Entrepreneurial Resilience: A Case Study on University Students

  Citation: Montoro-Fernández, E.; Cárdenas-Gutiérrez, A.R.; Bernal-Guerrero, A. Entrepreneurial Resilience: A Case Study on University Students. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 2589. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph 19052589 Academic Editor: María M. Morales Suárez-Varela Received: 30 December 2021 Accepted: 21 February 2022 Published: 23 February 2022 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health Article Entrepreneurial Resilience: A Case Study on University Students Elisabet Montoro-Fernández 1,* , Antonio Ramón Cárdenas-Gutiérrez 2and Antonio Bernal-Guerrero 2 1Department of Communication and Education, Faculty of Social and Human Sciences, University Loyola Andalucía, 41704 Seville, Spain 2Department of Theory and History of Education and Social Pedagogy, Faculty of Education Sciences, Seville University, 41013 Seville, Spain; [email protected] (A.R.C.-G.); [email protected] (A.B.-G.) *Correspondence: emontor[email protected] Abstract: Entrepreneurial resilience refers to the capacity to face, overcome and project oneself after suffering life events with a negative impact. Emerging adulthood and the characteristics of university life facilitate the occurrence of stressful situations that can affect well-being. The aim of this phenomenological research is to explore the strategic components of entrepreneurial resilience and how young university students have shaped their entrepreneurial resilience after experiencing negative life events. The present research is a multiple case study that was developed through a mixed methodology. The methodological sequence was quantitative and qualitative, with priority given to the qualitative phase of the research. Ten university students with high levels of resilience were interviewed. The data were analysed using thematic analysis. The results indicate that resilience is built through intrapersonal and exopersonal processes. These processes make up a set of strategic dimensions related to entrepreneurial behaviour that are used for the construction of personal projects. Keywords: resilience; entrepreneurship; salutogenesis; university students; sense of coherence; general resilience resources; case study; mixed research 1. Introduction Psychological resilience is a conceptually complex term that raises discrepancies in its understanding depending on the personality traits, processes and outcomes involved [ 1 – 3 ]. This is corroborated by bibliometric studies that show a broad, diverse and fragmented state of the art [ 4 , 5 ]. Despite this conceptual heterogeneity, certain recurrent terms related to resilience have been extracted, such as coping capacity, adversity, risk factors, stressful situations, suffering and positive adaptation [6]. This terminological list leads to an approach of resilience as a multidimensional construct that involves the combination of biological, social, cultural and psychological processes [ 7 ] promoting adaptation and resistance to circumstances that are detrimental to physical and psychological well-being, whether in the social, personal, family or work sphere [8–10]. There is a widely accepted view of entrepreneurship as being directly related to business and understood as the process of initiation, creation, development and management of business projects [ 11 – 14 ]. However, in the educational context, entrepreneurship has two different notions: “enterprise education” and “entrepreneurship education” [ 15 ]. The concept of “enterprise education” is related to the development of generic skills linked to the projection of life in an infinite number of situations [ 16 ]. On the other hand, the term “entrepreneurship education” is linked to entrepreneurial creation and business [ 17 ]. Given this distinction, we adopt the construct “enterprise education”, as it represents the adoption of a more global approach centred on the capacity to initiate, transform, adapt, act and develop in the face of the opportunities or difficulties that affect people in their life cycle [ 18 ]. In line with the previous research [ 19 – 21 ], we associate “Enterprise education” Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 2589. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19052589 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 2589 2 of 22 with personal initiative, i.e., a set of self-initiated, proactive and sustainable actions that are sustainable over time and have the capacity to transform the context in which the subject finds him/herself [22]. The intersection of entrepreneurship and resilience has been studied from the theories of business organisation, either as a capability [ 23 ], process [ 24 ], operation [ 25 ] or result [ 26 ]. Nonetheless, all these perspectives constitute an interpretation of entrepreneurial resilience limited exclusively to the workplace. However, from a more holistic perspective, and related to personal development and growth, the term entrepreneurial resilience is reinterpreted in this paper, detaching it from the exclusive interpretation of the theories of business organisation and conceptualising it from the broader construction of personal identity, understood as a dynamic, evolutionary and social process, in which entrepreneurial initiative is included. The shaping of identity involves choosing, initiating and carrying out life activities that are part of the personal experience. This approach converges with lines of research focused on goal-oriented human behaviour, of a profuse projection, such as personal projects [ 27 ], personal aspirations [ 28 ], personal tasks [ 29 ] or possible selves [ 30 ]. All of them are linked to the narrative construction of personal identity, incorporating not only the vital charge of past and present experiences, but also the direction and management of expectations [ 31 ]. In this way, we conceptualise entrepreneurial resilience not only as the ability to face and manage life’s adversities efficiently and effectively (resilience), but also to project the self into the future, through the implementation of strategies related to entrepreneurial orientation and behaviour [ 32 , 33 ]. The incorporation of entrepreneurial behaviour into resilience processes promotes the configuration of personal projects, aspirations and areas, where negative episodes in life are adequately integrated (entrepreneurship), configuring a congruent biographical narrative. Entrepreneurial resilience is framed within the salutogenic model. This theory focuses on the origins and resources of health-promoting and interprets states of well-being as a continuum ranging from absolute health to profound disease states. The central concept of the salutogenic model is the sense of coherence (SOC) and it is conceived as a global orientation that expresses the degree to which one has a pervasive, enduring yet dynamic sense of confidence that: (1) the stimuli coming from the internal and external environment in the course of life are structured, predictable and explainable (comprehensibility); (2) the resources are available to one to meet the demands posed by these stimuli (manageability); and (3) these demands are challenging, worthy of investment and commitment (meaningfulness) [ 34 ]. SOC is a key concept in the development of resilience under adverse circumstances [35–37]. In turn, the salutogenic model is composed of a second construct: generalised resistance resources (GRRs). GRRs are defined as the set of personal, social or contextual resources and factors that minimise or counteract the stressors of everyday life by facilitating adaptation and coping in the face of adverse life circumstances [ 38 ]. Although not conclusive, research indicates that there is mutual feedback between SOC and GRRs, favouring well-being and health, which means that the use of GRRs contributes to a strengthened SOC and, likewise, a strengthened SOC implies a better use of GRRs [39,40]. However, it is well established that stressors negatively affect the state of health and well-being. In this regard, in [ 34 , 41 ] stressors are grouped into three broad groups: chronic stressors, major life events and daily hassles. This research focuses on the second group of stressors, understood as life events of negative impacts, which provoke a homeostatic disequilibrium on people’s well-being at some point in their life cycle [31–42]. The characteristics of the university environment and the confluence of emerging adulthood [ 43 ] make it possible for young university students to be subjected to various stressors, such as the exploration of professional identity, family independence, a greater degree of autonomy and responsibility, exacting academic demands, or family and personal expectations [ 44 ]. Furthermore, a study by the World Health Organisation on the prevalence and distribution of mental disorders in first-year university students revealed that 1 in 3 students (31.4%) suffered some mental disorder in the first academic year at univer- Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 2589 3 of 22 sity and in 1 out of 5 cases (20.4%) the disorders caused developmental problems, not only at the academic level but also affecting social life, personal relationships and work [ 45 , 46 ]. In the Spanish context, knowledge about how stressors affect the well-being of university students is not a widespread field of study, although some studies do exist. In relation to the prevalence of major depression, in [ 47 ] depression is reported to be highly prevalent in a sample of university students, with 8.7% of major depressive episodes, with the most common symptoms being a depressed mood (81.3%) and sleep disturbance (79.2%). In a more recent study of female university students, the results showed that 18.1%, 22.8% and 13.5% had severe/very severe levels of depression, anxiety and stress, respectively [ 48 ]. Along the same lines, it is concluded in [ 49 ] that one third of Spanish university students report having suffered from a common mental disorder in the last year, and one third of them report a severe impairment of their functioning. In addition, it is found in [ 50 ] that 21% of students persist in suicidal ideation one year after starting their university studies. This research indicates that the university stage is a critical period for the transition to adulthood that is not free of stresses, which undermine students’ health and well-being, both the well-being of students and their entrepreneurial performance in the development of their life projects. While there is research on resilience and coping with stressors in the university context [ 51 – 54 ], there are no studies on entrepreneurial resilience, in the sense of personal growth and development, but rather directly related to the organisation and creation of companies [ 55 ]. Personal growth as an entrepreneurial process is linked to the well-known concept of “entrepreneurial orientation” [ 56 – 59 ], which in turn is associated with performance theory [ 60 ]. This theory includes cumulative research on strategy and refers to three dimensions: innovation, risk-taking and proactivity [ 61 ]. Applied to individuals (it could also be applied to organisations), the process of entrepreneurial personal growth adds to the mere resilience of those strategic components that make up a specific disposition towards entrepreneurial behaviour, related to habitual tasks and the necessary adjustments required by the contexts in which the action takes place [ 62 ]. In a way, personal entrepreneurial growth highlights, as with the entrepreneurial orientation construct [ 63 ], the links between entrepreneurial attitudes and entrepreneurial behaviours [ 64 , 65 ]. In the academic environment, in which we have conducted the research, we could add some other strategic dimensions that characterise the process of personal entrepreneurial growth: self-confidence (confidence in relation to certain personal attributes), autonomy (ability to act with one’s own criteria and independently), perseverance (perseverance in achieving goals), achievement orientation (preference for taking responsibility and the submitting to evaluation of results) and problem solving (a process for dealing with difficulties). From a salutogenic perspective, the aim of this research is to explore the strategic components of the entrepreneurial profile of ten young university students and how they have shaped their entrepreneurial resilience after experiencing negative life events (NLEs). 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Research Design This research is a multi-case study [ 66 , 67 ] that was developed through a mixed methodology [ 68 ] using quantitative (RS-14 test) and qualitative (interviews) instruments. Bibliometric research [ 69 , 70 ] reveals that mixed research methods are widely used in entrepreneurship studies and corroborates their methodological effectiveness, irrespective of the research sequences implemented [ 71 , 72 ], as they enable: (1) a more comprehensive view of processes and results, (2) an increase in validity, (3) an improvement in the interpretation of results and (4) the generation and integration of more detailed and explanatory knowledge [73–75]. The research design was based on the principles of priority and sequentiality, with the qualitative method being primary (QL) and the quantitative method secondary (qt). The research frequency was quantitative and qualitative. Thus, the study was structured in two research phases: qt → QL [ 76 ]. The quantitative phase (1) was implemented through a descriptive and selective non-experimental study [ 77 ] to determine the degree of resilience of the participants and to select the subjects with the highest levels Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 2589 4 of 22 of resilience. The qualitative phase (2) and central core of the research was developed under the phenomenological and interpretative approach [ 78 ], based on the exploration, interpretation and narrative understanding of the participants’ life experiences, through the memories and reasoning of their own personal trajectories [ 79 ]. In our case, this approach aims to interpret and understand how people give meaning and significance to NLEs in the process of building entrepreneurial resilience. Interventional studies involving animals or humans, and other studies that require ethical approval, must list the authority that provided approval and the corresponding ethical approval code. 2.2. Sampling and Participants In order to select the participants, a non-probabilistic convenience and purposive sampling was used [ 80 ], following these inclusion criteria: (1) the participants belonged to the Pedagogy and Teaching Degrees of the University of Seville, (2) they had identified at least one NLE according to the Life Events Checklist for the DSM-5 [ 81 ] and (3) they had obtained very high scores (90–99) on the Resilience Scale (RS-14), the resilience measurement instrument. Following the sampling cycle [ 82 ], the participant sample (quantitative phase) consisted of 276 subjects who completed the RS-14 test and the real sample (qualitative phase) consisted of the 10 participants with the highest scores on the RS-14 test. 2.3. Data Collection Tools The data collection instruments selected in this research are disaggregated according to the phases of mixed research (qt-QL). Quantitative phase (qt): the level of resilience was measured with the Resilience Scale (RS-14) [ 83 ], validated in Spanish [ 84 ]. This consisted of 14 items with a 7-point Likert scale (“completely disagree” = 1, “completely agree” = 7). The SR-14 was made up of a single factor (resilience), reflecting the original dimensions of Personal Competence (11 items) and Acceptance of self and life (3 items). The psychometric properties of the RS-14 are adequate with an overall scale internal consistency (α0.79) [84]. This scale was used for the selection of participants under the following criteria: (1) the scale was validated by Spanish university students showing adequate internal consistency ( α 0.79) and robust validity with significant correlations with the resilience scale CDRISC [ 3 ]. (2) The RS-14 was used in different studies in university populations [ 85 , 86 ]. (3) Previous studies were carried out with this resilience scale in the entrepreneurial field [ 87 , 88 ]. (4) In the Spanish context, there is a lack of instruments that measure the intrapersonal factors of entrepreneurial resilience in the university population. In this respect, in the initial instructions for completing the scale, the following indication was introduced for the completion of the items: “As an entrepreneurial person I consider that . . . ”. In this way, participants responded to the SR-14 from an entrepreneurial perspective, as in other studies on resilience and entrepreneurship [ 89 ]. These criteria ensure the validity of the choice of SR-14 for this study. Qualitative phase (QL): Understanding how entrepreneurial resilience is formed was studied through in-depth interviews based on a semi-structured script [ 90 ]. The development of the first interview script was based on the available literature [ 91 – 93 ]. Subsequently, the interview script was subjected to the judgements of ten experts who analysed its validity and relevance. The experts were selected for their recognised academic and professional backgrounds in the field of resilience and were drawn from the academic and therapeutic sectors. In the academic sector, 6 experts with at least 2 publications on resilience in indexed journals were selected, and in the therapeutic sector 4, professionals with at least 5 years of experience in the development of therapies were chosen. Finally, the interview script was comprised of three thematic blocks with a total of 87 questions: personal events ( 11 questions ), resilience (41 questions), and resilient entrepreneurial identity ( 35 questions ). An interview is the instrument used to characterise the entrepreneurial profile of the resilient people selected in the quantitative phase. An interview allowed us to Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 2589 5 of 22 discover the strategic components that predispose towards entrepreneurial behaviour and how they were formed. Overall, the application of the SR-14 in the quantitative phase only involves the selection of highly resilient participants. In the qualitative phase, we used the interview as the main instrument of information collection to map the strategic dimensions that characterise personal entrepreneurial growth and the processes of how entrepreneurial resilience was achieved. In this way, the qualitative data collected will be crucial to define the strategic dimensions of the entrepreneurial personal growth process. 2.4. Data Collection Prior to the beginning of the research, authorisation was requested from the Dean of the Faculty of Education Sciences to carry out the study. Subsequently, an e-mail was sent to the teaching staff of the Bachelor’s Degrees in Pedagogy and Primary Education explaining the aim of the research and requesting access during their teaching hours to collect data using the RS-14 scale (quantitative phase). A set of twelve teachers agreed to collect quantitative data from both degrees. The data collection took place during the month of October 2020 and the students were informed of the purpose of the research, of their voluntary participation and of the confidential and anonymous processing of data for exclusively scientific use. The participants in the quantitative phase gave their written informed consent. Once the data from the RS-14 scale had been collected, the data were emptied and the subjects were classified according to the level of resilience of the total scores obtained on the RS-14 scale into: very high (90–99), high (80–89), normal (70–79), low (60–69) and very low (50–59). In the qualitative phase, the 25 participants with the highest scores on the RS-14 scale were selected. They were then contacted by e-mail for in-depth semi-structured interviews. Of these 25 potential participants, 19 replied affirmatively to participate in the qualitative phase. However, nine of them finally declined to participate in the interviews for work and personal-related reasons. The interviews were carried out by the first author during the month of November 2020 in an office of the Faculty of Education Sciences. Prior to the interviews, the participants were informed about the purpose of the interviews and the scientific procedure to be followed in the data processing. The interviews were recorded and lasted between 60 and 90 min each, ending when there was a saturation of data [94]. 2.5. Data Analysis In the quantitative phase, a descriptive percentage analysis and a study of the mean scores obtained on the RS-14 scale were carried out using the SPSS version 27 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA) programme. From phenomenological and interpretative epistemology, the qualitative data were analysed via thematic analysis. This method of analysis “is not wed to any pre-existing theoretical framework and so it can be used within different theoretical frameworks ( . . . ). Thematic analysis can be an essentialist or realist method, which accounts for the experiences, meanings and realities of the participants” [ 95 ]. The thematic analysis of the data provided by the interviews followed the phases described in the methodological guide of [ 95 ]: first, the interviews were transcribed verbatim by two researchers, and each interview was listened to at least three times, achieving a high degree of accuracy in the transcriptions. Subsequently, a third researcher checked all the transcribed interviews for accuracy. Second, a process of reading and re-reading the interviews was carried out and two independent researchers generated the initial codes in relation to the semi-structured interview script. Once the first three interviews had been coded, together with a third researcher, the list of codes was agreed upon by eliminating, reformulating and adding certain codes. The coding was carried out with the Atlas.ti. 7.0 programme (Scientific Software Development GmbH, Berlin, Germany). Third, once the list of emerging codes was compiled, potential themes related to the “lived experiences” of entrepreneurial resilience were identified and organised into a structure of main themes Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 2589 6 of 22 and sub-themes based on their prevalence and representativeness. Fourth, the researchers reviewed and agreed on the selection and organisation of the themes and sub-themes. Finally, the thematic structure was defined and nominated, i.e., the textual excerpts of each theme were identified and the essential aspects that would integrate each theme and sub-theme were determined. To do this, the themes themselves and their relationship with the other themes were considered. Through this process, the NLEs were interpreted and understood. The quality of the research was ensured by applying the following procedures [ 96 , 97 ]: (1) credibility was ensured by in-depth revision of the data, along with comparing data between researchers (triangulation); (2) dependability was ensured by using participant-identifying keys and describing data analysis techniques; (3) transferability was maintained by using purposive sampling, as well as describing the participants and data collection in detail; and (4) confirmability was obtained by analysing the data with Atlas.ti. 7.0 and checking the information from the interviews with the participants. 2.6. Ethical Considerations This research was approved and reviewed, including ethical aspects, by the committee of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation and the State Research Agency of the Spanish Government under reference number PID2019-104408GB-I00. 3. Results 3.1. Quantitative Study 3.1.1. Socio-Demographic Characteristics of the Participants Two hundred and seventy-six students from the Faculty of Education Sciences at the University of Seville participated in the study by completing the RS-14 scale. The socio-demographic characteristics of the participants are shown in Table 1. The participants have a mean age of 21 years (SD = 3.20) and the age range is between 18 and 45 years. The highest percentage of the participants are female (87.7%), compared to a lower percentage of males (12.3%). This very disparate percentage distribution between men and women is a consequence of the feminisation of the degrees in Education Sciences in the Spanish university context [ 98 ]. Data from the National Institute of Statistics show that in the academic year 2020/21 the percentage of women enrolled was 77.8% compared to 22.2% of men. Similarly, this distribution also occurs in the Faculty of Education Sciences at the University of Seville, where the total number of women enrolled corresponds to 71.68% as opposed to 28.32% of men. The composition of the sample by year was as follows: first year (54.7%), second year (14.1%) and fourth year (31.2%). As for the distribution by degree, the percentages obtained were 41.3% in primary education and 58.7% in pedagogy. Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of the participants (n= 276). Characteristics Nº of Participants (n) Percentage (%) Age, m. 21 23.6 18–45 years old 276 100 Gender Male 34 12.13 Female 242 87.7 Level of education at university First year 151 54.7 Second year 39 14.1 Fourth year 86 31.2 Grade Primary Education 114 41.3 Pedagogy 162 58.7 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 2589 7 of 22 3.1.2. Participants’ Responses Related to Resilience Level The RS-14 scale consisting of fourteen items was used to assess the students’ level of resilience, as can be seen in Table 2. High scores were obtained for all the items studied, the mean being between 4.03 and 6.29. Among the high scores, items 14 (“in an emergency, I am someone people can trust”) (42.4%), 13 (“I am proud of the things I have achieved”) (44.9%), 12 (“I can usually find something to laugh about”) (47.8%) and 11 (“my life has meaning”) (48.9%) stand out. In contrast, an increase in low-scoring responses is observed for items 1 (“I generally take things in my stride”) (15.9% and 19.9%), 2 (“I am not afraid of difficulties because I have experienced them in the past”) (8.7% and 12.7%) and 3 (“I am a person with adequate self-esteem”) (7.6% and 12.2%). The rest of the items have high mean scores, approximately between 4.5 and 5.5. Table 2. Participants’ responses related to resilience level. Resilience Level Degree of Agreement n(%) 1=Totally Disagree 7 = Totally Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Average 1. I generally take things in my stride 10 (3.6) 44 (15.9) 55 (19.9) 63 (22.8) 46 (16.7) 39 (14.1) 19 (6.9) 4.03 2. I am not afraid of difficulties because I have experienced them in the past 9 (3.3) 24 (8.7) 35 (12.7) 63 (22.8) 61 (22.1) 57 (20.7) 27 (9.8) 4.53 3. I am a person with adequate self-esteem 3 (1.1) 21 (7.6) 31 (11.2) 64 (23.2) 78 (28.3) 56 (20.3) 23 (8.3) 4.64 4. I feel I can handle many situations at once 1 (0.4) 10 (3.6) 28 (10.1) 61 (22.1) 97 (35.1) 61 (22.1) 18 (6.5) 4.8 5. I am resolute and determined 1 (0.4) 13 (4.7) 32 (11.6) 55 (19.9) 86 (31.2) 59 (21.4) 30 (10.9) 4.84 6. Self-confidence helps me through difficult times 1 (0.4) 15 (5.4) 36 (13.0) 48 (17.4) 77 (27.9) 57 (20.7) 42 (15.2) 4.9 7. When I am in a difficult situation, I can usually find a way out 0 (0) 2 (0.7) 5 (1.8) 33 (12.0) 68 (24.6) 128 (46.4) 40 (14.5) 5.58 8. I am a disciplined person 1 (0.4) 2 (0.7) 11 (4.0) 24 (8.7) 67 (24.3) 105 (38.0) 66 (23.9) 5.66 9. I usually manage in one way or another 0 (0) 1 (0.4) 6 (2.2) 20 (7.2) 68 (24.6) 113 (40.9) 68 (24.6) 5.78 10. I take an interest in things 0 (0) 2 (0.7) 3 (1.1) 16 (5.8) 60 (21.7) 99 (35.9) 96 (34.8) 5.95 11. My life has meaning 1 (0.4) 1 (0.4) 1 (0.4) 13 (4.7) 53 (19.2) 90 (32.6) 117 (42.4) 6.09 12. I can usually find something to laugh about 0 (0) 1 (0.4) 4 (1.4) 12 (4.3) 56 (20.3) 79 (28.6) 124 (44.9) 6.1 13. I am proud of the things I have achieved 0 (0) 1 (0.4) 0 (0) 8 (2.9) 38 (13.8) 97 (35.1) 132 (47.8) 6.27 14. In an emergency, I am someone people can trust 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (0.7) 8 (2.9) 32 (11.6) 99 (35.9) 135 (48.9) 6.29 3.1.3. Resilience Levels The resilience scores were distributed into the following categories: “Very low ( 50–59 points )”, “Low (60–69 points)”, “Normal (70–79 points)”, “High (80–89 points)” and “Very high (90–99 points)”, as shown in Table 3. The majority of the participants, 64.5%, obtained an overall score on the scale within the value “High”, showing a positive perception of their level of resilience. Furthermore, 26.4% of students scored in the “Very High” range, while only 9.1% was in the “Normal” range. Therefore, the majority of the students agreed that, in general, they had a high level of resilience. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 2589 8 of 22 Table 3. Distribution of participants according to level of resilience. Resilience Level Points in the Scale n(%) Very low 50–59 0 (0) Low 60–69 0 (0) Normal 70–79 25 (9.1) High 80–89 178 (64.5) Very high 90–99 73 (26.4) 3.2. Qualitative Study 3.2.1. Demographic Characteristics of the Participants Qualitative data were obtained through in-depth interviews and were analysed comprehensively, adopting a biographical narrative approach. Ten participants were interviewed, as summarised in Table 4. The participants scored between 90 and 98 points on the RS-14 scale. The majority of the participants were women (7), compared to a small number of men (3). The mean age of the participants was 26 years (SD =4.9), the age range being between 21 and 37 years. With regard to undergraduate degrees, the majority were in pedagogy (7), compared to those in primary education (3). The participants were enrolled in the fourth year (5), second year (1) and first year (4). Finally, among the Negative Life Episodes (NLE) they experienced, family problems and illnesses stand out. Table 4. Characteristics of the participants (n= 10). Subject Score RS-14 Sex Age Undergraduate Degrees Course NLEs S1P98E37SM 98 Female 37 Pedagogy Fourth 12 S2P94E25SM 94 Female 25 Pedagogy Fourth 12 S3P93E32SV 93 Male 32 Pedagogy Fourth 17 S4P92E26SV 92 Male 26 Primary Education Second 12 S5P92E24SM 92 Female 24 Pedagogy Fourth 14 S6P92E23SV 92 Male 23 Pedagogy First 13 & 17 S7P91E25SM 91 Female 25 Pedagogy Fourth 13 & 17 S8P91E22SM 91 Female 22 Pedagogy First 13 & 17 S9P90E30SM 91 Female 24 Primary Education First 15 S10P90E21SM 90 Female 21 Primary Education First 8 Note 1: S = subject, P = score on the RS-14 scale, E = age and Sex = male or female. Note 2: items identified in the LEC 5 [ 62 ]: 8 = sexual assault, 12 = life-threatening injury or illness, 13 = severe human suffering, 15 = sudden accidental death, 17 = any traumatic event (participants have indicated broken family and poverty). 3.2.2. Shaping Entrepreneurial Resilience The information from the interviews indicates the set of processes implemented after the emergence of the NLEs. The structural thematic analysis was composed of two main themes and four sub-themes, respectively, categorised into intrapersonal and exopersonal (Table 5): 3.2.3. Resilience Shaping Processes The resilience of young university students was shaped by intrapersonal processes, such as cognitive, emotional and behavioural processes on the one hand, and exopersonal processes, such as social support, on the other hand. Cognitive Processes The perception of the stimuli as NLEs was generalised across all the participants. The assessment of the severity of adverse events is unique to personal subjectivity and is closely related to the availability of the person’s resources. When the demands of hazards exceed personal resources, adverse experiences are evaluated with a high degree of severity. The university students interviewed describe that in the face of adverse experiences, such as Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 2589 9 of 22 sexual abuse, terminal illness, abandonment or family breakdown or the death of parents in accidents, they have not had sufficient resources to manage NLEs. Participant S10P90E21SM narrates that she has “suffered sexual abuse by a very close relative, from the age of 6 to 14 ( . . . ) I didn’t know what to do, I didn’t know what was happening and I didn’t know how to act, I was a child who didn’t understand anything”. S6P92E23SV describes the lack of resources to adequately manage her NLE: “I witnessed my father beating my mother and verbally humiliating her on many occasions, ad nauseam. I also experienced my brother’s schizophrenic crises, which were brutal. And later, I had to take care of my mother who suffered from bipolar disorder. All this pushed me beyond my limits, I couldn’t cope any more”. Similarly, the rest of the participants described the lack of personal resources and their perception of the severity of their adverse experiences as NLEs. Table 5. Themes and sub-themes. Themes Sub-Themes Codes Resilience capacity building processes Intrapersonal Cognitive processes Perception Evaluation Adaptation Control Flexibility Emotional processes Knowledge Regulation Expression Conductual processes Approach Avoidance Re-evaluation Reinterpretation Acceptation Exopersonal Social support processes Explicit Implicit Strategic entrepreneurial dimensions from the NLEs Intrapersonal Basic level Innovation or creativity Proactivity or initiative Risk-taking Specific level Autonomy Perseverance Problem solving Self-confidence Achievement orientation Future projection processes of the self Intrapersonal Personal objectives Academic Welfare Labour Relational Personal efforts Academic Welfare Labour Relational Personal projects Restructuring Typology Evaluation Ranking Exopersonal Contextual variables Economic Material Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 2589 16 of 22 GRRs for the personal future after the NLEs. [ 114 ]. Although they all have their degree of importance, self-confidence as a central element in the salutogenic model takes on a preponderant relevance, since the components of SOC, comprehensibility, manageability and meaningfulness, are mediated by the degree of confidence in recognising stressors, coping with the demands of those stressors through the available resources and the commitment to overcoming challenges [115]. In the third moment, the future projection of the self underlies the question of what happens when NLEs are successfully faced and overcome. In general, a wide range of new possibilities opens up for the participants. The experiences of the university students interviewed indicate that there is a profound transformation of the system of beliefs, values, attitudes and behaviours prior to the NLEs. According to them, this internal change allowed them to observe new opportunities and achieve a life with a greater degree of meaningfulness. Previous research explored how negative experiences promote a meaningful life [116,117]. The third moment is characterised by the implementation of the strategic dimensions of entrepreneurial behaviour, enabling the projection of the future self [ 118 ] and the construction of life projects [ 119 ], through personal goals and efforts [ 120 ]. However, after the moment of educational impact and self-improvement, the participants explicitly manifested the acquired entrepreneurial strategies, it is no less true that, in the third moment of future projection of the self, they developed strategic entrepreneurial dimensions related to risk-taking (basic level) and achievement orientation (specific level) for the achievement of their objectives, goals and personal projects. It would be difficult to understand the implementation of personal projects without a certain degree of risk-taking and achievement orientation. With the development and implementation of the strategic dimensions, the participants built up a personal goal structure, differentiating between focal and instrumental goals [ 121 ]. Both types of goals were constituted by the participants through intrinsic and identified motivations, i.e., they chose the goals and objectives that represent their system of beliefs, values and attitudes [ 122 ]. These are so-called self-concordant goals [ 123 ]. Recent research corroborates how the choice of personal goal concordance generates optimism and well-being [ 124 ]. The self-concordant goals selected by the participants are linked to: first, maintaining and developing personal well-being; second, academic or professional development; and third, fostering quality inter-personal relationships. The achievement of these objectives implies a deep commitment on the part of the participants, which is reflected in the personal efforts they made towards their attainment. Underlying these personal efforts are the strategic dimensions acquired during the moment of self-improvement. In spite of their personal efforts, the participants are aware that there are contextual resources, which are convenient in order to achieve their goals, and material and financial resources. Distinguishing between focal and instrumental goals [ 121 ] also implies the difference between first- and second-order projects [ 125 ]. In the participants’ narratives, we can distinguish how they elaborated first-order projects to achieve certain instrumental goals that would facilitate the development of second-order personal projects, which are aimed at focal goals or self-concordant objectives. Thus, the participants construct their personal projects hierarchically. Studies on Spanish university students support this hierarchical conception of personal projects in emerging adulthood [ 126 ]. In this sense, it is common for all the participants to establish a hierarchy, where second-order projects, which guide first-order projects, are defined as being directed towards personal development, growth or well-being. It is not surprising that the effect of the personal projects constituted after the NLEs on well-being is considered as positive by the participants. This notion of the positive effect of personal projects was indicated by early studies on life satisfaction and the organisation of personal projects [ 127 ]. Finally, in the projection of the self through personal projects, the participants recognise the value of the strategic dimensions of entrepreneurial behaviour acquired in the implementation of their personal projects. In this sense, all the narrative data indicate that the implementation of intrapersonal GRRs, in this case, the strategic dimensions, enable a more solid configuration of the SOC. The described Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 2589 17 of 22 strategic dimensions favour a better comprehensibility, manageability and meaningfulness of their personal present and future. In this sense, the acquired strategic dimensions form the core of the entrepreneurial behaviour that accompanies resilient processes. It is even possible to define an entrepreneurial profile of the resilient person configured by this set of strategic dimensions linked to entrepreneurial behaviour. 5. Towards a Model of Entrepreneurial Resilience Based on the salutogenic paradigm, we composed some guidelines that outline a comprehensive model of entrepreneurial resilience. From the participants’ narratives, we observed how severe stressful situations have a high probability of having a negative impact on physical and mental well-being. Next, we describe the constituent elements of a comprehensive model of how entrepreneurial resilience is configured in order to face adversity and build life projects. The first block would be the moment of impact of NLEs and would be made up of behavioural, emotional, cognitive and social support processes. The second block would be constituted by educational improvement in which the subjects would learn the set of strategic dimensions of entrepreneurial behaviour. The third block would be characterised by entrepreneurial personal growth through the implementation of the strategic dimensions, facilitating the construction of life projects. This structure would have a dynamic, integrative and progressive character that would be characterised by the evolution of the subject over a temporal continuum from the appearance of the NLEs to the future projection, passing through educational improvement. At each of these moments, interpersonal and exopersonal GRRs would be identified, formed and used. This model would reflect how the use of the intrapersonal and exopersonal resources by the participants influences the consolidation of a SOC, which, in turn, influences the use of the GRRs. Underlying this structure is the approach to the narrative construction of identity, through autobiographical mnemonic processes (memories and reasoning) that facilitate the generation of a temporal self-awareness over time, as well as a coherent sense of identity. 6. Limitations and Future Research In this research, convenience sampling was selected. RS-14 was used for the selection of the participants and only the data were analysed descriptively. The participants were selected exclusively from the Faculty of Education. Consequently, the study has limitations in terms of generalisability. However, the study was primarily carried out using a phenomenological and interpretative approach. The small number of cases selected and the qualitative nature of the data analysed facilitated an in-depth understanding of what the strategic dimensions of entrepreneurial behaviour are and how entrepreneurial resilience is formed in university students. The study explored a possible entrepreneurial profile in resilient university students but did not explore the contextual GRRs that they have within the university context. In this respect, it is necessary to highlight the lack of quantitative instruments concerning entrepreneurial resilience. Perhaps the strategic dimensions of entrepreneurial behaviour described in the study would constitute possible factors for future psychometric tests related to the subject. Furthermore, the concept of GRRs could be revised, understanding it not only as a set of personal, social or contextual resources that minimise the stressors of everyday life, facilitating adaptation and coping in the face of adverse life circumstances [ 38 ], but also as the possibility of generating and implementing strategic dimensions that promote entrepreneurial behaviours that favour the construction of life projects. This reconceptualisation of the GRRs, incorporating the strategic dimensions of entrepreneurial behaviour could take the form of a model of entrepreneurial resilience in the university population. 7. Conclusions This research was developed by taking into account the salutogenic model, with the aim of finding out the strategic entrepreneurial dimensions that are part of resilient Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 2589 18 of 22 processes and understanding how entrepreneurial resilience is formed from the point of view of university students. To this end, the strategic entrepreneurial dimensions and their contribution to the personal projects of resilient university students were identified. The findings of the study contribute firstly to the design of quantitative instruments on the profile of the resilient entrepreneur; second, to the reconceptualisation of the GRRs by introducing the component of strategic dimensions of entrepreneurial behaviour; and finally, to the design and concretisation of the model of entrepreneurial resilience in emerging adulthood. Author Contributions: All authors took part in the design of the study. The research proposal was developed by E.M.-F., A.R.C.-G. and guided by A.B.-G. Conceptualisation, E.M.-F., A.R.C.-G. and A.B.- G.; methodology, E.M.-F., A.R.C.-G. and A.B.-G.; software, E.M.-F., A.R.C.-G. and A.B.-G.; validation, E.M.-F., A.R.C.-G. and A.B.-G.; formal analysis, E.M.-F., A.R.C.-G. and A.B.-G.; investigation, E.M.-F., A.R.C.-G. and A.B.-G.; resources, E.M.-F., A.R.C.-G. and A.B.-G.; data curation, E.M.-F., A.R.C.-G. and A.B.-G.; writing—original draft preparation, E.M.-F., A.R.C.-G. and A.B.-G.; writing—review and editing, E.M.-F., A.R.C.-G. and A.B.-G.; visualisation, E.M.-F., A.R.C.-G. and A.B.-G.; supervision, E.M.-F., A.R.C.-G. and A.B.-G.; project administration, E.M.-F., A.R.C.-G. and A.B.-G.; funding acquisition, E.M.-F., A.R.C.-G. and A.B.-G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This publication is part of the I+D+i project PID2019-104408GB-I00, funded by MCIN/ AEI/10.13039/501100011033/. Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study . Data Availability Statement: Not applicable. Acknowledgments: We thank all the participants for taking their precious time and participating in this study. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results. References 1. Bonanno, G.A. Loss, Trauma, and Human Resilience: Have We Underestimated the Human Capacity to Thrive after Extremely Aversive Events? Am Psychol. 2004,59, 20–28. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 2. Vanistendael, S.; Lecomte, J. La Felicidad Es Posible: Despertar En Niños Maltratados La Confianza En SíMismos: Construir La Resiliencia/Happiness Is Possible: Awakening Self-Confidence in Abused Children: Building Resilience; Gedisa: Barcelona, Spain, 2002; pp. 27–42, ISBN 9788474329650. 3. Connor, K.; Davidson, J.; Lee, L. Spirituality, Resilience, and Anger in Survivors of Violent Trauma: A Community Survey. J. Trauma. Stress. 2003,16, 487–494. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 4. Joyce, S.; Shand, F.; Tighe, J.; Laurent, S.J.; Bryant, R.A.; Harvey, S.B. Road to Resilience: A Systematic Review and Me-ta-Analysis of Resilience Training Programmes and Interventions. BMJ Open 2018,8, e017858. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 5. Jing, J.; Liu, W.; Ein, N.; Gervasio, J.; Battaion, M.; Fung, K. The Pursuit of Resilience: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Resilience-Promoting Interventions. J. Happiness Stud. 2021, 1–21. [CrossRef] 6. Fraccascia, L.; Giannoccaro, I.; Albino, V. Resilience of Complex Systems: State of the Art and Directions for Future Research. Complexity 2018,2018, 1–44. [CrossRef] 7. McEwen, B.S.; Gray, J.; Nasca, C. Recognizing Resilience: Learning from the Effects of Stress on the Brain. Neurobiol. Stress 2015 ,1, 1–11. [CrossRef] 8. Morsut, C.; Kuran, C.; Bjørn, I.; Ivar, K.; Orru, K.; Hansson, S. Linking Resilience, Vulnerability, Social Capital and Risk Awareness for Crisis and Disaster Research. J. Contingencies Crisis Manag. 2021, 1–11. [CrossRef] 9. Panter-Brick, C. Health, Risk, and Resilience: Interdisciplinary Concepts and Applications. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2014 ,43, 431–448. [CrossRef] 10. Srivastava, K. Positive Mental Health and Its Relationship with Resilience. Ind. Psychiatry J. 2011,20, 75–76. [CrossRef] 11. Gartner, W.B. What Are We Talking about When We Talk about Entrepreneurship? J. Bus. Ventur. 1990,5, 15–28. [CrossRef] 12. Bridge, S. Is “Entrepreneurship” the Problem in Entrepreneurship Education? Educ. Train. 2017,59, 740–750. [CrossRef] 13. Kraus, S.; Breier, M.; Dasí-Rodríguez, S. The Art of Crafting a Systematic Literature Review in Entrepreneurship Research. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2020,16, 1023–1042. [CrossRef] Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 2589 19 of 22 14. Claire, C.; Lefebvre, V.; Ronteau, S. Entrepreneurship as Practice: Systematic Literature Review of a Nascent Field. Entrep. Neurship. Reg. Dev. 2020,32, 281–312. [CrossRef] 15. Bridge, S. Does ‘Entrepreneurship’ Exist? SER 2017,24, 206–213. [CrossRef] 16. Pepin, M. Enterprise Education: A Deweyan Perspective. Educ. Train. 2012,54, 801–812. [CrossRef] 17. Erkkilä, K. Entrepreneurial Education. Mapping the Debates in the United States, The United Kingdom and Finland, 1st ed.; Taylor & Francis: London, UK, 2000; ISBN 0815335490. 18. Jones, B.; Iredale, N. Enterprise Education as Pedagogy. Educ. Train. 2010,52, 7–19. [CrossRef] 19. Weigold, I.K.; Boyle, R.A.; Weigold, A.; Antonucci, S.Z.; Mitchell, H.B.; Martin-Wagar, C.A. Personal Growth Initiative in the Therapeutic Process: An Exploratory Study. Couns Psychol. 2018,46, 481–504. [CrossRef] 20. Shorey, H.S.; Little, T.D.; Snyder, C.R.; Kluck, B.; Robitschek, C. Hope and Personal Growth Initiative: A Comparison of Positive, Future-Oriented Constructs. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2007,43, 1917–1926. [CrossRef] 21. Shigemoto, Y.; Low, B.; Borowa, D. Function of Personal Growth Initiative on Posttraumatic Growth, Posttraumatic Stress, and Depression over and above Adaptive and Maladaptive Rumination. J. Clin. Psychol. 2017,73, 1126–1145. [CrossRef] 22. Lisbona, A.; Frese, M. Iniciativa Personal. Cómo Hacer Que Las Cosas Sucedan/Personal Initiative. How to Make Things Happen; Pirámide: Madrid, Spain, 2012; pp. 17–49. ISBN 8436826973. 23. Duchek, S.; Raetze, S.; Scheuch, I. The Role of Diversity in Organizational Resilience: A Theoretical Framework. J. Bus. Res. 2020 , 13, 387–423. [CrossRef] 24. Ishak, A.W.; Williams, E.A. A Dynamic Model of Organizational Resilience: Adaptive and Anchored Approaches. Corp. Commun. 2018,23, 180–196. [CrossRef] 25. Wicker, P.; Filo, K.; Cuskelly, G. Organizational Resilience of Community Sport Clubs Impacted by Natural Disasters. J. Sport. Manag. 2013,27, 510–525. [CrossRef] 26. Sincorá, L.A.; Oliveira, M.P.V.; Zanquetto-Filho, H.; Ladeira, M.B. Business Analytics Leveraging Resilience in Organizational Processes. RAUSP Manag. J. 2018,53, 385–403. [CrossRef] 27. Little, B.R. Personal Projects: A Rationale and Method for Investigation. Environ. Behav. 1983,15, 273–309. [CrossRef] 28. Emmons, R.A. Personal Striving: An Approach to Personality and Subjetive Well-Being. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1986 ,51, 1058–1068. [CrossRef] 29. Cantor, N. Life Task Problem Solving: Situational Affordances and Personal Needs. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1994 ,20, 235–243. [CrossRef] 30. Markus, H.; Nurius, P. Possible Selves. Am. Psychol. 1986,41, 954–969. [CrossRef] 31. Mcginnis, D. Resilience, Life Events, and Well-Being During Midlife: Examining Resilience Subgroups. J. Adult Dev. 2018 ,25, 198–221. [CrossRef] 32. Nasser, W.H. Innovation Capital, Sustainable Entrepreneurial Orientation and the Moderating Role of Entrepreneurial Resil-ience. Entrep. Bus. Econ. Rev. 2021,9, 73–85. [CrossRef] 33. Feola, R.; Parente, R.; Cucino, V. The Entrepreneurial University: How to Develop the Entrepreneurial Orientation of Aca-demia. J. Knowl. Econ. 2021,12, 1787–1808. [CrossRef] 34. Antonovsky, A. Unraveling the Mystery of Health. How People Manage. Stress and Stay Well, 1st ed.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1987; ISBN 1555420281. 35. Mc Gee, S.L.; Höltge, J.; Maercker, A.; Thoma, M.V. Sense of Coherence and Stress-Related Resilience: Investigating the Mediating and Moderating Mechanisms in the Development of Resilience Following Stress or Adversity. Front. Psychiatry 2018 ,9, 378. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 36. Luibl, L.; Traversari, J.; Paulsen, F.; Scholz, M.; Burger, P. Resilience and Sense of Coherence in First Year Medical Students—A Cross-Sectional Study. BMC Med. Educ. 2021,21, 142. [CrossRef] 37. Jakovljevic, M. Empathy, Sense of Coherence and Resilience: Bridging personal, public and global mental health and conceptual synthesis. Psychiatr. Danub. 2018,30, 380–384. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 38. Eriksson, M.; Lindstrom, B. A Salutogenic Interpretation of the Ottawa Charter. Health Promot. Int. 2008 ,23, 190–199. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 39. Wainwright, N.W.J.; Surtees, P.G.; Welch, A.A.; Luben, R.N.; Khaw, K.-T.; Bingham, S.A. Healthy Lifestyle Choices: Could Sense of Coherence Aid Health Promotion? JECH 2007,61, 871–876. [CrossRef] 40. Hochwälder, J. Sense of Coherence: Definition and Measurement. SAGE Open 2019,9, 1–8. [CrossRef] 41. Antonovsky, A. Health, Stress, and Coping; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1979; ISBN 97808758941260875894127. 42. Jayawickreme, E.; Blackie, L.E.R. Post-traumatic Growth as Positive Personality Change: Evidence, Controversies and Future Directions. Eur. J. Pers. 2014,28, 312–331. [CrossRef] 43. Arnett, J. Emerging Adulthood: A Theory of Development from the Late Teens Through the Twenties. Am. Psychol. 2000 ,55, 469–480. [CrossRef] 44. Mulvihill, K.; Hortop, E.G.; Guilmette, M.; Barker, E.T.; Putnick, D.L.; Bornstein, M.H. Effects of Goal Appraisals and Goal Motivation on Dimensions of Identity Development: A Longitudinal Mixed Methods Analysis of European American Emerging Adults. J. Adult Dev. 2021, 1–19. [CrossRef] Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 2589 20 of 22 45. Auerbach, R.; Mortier, P.; Bruffaerts, R.; Alonso, J.; Benjet, C.; Cuijpers, P.; Demyttenaere, K.; Ebert, D.; Green, J.; Hasking, P.; et al. WHO World Mental Health Surveys International College Student Project: Prevalence and Distribution of Mental Disorders. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 2018,127, 623–638. [CrossRef] 46. Alonso-Stuyck, P.; Zacares, J.; Ferreres, A. Emotional Separation, Autonomy in Decision-Making, and Psychosocial Adjustment in Adolescence: A Proposed Typology. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2018,27, 1373–1383. [CrossRef] 47. Vázquez, F.L.; Blanco, V. Prevalence of DSM-IV Major Depression Among Spanish University Students. J. Am. Coll. Health 2008 , 57, 165–172. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 48. Blanco, V.; Salmerón, M.; Otero, P.; Vázquez, F.L. Symptoms of Depression, Anxiety, and Stress and Prevalence of Major Depression and Its Predictors in Female University Students. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021 ,18, 5845. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 49. Ballester, L.; Alayo, I.; Vilagut, G.; Almenara, J.; Cebrià, A.I.; Echeburúa, E.; Gabilondo, A.; Gili, M.; Lagares, C.; Piqueras, J.A.; et al . Mental Disorders in Spanish University Students: Prevalence, Age-of-Onset, Severe Role Impairment and Mental Health Treatment. J. Affect. Disord. 2020,273, 604–613. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 50. Blasco, M.J.; Vilagut, G.; Almenara, J.; Roca, M.; Piqueras, J.A.; Gabilondo, A.; Lagares, C.; Soto-Sanz, V.; Alayo, I.; Forero, C.G.; et al . Universal study group. Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviors: Prevalence and Association with Distal and Proximal Factors in Spanish University Students. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2019,49, 881–898. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 51. Acharya, L.; Jin, L.; Collins, W. College Life Is Stressful Today—Emerging Stressors and Depressive Symptoms in College Students. J. Am. Coll. Health 2018,66, 655–664. [CrossRef] 52. Brewer, M.L.; van Kessel, G.; Sanderson, B.; Naumann, F.; Lane, M.; Reubenson, A.; Carter, A. Resilience in Higher Education Students: A Scoping Review. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2019,38, 1105–1120. [CrossRef] 53. Hartson, K.R.; Hall, L.A.; Choate, S.A. Stressors and Resilience Are Associated with Well-Being in Young Adult College Students. J. Am. Coll. Health 2021, 1–9. [CrossRef] 54. Brewer, M.; van Kessel, G.; Sanderson, B.; Carter, A. Enhancing Student Resilience by Targeting Staff Resilience, Attitudes and Practices. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2021, 1–15. [CrossRef] 55. Zhao, H.; Wibowo, A. Entrepreneurship Resilience: Can Psychological Traits of Entrepreneurial Intention Support Overcoming Entrepreneurial Failure? Front. Psychol. 2021,12, 707803. [CrossRef] 56. Hassan, A.; Anwar, I.; Saleem, I.; Islam, K.M.B.; Hussain, S.A. Individual Entrepreneurial Orientation, Entrepreneurship Education and Entrepreneurial Intention: The Mediating Role of Entrepreneurial Motivations. Ind. High. Educ. 2021 ,35, 403–418. [CrossRef] 57. Miller, D. The Correlates of Entrepreneurship in Three Types of Firms. Manage. Sci. 1983,29, 770–791. [CrossRef] 58. Miller, V.; Jablin, F.M. Information Seeking during Organizational Entry: Influences, Tactics, and a Model of the Process. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1991,16, 92–120. [CrossRef] 59. Mishra, C.S. Creating and Sustaining Competitive Entrepreneurial Orientation; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2017; pp. 91–145, ISBN 978-3-319-54540-0. 60. Rauch, A.; Wiklund, J.; Lumpkin, G.T.; Frese, M. Entrepreneurial Orientation and Business Performance: An Assessment of Past Research and Suggestions for the Future. Entrep. Theory. Prac. 2009,33, 761–787. [CrossRef] 61. Krauss, S.I.; Frese, M.; Friedrich, C.; Unger, J.M. Entrepreneurial Orientation: A Psychological Model of Success among Southern African Small Business Owners. Eur. J. Work. Organ. Psychol. 2005,14, 315–344. [CrossRef] 62. Korunka, C.; Hermann, F.; Lueger, M.; Mugler, J. The Entrepreneurial Personality in the Context of Resources, Environment, and the Startup Process—A Configurational Approach. Entrep. Theory. Prac. 2003,28, 23–42. [CrossRef] 63. Mueller, S.; Anderson, A.R. Understanding the Entrepreneurial Learning Process and Its Impact on Students’ Personal Development: A European Perspective. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2014,12, 500–511. [CrossRef] 64. Laouiti, R.; Haddoud, M.Y.; Nakara, W.A.; Onjewu, A.E. A Gender-Based Approach to the Influence of Personality Traits on Entrepreneurial Intention. J. Bus. Res. 2022,142, 819–829. [CrossRef] 65. Haddoud, M.Y.; Onjewu, A.E.; Al-Azab, M.R.; Elbaz, A.M. The Psychological Drivers of Entrepreneurial Resilience in the Tourism Sector. J. Bus. Res. 2022,141, 702–712. [CrossRef] 66. Robert, Y. Case Study Research Design and Methods, 5th ed.; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2014; ISBN 1452242569. 67. Gibbert, M.; Ruigrok, W. The “What” and “How” of Case Study Rigor: Three Strategies Based on Published Work. Organ. Res. Methods. 2010,13, 710–737. [CrossRef] 68. Ivankova, N.V.; Creswell, J.W.; Stick, S.L. Using Mixed-Methods Sequential Explanatory Design: From Theory to Practice. Field Methods 2006,18, 3–20. [CrossRef] 69. Bracio, K.; Szarucki, M. Mixed Methods Utilization in Innovation Management Research: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Summary. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2020,13, 252. [CrossRef] 70. García-González, A.; Ramírez-Montoya, M.S. Social Entrepreneurship Competency in Higher Education: An Analysis Using Mixed Methods. J. Soc. Entrep. 2020, 1–19. [CrossRef] 71. Cameron, R.; Molina-Azorin, J.F. The Acceptance of Mixed Methods in Business and Management Research. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2011,19, 256–271. [CrossRef] 72. Dy, A.; Agwunobi, A.J. Intersectionality and Mixed Methods for Social Context in Entrepreneurship. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2019,25, 1727–1747. [CrossRef] 73. Lei, J.; Hock, O.Y. A Mixed-Method Study on Innovation Capability Enhancing through Entrepreneurial Education: New Normal Perspective. Int. J. Econ. Manag. 2020,9, 1–20. [CrossRef] Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 2589 21 of 22 74. Molina-Azorín, J.F. The Use and Added Value of Mixed Methods in Management Research. J. Mix. Methods Res. 2011 ,55, 7–24. [CrossRef] 75. Molina-Azorín, J.F.; López-Gamero, M.D.; Pereira-Moliner, J.; Pertusa-Ortega, E.M.; Molina-Azorı, F.; López-Gamero, M.D. Mixed Methods Studies in Entrepreneurship Research: Applications and Contributions. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2012 ,24, 425–456. [CrossRef] 76. Ivankova, N.V. Implementing Quality Criteria in Designing and Conducting a Sequential QUAN → QUAL Mixed Methods Study of Student Engagement with Learning Applied Research Methods Online. J. Mix. Methods Res. 2013,8, 25–51. [CrossRef] 77. Montero, I.; León, O. A guide for naming research studies in Psychology. Int J. Clin. Health 2007,7, 847–862. 78. Smith, J.A.; Osborn, M. Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. In Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Research Methods; Smith, J., Ed.; Sage Publications Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2003; pp. 51–80. ISBN 0761972315. 79. Neisser, U. Five Kinds of Self-knowledge. Philos. Psychol. 1988,1, 35–59. [CrossRef] 80. Rodríguez, J. Métodos de Muestreo/Sampling Methods; Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas: Madrid, Spain, 2014; ISBN 9788474761573. 81. Weathers, F.W.; Blake, D.D.; Schnurr, P.P.; Kaloupek, D.G.; Marx, B.P.; Keane, T.M. The Life Events Checklist for DSM-5 (LEC-5). Instrument Available from the National Center for PTSD at www.ptsd.va.gov. 2013. Available online: http://www.ptsd.va.gov/ professional/assessment/adult-sr/ptsd-checklist.asp (accessed on 1 December 2021). 82. Fox, D.J. El Proceso de Investigación Educativa/The Educational Research Process; EUNSA: Pamplona, Spain, 1981; ISBN 84-313-0673-4. 83. Wagnild, G. A Review of the Resilience Scale. J. Nurs. Meas. 2009,17, 105–113. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 84. Sánchez-Teruel, D.; Robles, M. Escala de Resiliencia 14 Ítems (RS-14): Propiedades Psicométricas de La Versión En Español/Resilience Scale 14 items (RS-14): Psychometric Properties of the Spanish Version of the Spanish Version. Revista Iberoamericana Diagnóstico Evaluación-e Avaliação Psicológica 2014,2, 103–115. 85. García-Martínez, I.; Augusto, J.; Landa, A.; León, S. The Mediating Role of Engagement on the Achievement and Quality of Life of University Students. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 6586. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 86. Morales, F.; Rodríguez, R.; García, M. Influence of Resilience, Everyday Stress, Self-Efficacy, Self-Esteem, Emotional Intelligence, and Empathy on Attitudes toward Sexual and Gender Diversity Rights. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020 ,17, 6219. [CrossRef] 87. Wahid, H.A.; Rhouse, S.M.; Mustaffa, W.S.W.; Rahman, R.A. Social Entrepreneurship and Resilience among Public Uni-versity Students in Malaysia. Int. J. Acad. Res. Business Soc. Sci. 2016,6, 171–184. [CrossRef] 88. Tam, H.L.; Asamoah, E.; Chan, A.Y.F. Developing Social Entrepreneurship as an Intervention to Enhance Disadvantaged Young People’s Sense of Self-Worth and Career Competence in Hong Kong. Appl. Res. Qual. Life 2021,16, 2497–2526. [CrossRef] 89. Kipkosgei, F. Perceived Entrepreneurial Stress and Entrepreneurial Resilience; The Mediating Role of the Well-Being of Entrepreneurs and Moderating Role Perceived Online Social Support. Merits 2022,2, 1. [CrossRef] 90. Jamshed, S. Qualitative Research Method-Interviewing and Observation. JBCP 2014,5, 87–88. [CrossRef] 91. Malkoç, A.; Yalçın, ˙ I. Relationships among Resilience, Social Support, Coping, and Psychological Well-Being among University Students. Türk Psikolojik Danı¸sma Rehberlik Dergisi 2015,5, 35–43. [CrossRef] 92. Bacchi, S.; Licinio, J. Resilience and Psychological Distress in Psychology and Medical Students. Acad. Psychiatry 2017 ,41, 185–188. [CrossRef] 93. Bunce, L.; Lonsdale, A.J.; King, N.; Childs, J.; Bennie, R. Emotional Intelligence and Self-Determined Behaviour Reduce Psychological Distress: Interactions with Resilience in Social Work Students in the UK. Br. J. Soc. Work. 2019 ,49, 2092–2111. [CrossRef] 94. Strauss, A.L.; Corbin, J. Basics of Qualitative Research; SAGE: London, UK, 1990; ISBN 0803932510. 95. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006,3, 77–101. [CrossRef] 96. Gibbs, G.R. Analyzing Qualitative Data; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2007; ISBN 9781483344386. 97. Nowell, L.S.; Norris, J.M.; White, D.E.; Moules, N.J. Thematic Analysis: Striving to Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria. Int. J. Qual. Methods 2017,16, 1–13. [CrossRef] 98. Resa, A. Gender Equality Training in Primary Education Degrees. Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria Formación Profesorado 2021 , 24, 13–27. [CrossRef] 99. Serrano, Á.; Sanz, R.; González, A. Resilience and COVID-19. An Analysis in University Students during Confinement. Sci. Educ. 2021,11, 533. [CrossRef] 100. Quintiliani, L.; Sisto, A.; Vicinanza, F.; Curcio, G.; Tambone, V. Resilience and Psychological Impact on Italian University Students during COVID-19 Pandemic. Distance Learning and Health. Psychol. Health Med. 2022,27, 69–80. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 101. Lohner, M.S.; Aprea, C. The Resilience Journal: Exploring the Potential of Journal Interventions to Promote Resilience in University Students. Front. Psychol. 2021,12, 4444. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 102. Sood, S.; Sharma, A. Resilience and Psychological Well-Being of Higher Education Students During COVID-19: The Mediating Role of Perceived Distress. J. Health Manag. 2020,22, 606–617. [CrossRef] 103. Ang, W.H.D.; Shorey, S.; Lopez, V.; Chew, H.S.J.; Lau, Y. Generation Z Undergraduate Students’ Resilience during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study. Curr. Psychol. 2021, 1–15. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 104. Lopez, V.; Yobas, P.; Chow, Y.L.; Shorey, S. Does Building Resilience in Undergraduate Nursing Students Happen through Clinical Placements? Nurse Educ. Today 2018,67, 1–5. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 105. Folkman, S. Stress, Coping, and Hope. In Psychological Aspects of Cancer; Carr, B.I., Steel, J., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 119–127. ISBN 978-1-4614-4866-2. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 2589 22 of 22 106. Amirkhan, J.H.; Greaves, H. Sense of Coherence and Stress: The Mechanics of a Healthy Disposition. Health Psychol. 2003 ,18, 31–62. [CrossRef] 107. Cyrulnik, B.; Anaut, M. Resiliencia y Adaptación. La Familia y La Escuela Como Tutores Resilientes/Resilience and Adaptation. Family and School as Resilient Guardians; Gedisa: Barcelona, Spain, 2018; ISBN 978-84-16572-73-1. 108. Rubio, J.L.; Puig, G. Tutores de Resiliencia. Dame Un Punto de Apoyo y MoveréMi Mundo/Resilience Mentoring. Give Me a Foothold and I Will Move My World; Gedisa: Barcelona, Spain, 2015; ISBN 978-84-9784-734-6. 109. Lau, B.H.P.; Chan, C.L.W.; Ng, S.M. Post-Traumatic Growth in the First COVID Outbreak in Hong Kong. Front. Psychol. 2021 ,12, 3959. [CrossRef] 110. Schäfer, S.K.; Becker, N.; King, L.; Horsch, A.; Michael, T. The Relationship between Sense of Coherence and Post-Traumatic Stress: A Meta-Analysis. Eur. J. Psychotraumatol. 2019,10, 1562839. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 111. Ragger, K.; Hiebler-Ragger, M.; Herzog, G.; Kapfhammer, H.P.; Unterrainer, H.F. Sense of Coherence Is Linked to Post-Traumatic Growth after Critical Incidents in Austrian Ambulance Personnel. BMC Psychiatry 2019,19, 89. [CrossRef] 112. Tedeschi, R.G.; Moore, B.A. Posttraumatic Growth as an Integrative Therapeutic Philosophy. J. Psychother. Integr. 2021 ,31, 180–194. [CrossRef] 113. Super, S.; Wagemakers, M.A.E.; Picavet, H.S.J.; Verkooijen, K.T.; Koelen, M.A. Strengthening Sense of Coherence: Opportunities for Theory Building in Health Promotion. Health Promot. Int. 2016,31, 869–878. [CrossRef] 114. Peterson, C.; Park, N.; Pole, N.; D’Andrea, W.; Seligman, M.E. Strengths of Character and Posttraumatic Growth. J. Trauma. Stress 2008,21, 214–217. [CrossRef] 115. Jakobsen, I.S.; Madsen, L.M.R.; Mau, M.; Hjemdal, O.; Friborg, O. The Relationship between Resilience and Loneliness Elu-cidated by a Danish Version of the Resilience Scale for Adults. BMC Psychol. 2020,8, 131. [CrossRef] 116. Baumeister, R.F.; Bratslavsky, E.; Finkenauer, C.; Vohs, K.D. Bad Is Stronger Than Good. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2001 ,5, 323–370. [CrossRef] 117. Vohs, K.D.; Aaker, J.L.; Catapano, R. It’s Not Going to Be That Fun: Negative Experiences Can Add Meaning to Life. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2019,26, 11–14. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 118. Hershfield, H.E.; Bartels, D.M. The Future Self. In The Psychology of Thinking about The Future; Oettingen, G., Sevincer, T., Gollwitzer, P., Anderson, F., Eds.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2018; ISBN 1462534414. 119. Little, B.R. How Are You Doing, Really? Personal Project Pursuit and Human Flourishing. Can. Psychol. 2020 ,61, 140–150. [CrossRef] 120. Emmons, R.A. Personal Goals, Life Meaning, and Virtue: Wellsprings of a Positive Life. In Flourishing: Positive Psychology and The Life Well-Lived; Keyes, C., Haidt, J., Eds.; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2003; pp. 105–128, ISBN 978-1-55798-930-7. 121. Ortony, A.; Clore, G.; Collins, A. La Estructura Cognitiva de Las Emociones/The Cognitive Structure of Emotions; Siglo XXI de España Editores: Madrid, Spain, 1996; ISBN 978-84-323-0926-7. 122. Sheldon, K.M. The Self-Concordance Model of Healthy Goal Striving: When Personal Goals Correctly Represent the Person. In Life Goals and Well-Being. Towards a Positive Psychology of Human Striving; Schmuck, P., Sheldon, K.M., Eds.; Hogrefe & Huber: Seattle, Australia, 2001; pp. 18–36. ISBN 0889372446. 123. Sheldon, K.M.; Elliot, A.J. Goal Striving, Need Satisfaction, and Longitudinal Well-Being: The Self-Concordance Model. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1999,76, 482–497. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 124. Sheldon, K.; Gordeeva, T.; Sychev, O.; Osin, E.; Titova, L. Self-Concordant Goals Breed Goal-Optimism and Thus Well-Being. Curr. Psychol. 2020, 1–9. [CrossRef] 125. Little, B.R.; Coulombe, S. Personal Projects. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Wright, J.D., Ed.; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2015; pp. 757–765. ISBN 978-0-08-097087-5. 126. Otero-López, J.M.; Santiago, M.J.; Castro, M.C. Personal Project’s Appraisals and Compulsive Buying among University Students: Evidence from Galicia, Spain. Sustainability 2021,13, 13509. [CrossRef] 127. Palys, T.S.; Little, B.R. Perceived Life Satisfaction and the Organization of Personal Project Systems. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1983 ,44, 1221–1230. [CrossRef]