Gender Assessment of Nigerian Youths’ Perceptions and Attitudes towards Home Economics-Based Entrepreneurship

Ololade Rachel A^1* and Adejumo Taiwo J^2
*Correspondence: Ololade Rachel A, Department of Agricultural Economics, Ladoke University of Technology, Ogbomoso, Nigeria, Tel: +2348034282970, Email:

Keywords

Youth • Gender • Entrepreneurship • Home economics-based • Respo ndents • Descriptive statistics

Introduction

Entrepreneurial skills acquisition through home economics has been widely accepted as means of contributing to the economic development and reduces unemployment and poverty problems in our society [1,2]. Entrepreneurship occurs when an individual develops a new and unique method to an old business in order to give market place a product or service by using resources in a new way [3-5]. There is a logical link between Entrepreneurship and home economics. Entrepreneurship has a rightful place in home economics because the role of home economics is to enhance the quality of life of families and individuals, both by equipping them with the means to provide for their own needs and by offering valuable goods and services to them. Home economics-based entrepreneurship is a veritable tool for self-reliance, poverty eradication and sustainable national development [6-8]. Moreover, home economics, being multi-disciplinary, interdisciplinary, and context-based by nature provides opportunity to integrate timely knowledge in response to the needs of society; and finally, home economics is a skills-rich field, providing a perfect venue for linking livelihood entrepreneurial activities with other essential skills [3,9,10]. The role of home economics-based entrepreneurship in enhancing quality of life cannot be over-emphasized. Home economics is one of the oldest vocations that exist for a very long time. Home economics and entrepreneurship, as vocations are capable of empowering individuals to be great entrepreneurs [11,12].

Entrepreneurial development today has become very significant; in view of its being a key to economic development. The objectives of industrial development, regional growth, and employment generation depend upon entrepreneurial development. Entrepreneurs are, thus, the seeds of industrial development and the fruits of industrial development are greater employment opportunities to unemployed youth, increase in per capita income, higher standard of living and increased individual saving, revenue to the government in the form of income tax, sales tax, export duties, import duties, and balanced regional development [13]. Entrepreneurship skills therefore by implication is the act of being an entrepreneur, it involves all the activities and functions undertaken by an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship is believed to provide an important avenue for individuals to advance up the income ladder. Entrepreneurship provides learners with the basic knowledge, skills, attitude, and ideas for self-reliance [3,14].

In other words, entrepreneurship through the inculcation of entrepreneurial skills should make recipients proficient in career related areas and so launch them into the business world with a view to overcoming the problem of unemployment and over-dependency on white-collar jobs [15-17]. For some, it may provide a better route than paid employment, while for others, who may be disadvantaged when pursuing paid employment; it may provide the only route. Entrepreneurs are charged with the responsibility of innovating new products, better production methods, creation of markets and managing the production process. They are in a nutshell engaged in wealth creation. According to the United Nations, youth is a term that refers to young men and women that fall within the age structure of 15-24 years while young people are those within the age bracket of 10 and 19 years [18]. The basic entrepreneurial skills acquisition for wealth creation now involves innovation skills, creativity skills and foresight skills. Unemployment and unemployable graduates have become a serious challenge to educators, educationist and the Nigerian government. Globally, opportunities for graduate’s employment continue to be on decline. Graduate unemployment continues to be an albatross on necks of societies, hence the glamour for entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship education in higher education institutions [19]. Promoting a culture of entrepreneurship among university students has become an issue of utmost importance such that nurturing a mindset that is opportunity-oriented driven is seen as very critical. In other words, entrepreneurship is in fact now seen as a cog for growth and development of any viable society given its capacity and potential for the creation of job opportunities [20,21].

The global economy has become so complex and uncertain such that people with complex, creative and diversified entrepreneurial skills and knowledge are in constant demand to serve as solutions to growing unemployment and other related issues. Creativity has been identified as one of the most distinct of human attributes. It is indeed a special case of problem solving in which originality is emphasized [3]. Kanu claimed that, creativity is the disposition to make and recognize valuable innovations. It manifests itself in the ability of the individual to create his own symbols of experience. A person is said to be creative if he has the ability to combine or rearrange established patterns of knowledge in a unique fashion. Global economy is so volatile; hence necessitating a need for a focus on entrepreneurship which is believed to serve as catalyst for stabilizing economies and creating employments. In the light of this, entrepreneurship becomes paramount. This is because entrepreneurship is used to deliver entrepreneurial knowledge, skills and abilities to the students, helping them to succeed in their entrepreneurial careers.

In other words, entrepreneurship education trains students to gain innovative enterprise skills and capture the opportunities to succeed in business ventures. That is to say, to have an entrepreneurial economy, colleges and universities must appreciate the immense importance of entrepreneurship education and what it is capable of contributing to the growth and development of the economy. Within the Nigerian context, the dwindling ratio of the so-called white-collar jobs when compared to the rate of turnout of graduates at all levels of education remains alarming. This necessitates a need to turn out graduates who will not only be self-reliant but employers of labor. Entrepreneurship has a rightful place in home economics because of three essential reasons – first, the role of home economics is to enhance the quality of life of families and individuals , both by equipping them with the means to provide for their own needs and by offering valuable goods and services to them; second, home economics, being multi-disciplinary, interdisciplinary, and context-based by nature provides opportunity to integrate timely knowledge in response to the needs of society; and third, home economics is a skills-rich field, providing a perfect venue for linking livelihood entrepreneurial activities with other essential skills. Skills in agripreneurship are critical for youth employment, especially for those in rural areas. With the increasing domestic and regional demand for diversified and processed food, there is a high opportunity to develop the agrifood business in Africa [22,23]. Agripreneurship is a sustainable, community-orientated, directly marketed agriculture produce and services. By sustainable agriculture we mean a holistic, systems-oriented approach to farming that is focused on the interrelationships of social, economic, and environmental processes for delivering the agricultural produce. Agripreneurship is synonym with entrepreneurship in the field of agriculture and refers to the establishment of agribusiness units in the agriculture and allied sector [24-26].

The objective of the study is to assess Nigerian youths’ perceptions and attitudes towards home economics-based entrepreneurship as a sustainable carrier for wealth generation, determine the gender differential in home economics as a carrier and examine the problems associated with home economics as a carrier.

Methodology

The study was carried out among the Nigerian youths in the three local governments in Ogbomoso, Oyo State, Nigeria.

Sampling Procedure and Size

160 youths were interviewed and structural questionnaire was used to obtain information from the respondents [27].

Data analyses and Measurement of Variables

Mainly descriptive statistics was used to analyze the data which include; frequency, percentages, and weight mean. Personal characters considered are age, sex, religion, years of schooling, marital status, family background and years of exposure to kitchen work. The respondents were able to give direct response regarding their personal characteristics. Where exact figure could not be given, attitudinal statements were used. The respondents responded to the statements on a 5-point Lik/ert scale of Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Undecided (U), Disagree (D) and Strongly Disagree (SD), scores of 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 were awarded. Using the minimum score of eleven (11) and maximum score of fifty-five (55), there were eleven statements in all. Favorable, undecided and unfavorable were finally constructed to measure the oven all attitude of the respondents to home economics-based entrepreneurship as a carrier.

Results and Discussions

Socio-economic characteristics

The distribution of respondent by socio-economic characteristics showed that majority (71.2%) of males and (78.75%) of females falls within the age range of 21 – 25 years, 22.5% of males and 45% of females falls within the age range of 26-30 years while 6.25% of females and males within the age range of 15-20 years (Table 1). This implies that higher percentages of the students are still youths pursuing means of livelihood. This is in line with the previous study by Agumagu [28]. About 70% of males and 73.75% of females are Christians, 26.3% of males and 26.25% of females are adherents of Islamic religion while 3.8% of males and females and none of the females are traditional worshippers. This means that Christianity is the popular religion among the students. This is in accordance to the study by Ololade [29]. About 76.2% of males and 8.5% of females have their years of schooling within 16-20 years. 22.5% of males and 8.7% of females have their years of schooling within 21-25 years and 1.3% of males and 6.3% of females have their years of schooling less than 16 years. This means majority of them have their years of schooling within 16-20 years. This is similar to what was reported in the previous study by Smits and Permanyer [30].

Majority (99.5%) of males and (97.5%) females are single and 2.5% of males and females respectively are married. This implies that almost all of them are not married still struggling for better living in life. About 62.5% of the males’ parent and 48.8% of the females’ parent have only primary occupation while 37.5% of the males’ parent and 51.3% of the females’ parent have both primary and secondary occupation. Majority (75%) of males and (80%) of the females are residing in the urban area while 25% of the males and 20% of the females are residing in the rural. That is majority of the respondents are residing in the urban area, which means only a few have rural background. This is accordance with the study by Alarima and Onokala [31,32]. About 55% of males and 41.3% of females have their position in the family between 1-2. 31.3% of males and 37.5% of females have their position in the family between 3-4, 11.2% of females and 13.7% of females have between 5-6, 2.5% of males and 5.0% of females have their between 7-8 and none of the males have their position in the family to be above 8 while 2.5% of females have their position in the family to be 8. It implies that majority of the respondents had their position in the family between 1-4. About 83.8% of males and 91.3% of females are Yoruba, 7.5% of males are Hausa, 8.8% of males and females respectively are Ibo. This implies that majority of the respondents are Yorubas. About 16.3% of males and 42.5% of females have been exposed to kitchen work for less than 11 years, 35% of males and 33.8% of females have been exposed to kitchen work for 11-15 years. 43.7% of males and 20% of females have been exposed to kitchen work for 16-20 years. 5% of males and 3.7% of females have been exposed to kitchen work for more than 20 years.

Attitude towards Home Economics as a carrier

Table 2 showed the weighted mean score of male respondents’ attitude towards home economics. The male student ranked highest home economics is not only about the kitchen ranked highest with the mean of 4.65. This is followed by home economics study embraces good nutrition (4.39). Next is home economics provides opportunities to develop knowledge and skills (4.16). Others are as follows: as an home economics, you also have the privilege to be a dietitian (3.78), you know more about taking care of the home in home economics (3.67), home economics is self-employed (3.45), I can establish home economics after schooling as my means of livelihood (3.23), home economics cannot fetch you enough income when practiced in the rural area (2.96), I cannot live on home economics to earn tangible income (2.64), there is nothing so special about home economics to be learnt as career (2.45) and home economics is nothing but cooking for the family ranked least with mean of 1.85. On the other hand, home economics study embraces good nutrition ranked highest with the mean of 4.35. This is followed closely by home economics provides opportunities to develop knowledge and skills with mean of 4.34. Others are as follows: you know more about taking care of the home in home economics (4.28), home economics is not only about the kitchen (4.25), as a home economist you also have the privileged to be a dietitian (4.05) home economics is self-employed (3.91). I can establish on home economics after schooling as my means of livelihood (3.59). Home economics cannot fetch you enough income when practiced in the rural area (2.7), I cannot live on home economics to earn tangible income (2.36), there is nothing so special about home economics to be learnt as a career (1.98) and home economics is nothing but cooking for the family ranked least (1.63). The respondents ranked high those statements expressing what home economics is about and ranked low those statements expressing taking home economics as a career. They do not attach meaning to it believing home economics is part of their daily living and there are better things to embark on than home economics.

Table 3 showed the frequency and percentage distribution by attitude towards home economics as a career. Majority (74%) of males and (71%) of females had unfavorable attitude towards home economics as a career, only 16% of males and 15% of females had a favorable attitude towards home economics as a career while about 10% of males and 14% of females were undecided in their attitude. Since attitude is more or less permanent feelings, thoughts and predispositions that people have about certain aspect of their environment and the perception of an event helps in the attitude exhibited towards such an event. Change in attitude involves a gradual process therefore efforts at its improvement will require a gradual process as well. This means more action need to be taken in order to improve their attitude towards home economics as a career and this could be best done by the parents and teachers.

Gender Differential in Role-Played in Economics

Table 4 showed the ranking of gender differential of male and female respondents’ attitude towards home economics as a career. The male students ranked highest, men have to support women in seeing to the health state of the family with mean of 4.46. Next is the care of the home should be the concern of both gender with mean of 4.35. others are as follows: the relevance of home economics to life must be understood by both gender (4.33), females also have to contribute to the monetary aspect of the family (4.11), females are naturally endowed to have more interest in home economics than males (3.88), the management of the home is not done by females (3.84), culturally men are not supposed to be in the kitchen (3.45), males do not really see the need for them to be concerned with home economics (3.28). Only females can choose home as a career (2.95), the beautification of the home is the duty of females and not males (2.7) and only female must know about good nutrition ranked least with mean score of 1.78. On the other hand, the female respondents ranked highest men have to support women in seeing to the health state of the family with the mean of 4.60. This is followed by the relevance of home economics to life must be understood by both gender with mean of 4.38. Next is female also had to contribute to the monetary aspect of the family with mean of 4.36. Others are as follows: the care of the home should be the concern of both gender (4.35), females are naturally endowed to have more interest in home economics than males (4.16) the management of the home is not only done by females (4.0), male do not really see the need for them to be concerned with home economics (3.61), culturally men are not supposed to be in the kitchen (2.95), the beautification of the home is the duty of females and not males (2.45), only female can choose home economics as a career (2.26) and only female must know about good nutrition ranked least with mean score of 1.75. It is observed that there are variations in the ranking of male and female respondents. This should be, because they are of opposite sex and their roles differ. Also, both of them are against some cultural behave and they now understand based on the knowledge they had in home economics that both man and woman must join hands together to make a standard home.

Table 5 show the distribution of respondents by gender differences. About 72% and 74% males and females, respectively believed that there is not much difference between male and females’ role in home economics. About 14% and 16% males and females, respectively believed that there are high differences in the roles of be played by male and female in home economics while about 14% and 10% of females believed there are little differences between the roles to be performed. This means larger percentage of them believe that there are low differences in male and female role in home economics because they both had the experience that what woman can do man can also do in home economics.

Problems Associated with Home Economics

Table 6 showed the distribution of male and female respondents by problems associated with Home economics. Majority (78.8%) male respondents acknowledge storage as a problem about 75% revealed taste. Others are in the following order: economy of the nation (66.3), seasonality of agricultural produce (65%), perishability of some ingredients (58.8%), and much time is consumed in preparation (56.3%), low technical know-how (53.8%), and lack of commitment (51.3%) and highly expensive to establish (51.3%). It is energy consuming (50%) and weather or environmental condition (43.8%). Majority (85%) of female’s respondents, storage revealed as the paramount problem. This is followed by taste of people (70%). Next is perishability of some ingredient (65%). Others are as follows: much time is consumed in preparation (62.5%), seasonality of agricultural produce (56.3%) and it is energy consuming (56.3%), low technical know-how (51.3%) and economy of the nation (51.3%), lack of commitment (43.8%), highly expensive to establish (38.8%) and weather or environmental condition (36.3%).

Conclusion

Majority of the respondents (74.98%) were between 21-25 years old. The predominant religion was Christianity, while 26.27% practiced Islamic religion. About 80.6% of the respondents have their years of schooling between 16- 20 years. About 97.5% of the students were single while 2.5% were married. Majority of the youths (77.5%) are residing in urban area while 22.5% are living in rural area. 87.55% of the youths were Yoruba while 8.8% were Ibo. 29.4% of the respondents have been exposed to kitchen work for less than 11 years, 34.4% for 11-15 years, 31.9% for 16-20 years and 4.3% for more than 20 years. 55.6% of the respondent parents have only main occupation while 44.4% of their parent have both main and additional occupation. 16% of the males and 15% of the females had a favorable attitude towards home economics as a career. 10% of males and 14% of females were undecided in their attitude towards home economics as a career. Majority of them i.e. 74% of males and 71% of females had unfavorable attitude towards home economics as a career. The respondents had an unfavorable (negative) attitude towards home economics as a career because most of them didn’t want to live on home economics as a means of livelihood. Their socio-economic status had nothing to do with attitude towards home economics as a career. Less than 20% each of the respondents believed that there are high differences between male and female role in home economics. They were also able to identify some problems attached to home economics practices. Youths should see home economics as a life issue, which the knowledge of it will help to make a good standard of living. Parents should also help in impacting a preliminary knowledge of home economics into their children before they start schooling. Workshop should be provided in the department, which will embrace different fields of home economics. Regardless of the gender of the child, they both need the knowledge of home economics, since it is not only women that need good nutrition.

References

1. Chiekezie Obianuju, Nzewi Hope, Erhinmwionose Iyekekpolor. “Entrepreneurial Skill Acquisition and Job Creation in Benin City, Nigeria.” EPRA Int J Econ Bus Rev 4 (2016): 94-101.
2. Ahmed Rakiya. “Correlation between Home Economics Education and Entrepreneurial Skills Acquisition for Wealth Creation and Poverty Reduction in Nigeria.” ATBU J Sci Technol Education 6 (2018): 293-299.
3. Boldureanu, Gabriela., Ionescu M Allina., Bercu A Maria and Bedrule-Grigorut MV. “Entrepreneurship Education through Successful Entrepreneurial Models in Higher Education Institutions.” Sustainability Leadership and Education 12 (2020): 1-33.
4. Malerba Franco, McKelvey Maureen. “Knowledge-intensive innovative entrepreneurship integrating Schumpeter, evolutionary economics, and innovation systems.” Small Bus Econ 54 (2020): 503–522.
5. Ratten Vanessa, Jones Paul. “Covid-19 and entrepreneurship education: Implications for advancing research and practice.” Int J Manag Education 19 (2021): 100432.
6. Anekwe R Ifeoma, Ndubuisi-Okolo Purity, Attah E Yusuf. “Effect of Entrepreneurship Development on Poverty Alleviation in Nigeria.” IOSR J Bus Manag 20 (2018): 80-87.
7. Hussaini, Umaru, Noma I Ahmed. “Entrepreneurship as a viable tool for poverty reduction in Nigeria.” Int J Commerce Manag Res 5 (2019): 5-12.
8. Oladokun A. “Vocational Home Economics Education: A Veritable Tool for Self Reliance, Poverty Eradication and Sustainable National Development.” UJAH 21 (2020): 213-224.
9. Brante Goran, Brunosson Albina. “To double a recipe interdisciplinary teaching and learning of mathematical content knowledge in a home economics setting.” Education Inquiry 5 (2014): 301-318.
10. Haapaniemi Janni, Venalainen Salla, Malin Anne and Palojoki Paivi. “Home economics education: exploring integrative learning, Educational Res 61 (2019): 87-104.
11. Anerua FA and Obiazi AE. “Entrepreneurship Education in Home Economics: Problems and Prospects.” J Qualitative Education 7 (2011): 1-7.
12. Akpan ID, Unung PE and Usoroh CI. “Entrepreneurial Skills and Students’ Interest in Home Economics in Uyo Educational Zone of AkwaIbom State, Nigeria.” Int J Academic Res Bus Soc Sci 4 (2014): 36-43.
13. Gajraj A and Saxena R. “Entrepreneurship: A Weapon to Fight with Unemployment.” Gap Interdisciplinarities 2 (2019): 6-9.
14. Ozaralli Nurdan, Rivenburgh K Nancy. “Entrepreneurial intention: antecedents to entrepreneurial behavior in the U.S.A. and Turkey.” J Glob Entrepr Res 6 (2016): 1-32.
15. Chibuzor AN. “Enhancing Creativity in Entrepreneurship through Home Economics Education in Nigeria.” Amer Int J Contemp Res 4 (2014): 104-107.
16. Iyam MA and Udonwa RE. “Enhancing Creativity in Tertiary Institution through Home Economics Education for Educational Sustainability in South-South Nigeria.” European J Education Studies 4 (2018): 240-251.
17. Matthew M James, Haruna F Dowchem, Ameh M Edoka and Maisamari M Abare. “Impact of Entrepreneurship Education on Entrepreneurial Development of Students in College of Education Billiri, Gombe State.” African J Educational Manag Teaching Entrepren Studies 1 (2020): 60-67.
18. Reguia C. “Product Innovation and the Competitive Advantage.” European Scientific J 1 (2014): 1857-7881.
19. Undiyaundeye Florence, Out A Expungu. “Entrepreneurship Skills Acquisition and the Benefits amongst the Undergraduate Students in Nigeria.” European J Soc Sci Education Res 2 (2019): 9-14.
20. Okon FI, Firday UA. “Entrepreneurial Education: A Panacea for Youth Unemployment in Nigeria.” Int J Small Bus Entrepren Res 3 (2015): 11-22.
21. Atanda L Ayanlola, Ugwulebo J Emeka. “Graduate Joblessness: Conviction for Entrepreneurship Studies in Library and Information Science Programme of Nigerian Tertiary Institutions.” Int J Sociol 4 (2020): 52-63.
22. Rakiya Ahmed., Gaite S Sofia, Salami Samuel. “Entrepreneurial Skills Acquisition and Utilization among Home Economics Education Graduates of Ahmadu Bello University Zaria, Nigeria.” KIU J Soc Sci 3 (2017): 125-131.
23. Consuelo Chua. “The Place of Entrepreneurship in Home Economics and Its Role in Alleviating Poverty.” The J Pathescu 19 (2018): 47-57.
24. Barau, A.A. and Afrad, M.S.I. (2017). Potentials of Rural Youth Agripreneurship in Achieving Zero Hunger. World Rural Observations. 9(2): 1-11.
25. Claudia SL Dias, Ricardo G Rodrigues, Joao J Ferreira. “Agricultural entrepreneurship: Going back to the basics.” J Rural Studies 70 (2019): 125-138.
26. Pia Ulvenblad, Henrik Barth, Per-Ola Ulvenblad and Jenny Stahl. “Overcoming barriers in agri-business development: two education programs for entrepreneurs in the Swedish agricultural sector.” J Agri Education Ext 26 (2020): 443-464.
27. Ponto J. “Understanding and Evaluating Survey Research.” J Advan Practitioner Oncol 6 (2015): 168-171.
28. Agumagu AC, Ifeanyi-obi CC and Agu C. “Perception of Agriculture Students towards Farming as a Means of Sustainable Livelihood in Rivers State, Nigeria.” Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Agricultural Extension Society of Nigeria 22 (2018): 108-116.
29. Adejumo T Joel and Ololade RA. “Econometric Analysis of Accessibility and Repayment Ability of Agricultural Credit among Rural Root and Tuber Crops Farmers in Oyo State Nigeria.” Global J Manag Bus Res 18 (2018): 17-29.
30. Jeroen Smits and Inaki Permanyer. “The Subnational Human Development Database.” Sci Data 6 (2019): 38.
31. Alarima CI. “Factors Influencing Rural-Urban Migration of Youths in Osun State, Nigeria.” Agro Sci J Trop Agri Food Environ Ext 17 (2018): 34-39.
32. Chukwuedozie K Ajaero and Patience C Onokala. “The Effects of Rural-Urban Migration on Rural Communities of Southeastern Nigeria.” Int J Population Res 13 (2013): 1-10.