potential of student population.”, row 27-28, p.1. It is not clear what is fostered.

Introduction

P.2 Rows 38 to 58 do not work. We still do not know what your study is about and you introduce the geographical context. Further, I think that the authors did not address my previous comment:

“Consider an alternative way to start your paper: for example, a developed/changed/adjusted sentence like the one in row 107 will help you immediately position your study in your topic, i.e., “entrepreneurial potential”. Then move to what we know in the literature about it in a paragraph. Then discuss what we do not know – this is where the family/sector environmental aspects come into play. Bring in family entrepreneurship background and sector here (i.e., are there connections between these two that can be better explored?). Also, you will need here a revised aim tied to a good research question. A good aim examines, explains or describes (cf., a good aim does not try to assess).”

It is important that everything that you include in the Introduction is relevant and is employed tp argue very well for the need of your study. For instance, mentioning sustainable development (later sustainability and sustainable entrepreneurship) creates the expectation that your paper will deal with sustainable development. However, this is not the case (your empirical study does not include sustainability). In contrast, the sentences starting in row 64, are highly relevant. So, your introduction starts there! From row 64 to 100, you have the material to positioning your study and create a very good opening. Here it needs to be clear where are you positioning your study because of its limitation and your potential contribution (i.e., Social Learning Theory Albert, Entrepreneurial Traits (QET) and the model of entrepreneurial potential (SEP)).

At the end of row 100, you could introduce the geographical context of your study (that is part of the text that you have in rows 48-58 P.1-2). But I am not sure that the context needs to be introduced in the first two pages since you do not really use the geographical context in the study (i.e., there is no difference among countries, etc.).

Next, the purpose of your study needs to explain, describe or understand. While you argue that you examine the ‘how’, you aim to ‘explain’. These are two different things; I instead suggest that you aim to ‘explain’ and develop a why question. Your research questions need to be slightly revised, that is you are not comparing geographical samples. Rather you aim to explain the influence of family entrepreneurship background and personal career, right?

This implies that your research question is more likely to argue for “why do family entrepreneurship background and private sector career preferences influence potential entrepreneurial endeavor (or self-efficacy) ?” It is not clear what you mean with ‘structure’ and ‘entrepreneurial dimension’ in the paragraphs beforehand. The key here is simplifying terms and only using terms that are explained well. Furthermore, the sentence “This study focuses on the student population’s personal preferences and family entrepreneurial background as factors that largely impact student’s entrepreneurial potential. The reason why we study student population is because students form the most valuable resource of each country” row 135 to 138, p. 2 should be moved to the purpose paragraph. This is a very good explanation of your study.

Lastly, consider developing your Introduction in a standard 4 two-page 4 paragraph introduction. In the first paragraph, describe what we know. In the second paragraph describe the gap. In the third paragraph describe how you close the gap while drawing on theory (by stating a revised purpose). Lastly, conclude with a revised concise contribution paragraph.

Theoretical Framework

This section is getting better, but it still is fragmented. My suggestion is to start this section with the sentence: “Entrepreneurship as a combination of personal and environmental factors which combined in entrepreneurial activity bring economic development (Fischer and Nijkamp, XX; Audretsch et al., XX).”, row132-133, p. 133. Then continue with “Social learning theory proposes that… 4–6].”, row143.149. Next, explain personal factors and then environmental factors. Then introduce the models in rows 150-158.

Somewhere embedded in the text (and not at the end of the section), bring your hypothesis link to personal career preferences. This will be the same for the family background. This will help the reader understand the connections between literature and your propositions.

Thus, the overall message is: work with the flow of your text (personal factors + hypothesis and environmental factors + hypothesis).

Think that at the end of the section, it needs to be very clear what concepts/relations/models you look into. It also needs to be very clear what field(s) you contribute (i.e., Social Learning Theory Albert, Entrepreneurial Traits (QET) and the model of entrepreneurial potential (SEP)). Personally, I think that you have there what you need there, it is a matter of re-organizing it (and making it clear!).

Research methodology

Thank you for addressing my comments. The structure looks better with the adjustments, new -subsections, data, and table data. I will not comment on method and data analysis since I am not a quantitative researcher.

Conclusion

The first paragraph needs to relate back to the purpose and present a summary discussion of the main results that directly answer the research question. The next paragraph needs to connect to literature and discuss how you confirm and extend the literature in the field that you contributed(i.e., Social Learning Theory Albert, Entrepreneurial Traits (QET) and the model of entrepreneurial potential (SEP)).

Practical implications need to relate back to your purpose and result. This is particularly the case as your study makes a point about family entrepreneurship. Currently, they are too general and not related to your results.

The section of limitation and research suggestions also need to be better linked to the study. I am not a quantitative researcher. It seems that there is a limitation when you group students by family and non-family background. Could the small statistical difference among the group difference in the family entrepreneurship background be addressed as a limitation and suggest research that directly addresses it (.265 and -.157)? There are several other issues. For instance, you combine three geographical contexts (i.e. Serbia, Bosnia, and Belgium). It seems that these contexts did not play a role in the study. Why? How can this be addressed with future research? Also, can your results be generalized and transferred to other transition or developed economies? Yes or No? Why?

Author Response

Cover letter - details of the revisions 2 in the manuscript

“Family Entrepreneurship and Personal Career Preferences as the factors of differences in the Development of Entrepreneurial Potential of Students“

All of the revisions in the manuscript have been coloured red.

Abstract

First are present the results on the background of family entrepreneurship followed up by the career preferences.

The differences in entrepreneurial potential are presented between students of different family background. Also the differences in entrepreneurial potential are presented between students of different career preferences. Further the following sentence “Young people whose family members are engaged in entrepreneurship and young people who prefer to build a career within their enterprise…” row 32-24, p.1 show similarities. The authors reflected the ‘differences’ obtained in the results and bring them forth on the abstract (similar results are also discuss more precisely, but main aim was to determine the differences in entrepreneurial potential within different family background and within different career preferences, not between these two domains). Further, in the sentence “Results of this study can help foster factors that influence and significantly develop entrepreneurship potential of student population.”, row 27-28, p.1, it is cleared what factors can be fostered.

Introduction

The authors now address the previous comment - it is used an alternative way to start paper, the study positioned in topic, i.e., “entrepreneurial potential”. Then is moved to what we know in the literature about it in a paragraph. Then discuss what we do not know – this is where the family/sector environmental aspects come into play. Family entrepreneurship background and sector are brought here. Revised aim tied to a research question. The aim now examines (not try to assess).

Everything included in the Introduction is relevant and is employed to argue for the need of study. The sentences starting in row 64, are highly relevant, so now introduction starts there. From row 64 to 100 is the material to positioning of study and creating an opening. Here it is cleared where is positioning study because of its limitation and potential contribution (i.e., Social Learning Theory, Entrepreneurial Traits (QET) and the model of entrepreneurial potential (SEP)).

The geographical context of the study is not introduced in the first two pages since we do not really use the geographical context in the study (i.e., there is no difference among countries, etc.), so this part is now positioned in methodology, where it have function of explanation of the representativeness the sample of study.

The purpose of the study is to examine the ‘how’, instead aim to ‘explain’. Also research questions are slightly revised, because we not comparing geographical samples, but the differences in entrepreneurial potential created by factors - family entrepreneurship background and personal career.

It is explained why family entrepreneurship background and private sector career preferences influence potential entrepreneurial endeavour, but main question was not why, but how. The term ‘structure’ is replaced with ‘entrepreneurial dimension’, which is explained well. Furthermore, the sentence “This study focuses on the student population’s personal preferences and family entrepreneurial background as factors that largely impact student’s entrepreneurial potential. The reason why we study student population is because students form the most valuable resource of each country” row 135 to 138, p. 2 is moved to the purpose paragraph, because this is a explanation of the study.

Lastly, Introduction is developed in a standard two-page 4 paragraph introduction. In the first paragraph, is described what we know. In the second paragraph is describing the gap. In the third paragraph is described how will be closed the gap while drawing on theory (by stating a revised purpose). Lastly, it is concluded with a revised concise contribution paragraph.

Theoretical framework

We started off with the recommended sentence Entrepreneurship as a combination of personal and environmental factors which combined in entrepreneurial activity bring economic development (Fischer and Nijkamp, XX; Audretsch et al., XX).”, then we moved on to row132-133, p. 133. Then continued with “Social learning theory proposes that… 4–6].”, row143.149. Next, we explained personal factors and then environmental factors. Then introduced the models in rows 150-158 as recommended by the reviewer.

We then followed the instructions and delivered, the overall message: (personal factors + hypothesis and environmental factors + hypothesis) in order to achieve the right flow of the text.

We followed in detail the review instructions and it helped us get a better organized and much clearer section for the readership.

Methodology and results

The information on questionnaire Questionnaire of Entrepreneurial Traits (QET) in English is added. Also, besides focus of each scale are presented examples of questions.

Scale of Entrepreneurial Potential (SEP) developed by the authors is complement with justification (references) of this scale and detailed information about the questions – examples of items are presented with the description of each subscale and complete instrument is added in Appendix.

The advantages of these instruments as compared to others are described in more detail.

The questions related to the variables: family entrepreneurship and the personal career preference are justified. It is explained why these questions are asked and references are added, too.

Table 1. which presents information on “coefficients of reliability of subscales” is complete with information on used abbreviations. Also, the information on Bartlett's test of sphericity and the varimax rotation are added. The same was applied for Table 2.

The way is solved the problem of common method bias ex-ante was explained and we used as reference as suggested (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012).

The authors explained why was used sample of 1008 students – its reliability and corresponding to other studies. It is explained why was used the sample from 3 different countries.

Table 3 which presents abbreviations is completed with information on these abbreviations.

The text is completed with references to the tables and explanations what is presented.

Instead the influence, the term “differences” between students’ groups considering family background and preferred sector is now used in the description of the aim and whole paper.

Discussion and conclusion of the results involve empirical background, policy implications and explanation of country representativeness and possible generalizations of the key outcomes of the paper. Also, directions for the future research are derived.

Conclusion

The first paragraph is related back to the purpose and present a summary discussion of the main results that directly answer the research question. The next paragraph is connected to literature and discuss how is confirmed and extended the literature in the field that paper contributed (i.e., Social Learning Theory, Entrepreneurial Traits (QET) and the model of entrepreneurial potential (SEP)).

Practical implications are related back to the purpose and results. This is particularly the case as the study makes a point about family entrepreneurship. They are now more specific and related to the results.

The section of limitation and research suggestions also is better linked to the study. It seems that there is a limitation when students are grouped by family and non-family background, so the small statistical difference among the group difference in the family entrepreneurship background can be addressed as a limitation and suggest future research that directly addresses it. It is explained why is combined three geographical contexts (i.e. Serbia, Bosnia, and Belgium) and why they did not play a role in the study. Besides that, it is explained why the results can be generalized and transferred to other transition or developed economies. Also it is explained how this can be addressed with future research.

Extensive English changes are done.

Reviewer 2 Report

Some aspects of the paper has been improved. However, I have some considerations.

The authors rely on Questionnaire of Entrepreneurial Traits (QET), which was published by other scholars in Croatian language (https://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=clanak&id_clanak_jezik=204638). Currently, the paper lacks important information on questionnaire in English. To present information what is the focus of each scale is not enough. The authors have to present either all questionnaire, either examples of questions. Currently, it is impossible to repeat the survey in other countries and by other scholars.

Scale of Entrepreneurial Potential (SEP) was developed by the authors, but the paper lacks justification (references) of this scale and detailed information about the questions.

What are the advantages of these instruments as compared to others (please justify)?

The questions related to the variables: family entrepreneurship and the personal career preference have to be justified. Why do you ask these questions? What are the references?

Table 1. presents information on “coefficients of reliability of subscales”, however the authors use abbreviations (e.g. sp1 sp12 sp20 sp24 and etc.). The paper lack information on these abbreviations. It is impossible to understand. In addition, the information on Bartlett's test of sphericity and the varimax rotation is missing. The same issue is applied for Table 2.

How did you solve the problem of common method bias ex-ante? For the potential common method bias see: Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012.

The authors have to explain why they used sample of 1008 students from about 130 000. What is the reliability? Does it correspond to other studies? Why do you use the sample from 3 absolutely different countries? These countries differ in terms of cultural and economic context. This is a logical mistake.

Table 3 presents abbreviations. The information on these abbreviations is missing.

The text is missing references to the tables and explanations what is presented.

Though the authors aimed to “examine the influence of family entrepreneurship background and personal attitudes of students regarding their future career preferences on the development of specific dimensions of entrepreneurship potential of student population”, the method applied (the canonical discriminant analysis) let the authors to disclose what were the differences among students whose family members were engaged or still are engaged in entrepreneurship and those whose family members never engaged in entrepreneurial activity. In addition, the differences between students’ groups in terms of preferred sector was revealed. Thus, the aim and results do not correlate. The influence was not revealed.

Discussion of the results should also involve empirical background, policy implications and country specific dimensions of the key outcomes of the paper.