Content uploaded by Yakup Erdoğan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Yakup Erdoğan on Oct 03, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Determination of Individual Innovation Perceptions of
Students Studying Tourism at Undergraduate Level:
The Case of Kastamonu University
Lisans Düzeyinde Turizm Eğitimi Alan Öğrencilerin
Bireysel Yenilikçilik Algılarının Belirlenmesi:
Kastamonu Üniversitesi Örneği
Yakup ERDOĞAN*
Burhan SEVİM**
Article Information/ Makale Türü/ Информация о Статье:
Research Article/ Araştırma Makalesi/ Научная Статья
Citation / Atıf / Цитата
Erdoğan, Y. & Sevim, B. (2021). Determination of individual innovation perceptions of students studying
tourism at undergraduate level: The case of Kastamonu University. The Journal of Kesit Academy, 7 (28), 1-20.
Erdoğan, Y. ve Sevim, B. (2021). Lisans düzeyinde turizm eğitimi alan öğrencilerin bireysel yenilikçilik
algılarının belirlenmesi: Kastamonu Üniversitesi örneği. Kesit Akademi Dergisi, 7 (28), 1-20.
10.29228/kesit.52460
Bu makale İntihal.net tarafından taranmıştır. This article was checked by Intihal.net. Эта статья была проверена
Интихал.нет Bu makale Creative Commons lisansı altındadır. This article is under the Creative Commons license. Это
произведение доступно по лицензии Creative Commons.
*Arş. Gör., Kastamonu Üniversitesi, yerdogan@kastamonu.edu.tr
** Doç. Dr., Kastamonu Üniversitesi, bsevim@kastamonu.edu.tr
Submitted/ Geliş/ Отправлено:
Accepted/ Kabul/ Принимать:
Published/ Yayın/ Опубликованный:
25.08.2021
21.09.2021
25.09.2021
Determination of Individual Innovation Perceptions of Students
Studying Tourism at Undergraduate Level: The Case of Kastamonu
University
1
Lisans Düzeyinde Turizm Eğitimi Alan Öğrencilerin Bireysel Yenilikçilik
Algılarının Belirlenmesi: Kastamonu Üniversitesi Örneği
Arş. Gör. Yakup ERDOĞAN
Doç. Dr. Burhan SEVİM
Abstract: Innovation is seen as the key point of progress and development
and its value is increasing day by day. In recent years, the necessity of indi-
vidual innovation has become even more noticeable in order for innovation
to exist in businesses. The aim of this study is to determine the individual
innovativeness perceptions of university students and to determine whet-
her they differ according to demographic variables. For this purpose, a re-
search was conducted for students studying at Kastamonu University Fa-
culty of Tourism in the 2020-2021 academic year. In order to determine the
individual innovativeness levels of the students, the ‚Individual Innova-
tion Scale‛ was used. The internal consistency coefficient of the 20-item sca-
le was calculated as 0.802. The universe of the study consists of 792 stu-
dents. Convenience sampling method, one of the non-probability sampling
methods, was used as the sampling method. In this context, 314 students
participated in the research and formed the sample. In order to determine
the validity and reliability of the scale with the SPSS statistical program,
explanatory factor analysis was applied to the data collected in a 5-point
Likert type. In order to test the hypotheses, independent samples t-test and
1
Statements of ‚COPE-Code of Conduct and Best Practices Guidelines for Journal Editors‛: No conflicts
of interest were reported for this article. This study was prepared with the approval of Kastamonu
University Social and Humanities Sciences Researching and Publication Ethics Committee
(Date:25.12.2020, Number: 4/83). Corresponding Author: Yakup ERDOĞAN
‚COPE-Dergi Editörleri İçin Davranış Kuralları ve En İyi Uygulama İlkeleri‛ beyanları: Bu çalışma için
herhangi bir çıkar çatışması bildirilmemiştir. Bu çalışma Kastamonu Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Beşeri Bi-
limler Araştrma ve Yayın Etik Kurulu’nun 25.12.2020 tarih ve 4/83 sayılı onayı çerçevesinde hazırlan-
mıştır. Sorumlu Yazar: Yakup ERDOĞAN
Yakup ERDOĞAN-Burhan SEVİM 3
www.kesitakademi.com
one-way ANOVA analyzes were performed. In addition, frequency analy-
sis was applied to obtain statistical data on demographic characteristics. As
a result of the analyzes, it was determined that the individual innovative-
ness perceptions of the participants differ according to their gender, the
department they study, the income status of their families and their age.
Keywords: Tourism, innovation, individual innovativeness, tourism stu-
dents, Kastamonu University.
Öz: Yenilikçilik ilerlemenin ve gelişmenin kilit noktası olarak görülmekte
ve değeri gün geçtikçe daha da artmaktadır. Son yıllarda işletmelerde yeni-
likçiliğin var olabilmesi için bireysel anlamdaki yenilikçiliğin gerekliliği
daha da hissedilir hale gelmiştir. Bu çalışmanın amacı üniversite öğrencile-
rinin bireysel yenilikçilik algılarının belirlenerek demografik değişkenlere
göre farklılaşıp farklılaşmadığını tespit etmektir. Bu amaç doğrultusunda
2020-2021 öğretim yılı içerisinde Kastamonu Üniversitesi Turizm Fakülte-
si’nde öğrenim gören öğrencilere yönelik bir araştırma gerçekleştirilmiştir.
Öğrencilerin bireysel yenilikçilik düzeylerini belirleyebilmek için ‚Bireysel
Yenilikçilik Ölçeği‛ kullanılmıştır. 20 maddelik ölçeğin iç tutarlılık katsayı-
sı 0,802 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Çalışmanın evrenini 792 öğrenci oluştur-
mak-tadır. Örneklem yöntemi olarak olasılık dışı örnekleme yöntemlerin-
den kolayda örnekleme yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Bu kapsamda 314 öğrenci
araştırmaya katılarak örneklemi oluşturmuştur. 5’li likert tipinde toplanan
veriler SPSS istatistik programı ile ölçeğin geçerlilik ve güvenirliğinin tespit
edilmesi için, açıklayıcı faktör analizi uygulanmıştır. Hipotezlerin test
edilmesi amacıyla, bağımsız örneklem t-testi ve tek yönlü ANOVA analiz-
leri yapılmıştır. Ayrıca demografik özelliklere ilişkin istatistiksel verileri
elde etmek amacıyla frekans analizi uygulanmıştır. Yapılan analizler sonu-
cunda katılımcıların bireysel yenilikçilik algılarının cinsiyete, öğ-renim
gördükleri bölüme, ailelerinin gelir durumuna ve yaşlarına göre farklılık
gösterdiği tespit edilmiştir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Turizm, inovasyon, bireysel yenilikçilik, turizm öğren-
cileri, Kastamonu Üniversitesi.
Introduction
One of the most important features of the information age brought to societies
is innovation. Development and change have revealed a constant need for innovation.
The increasing competitive environment requires continuous development and adapt-
ing to innovations becomes a part of daily life (Oktuğ & Özden, 2013). Because in mod-
Determination of Individual Innovation Perceptions of Students Studying Tourism … 4
Kesit Akademi Dergisi - The Journal of Kesit Academy
Yıl/Year/Год: 7, Sayı/Number/ Номер: 28, Eylül/September/Сентябрь 2021
ern institutions, it is accepted that innovativeness reveals and strengthens competitive
ability (Zhang and Bartol, 2010). Individuals and institutions adapting to changing
conditions or changing existing conditions as they wish are possible with innovation
(Akdoğan & Karaarslan, 2013).
The concept of innovation has been the subject of many disciplines in the litera-
ture due to the changes and developments experienced in our age. The responses of
innovation to individuals' adoption processes and innovations, or the consideration of
these reactions according to a personal feature dimension, with the differences in so-
cial, cultural values and living spaces with universal characteristics is important for
maintaining a healthy balance (Kılıçer, 2011; Adıgüzel, 2012). With innovation, it is
mentioned that knowledge is transformed into economic and social benefit (Elçi, 2006).
Thanks to developments in information and communication technologies, customers
are also affected by innovative changes (Uygur et al., 2019). Adapting a new idea to
organizational activities and as a result, increasing corporate efficiency and effective-
ness can be associated with innovation (Küçük, 2017; Hitt et al., 2005; Arslan, 2001).
When looking at the dictionary meaning of the term "innovation" which is de-
rived from the Latin origin word "innovatus", it is seen that it means the use of new
methods in social, cultural and administrative environments. Innovation is defined as a
new and different result. Although it has been explained with words such as "innova-
tion", "renew/regenerate", "innovative" in Turkish, its meaning is too wide to be ex-
pressed in a single word (Yavuz et al., 2009). According to Kavrakoğlu (2006) and Uz-
kurt (2008), the concept of "innovation" does not have an exact equivalent in Turkish.
Kavrakoğlu (2006) defined that the concept of innovation can be used to understand
renewal but that is inherent to creativity and therefore innovation is creatively innovat-
ing in a subject. On the other hand, Uzkurt (2008) stated that the reason why innova-
tion cannot be expressed as renewal is the things that are defined as new in the essence
of innovation can be transformed into value and benefit economically and socially and
therefore the term "renewal" in Turkish is insufficient to emphasize this.
Zerenler et al. (2007) state that the perception of the phenomenon of innovation
differs from the past. Researchers have stated that innovation, which was seen as a
genius making an invention or an entrepreneur taking an idea and transforming it into
a commercial benefit, is no longer considered as a one-off process, but as a repeatable,
systematic and organizational process (Zaltman et al., 1973; Zmud, 1982. ; Tushman
and Nadler, 1986; Damanpour, 1991; Güleş and Bülbül, 2004; Çalıpınar and Baç, 2007).
Researches have focused on innovation along the lines of efforts to provide the educa-
tion necessary to survive in the 21st century (Wong-Kam, 2012).
Innovativeness also refers to individuals or organizations that have effective
organizational results and have a high inclination to implement existing innovations
Yakup ERDOĞAN-Burhan SEVİM 5
www.kesitakademi.com
(Pekdoğan, 2017). The primary resource influencing the performance indicators of or-
ganizations is their employees. For this reason, it is extremely important for organiza-
tion personnel to adopt and accept innovation. Tabak et al. (2010) draw attention to the
fact that individuals are at the centre of innovation. Because, the widespread use of
innovations that emerge in society is possible primarily if individuals accept and adopt
these innovations (Yeğin, 2017). It is a characteristic that requires individual innovation
discipline, learning skills and application ability. Two of the important qualities that
innovative individuals have; is self-esteem and self-confidence. While self-esteem is
about the individual feeling important and valuable; self-confidence is expressed as a
tendency to believe in being successful by undertaking active tasks in different situa-
tions (Duran & Saraçoğlu, 2009).
Many changes we experience affect all aspects of social life. This situation also
directs the human profile needed in all areas of society to change (Yazıcı, 2013). There
is a need for individuals who will adapt to innovations and changes that contribute to
them and accordingly the existence of an education system consisting of a changing,
continuing development, open to technological innovations and productive education
mass (Karaman, 2016).
Demirel (2009) defines lifelong learning associated with innovativeness as ‚a
continuous process that develops an individual's potential and competencies through-
out his life‛. Candy (2003) sees lifelong learning as the process in which the
knowledge, values, skills and qualities that individuals encounter throughout their
lives are acquired and can be applied in daily life. It is thought that determining the
individual innovativeness level of students is important in terms of adopting innova-
tions, using innovations and benefiting from innovations in the individual's awareness
of development, change and renewal in the world during the life-long learning pro-
cess. The continuation of the development and changes of societies in the way of mod-
ernization can be achieved by providing all individuals especially the young popula-
tion, with the qualifications such as accessing information, using and reconstructing it,
producing, problem-solving, analysing and synthesizing, adapting to innovations, crit-
ical and creative thinking (Sağlam and Kürüm, 2005). In this context, the study aimed
to measure the individual innovativeness perceptions of Kastamonu University Tour-
ism Faculty students, who will be among the individuals in the society and the em-
ployees of the future, and the relevant literature is given below.
Culture and Innovation
Globalization has brought a new perspective to international economic and cul-
tural relations as in many other fields. There is an increase in international cultural
relations as a natural result of the rapid development of information technologies and
transportation systems, diversification of communication channels and innovative
Determination of Individual Innovation Perceptions of Students Studying Tourism … 6
Kesit Akademi Dergisi - The Journal of Kesit Academy
Yıl/Year/Год: 7, Sayı/Number/ Номер: 28, Eylül/September/Сентябрь 2021
change (Çaycı & Karagülle, 2016). However, the development of international cultural
relations also brought along cultural differences (Aksoy, 2012). Accordingly, studies of
researchers and related literature who think that culture can be one of many factors
that can affect innovation are presented below.
H.G. Barnett (1953), as a cultural anthropologist, was described as one of the
first to mention the relationship between culture and innovation (Herbig & Dunphy,
1998). Lin (2009) studied global automakers operating in 14 countries to investigate
whether culture has an impact on product management and innovation. Vecchi and
Brennan (2009) examined the innovation performance of manufacturing enterprises
operating in 24 countries to determine the role of cultural characteristics in innovation
performance.
Kaasa and Vadi (2010) conducted a study based on the number of patent appli-
cations in measuring the ability to initiate innovation to examine the relationship be-
tween the cultural dimensions revealed by Hofstede and the ability to initiate innova-
tion. Williams and McGuire (2010) conducted a study with a sample of 63 countries
and structural equation modelling to examine the impact of culture on national innova-
tion and welfare. Rossberger and Krause (2012) investigated the study aiming to reveal
the relationship between cultural value dimensions of 55 countries and national inno-
vativeness in 2009, 2010 and 2011. Using the conditional and unconditional Data En-
velopment Analysis (DEA) model, an experimental study was conducted by Halkos
and Tzeremes (2013) in 25 European countries for the link between innovation perfor-
mance and cultural factors. Efrat (2014) examined the impact of culture on the motiva-
tion to innovate at the national level in a study covering OECD countries. Çelikkol
(2015) conducted a study to find out how national cultural characteristics, covering 34
OECD countries, affect innovation and competition.
In studies on innovation and culture, it has been observed that researchers gen-
erally choose some of the organizational characteristics and work on different dimen-
sions. In this context, researchers analyzed the factors affecting innovative culture in
four dimensions (Brettel & Cleven, 2011).
• The orientation of the future market,
• Learning organization orientation,
• Willingness to take risks,
• Orientation towards innovation brought by technology.
Leagreid et al. (2011) examined the innovative culture from a different point of
view in terms of its task-oriented features, cultural-related institutional characteristics,
situational beneficial factors and environment-related institutional characteristics.
Yakup ERDOĞAN-Burhan SEVİM 7
www.kesitakademi.com
In a study conducted on the dimensions of innovative culture taking into ac-
count the economic processes and the country's economy, the effects of educational
institutions, non-profit-oriented research institutions, Silicon Valley studies and institu-
tional knowledge changes were examined (Samli, 2012).
Individual Innovativeness
One of the features that sectors, organizations and people need in a changing
world is innovation. Innovativeness has been defined as breaking out of certain pat-
terns known by many, desire for change, wanting something different, taking risks,
and is closely associated with knowledge. When the relevant studies are examined, it is
seen that the definitions of individual innovativeness are explained differently.
Flynn and Goldsmith (1993) defined individual innovativeness as accepting an
innovation earlier than others in its environment. When defining individual innova-
tiveness Rogers (2003) emphasized that individuals have the ability to take risks in the
face of innovations and be open to experiences that can occur with acceptance. Yuan
and Woodman (2010) expressed individual innovativeness as developing, adopting or
applying innovation and stated that individual innovativeness characteristics can differ
from person to person and there is a feature that shows the change of individuals' atti-
tudes towards innovations.
Kılıçer (2011) defined individual innovativeness as an attitude towards innova-
tion, willingness, acceptance of innovation, transferring it to daily life and benefiting
from these innovations. At the same time, individual innovativeness emerges as a con-
cept that is addressed by prioritizing the characteristics of individuals and is used to
express the differences of individuals' characteristics and their reactions to trying inno-
vations (Şahin, 2016).
Based on the above definitions, the definition of individual innovativeness can
be made as ‚the perception of any product, service or thought as new by a person‛.
Individual innovativeness is considered as a discipline, learning ability and application
ability. The individual's perception of an idea as innovation depends on the individu-
al's reaction to the innovation (Rogers, 2003). In this context, it is the subject of the
study to determine the individual innovativeness perception levels of the students of
the Faculty of Tourism of Kastamonu University in order to produce new ideas and to
implement the innovations made in the field of tourism.
Method
The questionnaire technique, one of the quantitative data collection tool was
used to collect the data to be used for statistical analysis in the study. The questionnaire
form prepared in line with the purpose of the research consists of two parts. The first
Determination of Individual Innovation Perceptions of Students Studying Tourism … 8
Kesit Akademi Dergisi - The Journal of Kesit Academy
Yıl/Year/Год: 7, Sayı/Number/ Номер: 28, Eylül/September/Сентябрь 2021
part covers questions about the demographic characteristics of the respondents. In the
second part, there are questions prepared as a 5-Likert type for measuring the individ-
ual innovation perceptions of the participants. To determine students' individual inno-
vation levels The "Individual Innovativeness Scale" developed by Hurt et al (1977) and
adapted to Turkish by Kılıçer and Odabaşı (2010) was used.
This study was prepared with the approval of Kastamonu University Social and
Humanities Sciences Researching and Publication Ethics Committee (Date:25.12.2020,
Number: 4/83).
Research Hypotheses
Based on the explanations given in the literature part of the study, the following
hypotheses have been created in order to measure the individual innovativeness per-
ceptions of the students studying at Kastamonu University Faculty of Tourism.
H1 Individual innovativeness perceptions differ by gender.
H2 Individual innovativeness perceptions differ by department.
H3 Individual innovativeness perceptions differ by income level of the family.
H4 Individual innovativeness perceptions differ by age.
Population and Sample
The population of the study consists of the students studying at Kastamonu
University Tourism Faculty in the fall semester of the 2020-2021 academic year. The
sample of the study on the other hand consists of students who have the opportunity
to fill in an online questionnaire during the period when the questionnaire is applied,
due to the difficulty in determining the school attendance status of all students during
the pandemic period. According to the information obtained from the student affairs,
the population of the study was determined as 792 students. Although the whole pop-
ulation was tried to be reached, 314 students participated in the study and formed the
sample.
The convenience sampling method, one of the non-probability sampling meth-
ods, was used as the sampling method. In this method, the aim is to include everyone
who wants to be included in the sample (Gürbüz & Şahin, 2015). The following formu-
la developed by Yamane (2001) was used in calculating the number of samples.
N: population size
n: sample size
Yakup ERDOĞAN-Burhan SEVİM 9
www.kesitakademi.com
z: standard normal distribution table value for the desired reliability level
d: degree of accuracy
p: the proportion of individuals with the desired feature in the population (p + q = 1)
Data Collection Tool
In the study, Individual Innovativeness Questionnaire consisting of 20 expres-
sions was applied to the students studying tourism to determine individual innovation
perceptions. In the first part of the questionnaire form, statements about determining
the demographic characteristics of the participants are included. The expressions in the
second part were evaluated with the 5-point Likert-type scale as "Strongly Disagree (1),
Disagree (2), Neither Agree Neither Disagree (3), Agree (4), and Strongly Agree (5)" to
measure individual innovativeness perceptions.
Data Analysis
Explanatory factor analysis was applied to the data collected in 5-point Likert
type to determine the validity and reliability of the scale with the SPSS statistical analy-
sis program. To test the hypotheses, Independent Sample T-Test and One-Way ANO-
VA analyses were performed. In addition, frequency analysis was applied to obtain
statistical data on demographic characteristics. When the reliability analysis of the In-
dividual Innovation Scale was made, it was seen that the Cronbach's Alpha coefficient
was 80.2%. When this situation is evaluated according to Cronbach's Alpha coefficients
by Kayış (2009), it has been determined that the coefficient between 0.80 ≤ α <1.00 con-
forms to the statement that the scale is highly reliable.
Findings
Skewness and Kurtosis values were examined to determine whether the data
collected in the study showed normal distribution. It was observed that the Skewness
value ranged from -1.107 to +1.063 and the Kurtosis value varied between -1,403 and
+1,293. When Kurtosis and Skewness values are between -1.5 and +1.5, it is accepted
that the data show a normal distribution (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2013).
The frequency and percentage distributions regarding the answers given for the
demographic distributions by the students who participated in the study were given in
Table 1.
Determination of Individual Innovation Perceptions of Students Studying Tourism … 10
Kesit Akademi Dergisi - The Journal of Kesit Academy
Yıl/Year/Год: 7, Sayı/Number/ Номер: 28, Eylül/September/Сентябрь 2021
Table 1: Demographic Characteristics of the Students Participating in the Study
Gender
f
%
Department
f
%
Female
170
54,1
Tourism Management
92
29,3
Male
144
45,9
Tourism Guidance
144
45,9
Age
Gastronomy and Culinary
Arts
78
24,8
17 - 19 years
62
19,7
Family Income (Monthly)
20 - 22 years
216
68,8
Less than 2500 TL
99
31,5
23 years and
older
36
11,5
Between 2501 TL – 3500 TL
150
47,8
Class
Between 3501 TL – 4500 TL
28
8,9
1st Grade
65
20,7
Between 4501 TL – 5500 TL
20
6,4
2nd Grade
97
30,9
More than 5501 TL
17
5,4
3th Grade
113
36,0
4th Grade
39
12,4
N=314
According to Table 1, 45.9% of the students are male and 54.1% are female stu-
dents. It was determined that 19.7% of the students participating in the study were
between the ages of 17-19 years old, 68.8% were between the ages of 20-22 years old,
and 11.5% were between the ages of 23 years old and over. 29.3% of the participant’s
study in Tourism Management, 45.9% in Tourism Guidance and 24.8% in Gastronomy
and Culinary Arts. When the monthly family income of the students is examined, it is
seen that 31.5% of them have an income of less than 2500 TL and 47.8% of them consti-
tute the majority with income between 2501 TL - 3500 TL.
In the study, the KMO test performed to determine the construct validity of the
Individual Innovativeness Scale was found to be 0.812 and the Barlett Sphericity Test
result was found to be significant (p =, 000 <, 001) (Table 2). Büyüköztürk (2002) has
described the KMO ratio above 0.80 as very good and the rates above 0.90 as excellent.
Accordingly, the KMO value (0.812) resulting from the analysis is quite good.
Table 2: Individual Innovativeness Scale KMO and Bartlett's Sphericity Test Results
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.
,812
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square
2448,470
df
190
Sig.
,000
Principle Component Analysis, which is frequently used in social sciences, was
used as a factoring technique in exploratory factor analysis. Since zeroing the correla-
tion between factors, thus providing clarity and significance in the interpretation of the
factors, Varimax vertical axis rotation was performed and the lower limit of item ei-
genvalues was taken as 1.00 in determining the factor number. Two expressions with
factor loadings below 0.32 were removed from the scale. According to Tabachnick and
Yakup ERDOĞAN-Burhan SEVİM 11
www.kesitakademi.com
Fidell (2013), the factor load of an item on a factor should be at least 0.32.
Table 3: Individual Innovativeness Scale Explanatory Factor Analysis Results
Factors and Items
Factor Load
Eigenvalue
Variance Explained
%
Factor 1: Resistance to Change
4,083
22,681
Item 4- I am generally cautious about
accepting new ideas.
,561
Item 6- I am suspicious of new inven-
tions and new ways of thinking.
,624
Item 7- I rarely trust new ideas until I
can see whether the vast majority of
people around me accept them.
,651
Item 10- I am aware that I am usually
one of the last people in my group to
accept something new.
,745
Item 13- I am reluctant about adopting
new ways of doing things until I see
them working for people around me.
,732
Item 15- I tend to feel that the old way of
living and doing things is the best way.
,628
Item 17- I must see other people using
new innovations before I will consider
them.
,522
Item 20- I often find myself sceptical of
new ideas.
,791
Factor 2: Opinion Leadership
3,660
20,334
Item 1- My peers often ask me for ad-
vice or information,
,619
Item 8- I feel that I am an influential
member of my peer group.
,839
Item 9- I consider myself to be creative
and original in my thinking and behav-
iour.
,853
Item 11- I am an inventive kind of per-
son.
,802
Factor 3: Openness to experience
1,606
8,922
Item 2- I enjoy trying out new ideas.
,807
Item 3- I seek out new ways to do
things.
,822
Item 12- I enjoy taking part in the lead-
ership responsibilities of the groups I
belong to.
,465
Item 14- I find it stimulating to be origi-
nal in my thinking and behaviour.
,457
Factor 4: Risk Taking
1,327
7,371
Item 16- I am challenged by ambiguities
,838
Determination of Individual Innovation Perceptions of Students Studying Tourism … 12
Kesit Akademi Dergisi - The Journal of Kesit Academy
Yıl/Year/Год: 7, Sayı/Number/ Номер: 28, Eylül/September/Сентябрь 2021
and unsolved problems.
Item 19- I am challenged by unan-
swered questions.
,676
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis
According to Table 3, where the Individual Innovativeness Scale Factor Analy-
sis results are shown, the contribution of the factors (dimensions) to the total variance
is 22.681% for the first factor, 20.334% for the second factor, 8.922% for the third factor
and 7.371% for the fourth factor. It is seen that the total contribution of these deter-
mined factors to the variance is 59.309%. In other words, these four factors explain
59.3% of the total variance. In multi-factor analyses, it is accepted as sufficient if the
variance explained is between 40% and 60% (Çokluk et al., 2012).
When the factor analysis results are examined, it is seen that individual innova-
tiveness is grouped under four titles. These factors (dimensions) were named as "Re-
sistance to change", "Opinion Leadership", "Openness to experience" and "Risk taking",
respectively, considering the literature information and the properties of the items. In
the relevant literature, findings supporting the dimensions can be found in the studies
of Kılıçer (2011), Işık and Türkmendağ (2016). It is seen that the factor loadings vary
between 0.457 and 0.853. For the factor load value coefficient, which explains the rela-
tionship of items with the factor to which they belong, values above 0.45 are generally
recommended as a good criterion for item selection (Büyüköztürk, 2002).
Whether the individual innovativeness perceptions of the students participating
in the study differ significantly according to gender was investigated with the inde-
pendent sample t-test. The results obtained are presented in Table 4.
Table 4: Independent Sample T-Test for Gender
Gender
N
Mean
Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F
Sig.
t
df
Sig. (2-
tailed)
Individual
Innovativeness
Perceptions
Female
170
3,4143
10,072
,002
3,653
277,979
,000
Male
144
3,1731
As a result of the independent sample t-test for gender, because the level of sig-
nificance in the Levene equality of variances test was below p <0.05 and the variances
were not evenly distributed, the T values for the uneven distribution of variances were
taken into account. Accordingly, there was a significant difference between gender and
individual innovativeness perceptions (p = 0.000 <0.05) (Table 4). Thus, H1 hypothesis
"Individual innovativeness perceptions differ by gender." was accepted.
Table 5: One-Way ANOVA Analysis Results Regarding Students' Departments
Individual Innovativeness
Perceptions
Sum of Squares
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
Between Groups
6,610
3,305
10,202
,000
Within Groups
100,752
,324
Total
107,362
Yakup ERDOĞAN-Burhan SEVİM 13
www.kesitakademi.com
Department
Mean Difference
Sig.
Gastronomy and Culinary
Arts
Tourism Guidance
-,04598
,823
Tourism Management
,28637*
,006
Tourism Guidance
Gastronomy and Culinary Arts
,04598
,823
Tourism Management
,33235*
,000
Tourism Management
Gastronomy and Culinary Arts
-,28637*
,006
Tourism Guidance
-,33235*
,000
According to the results of the ANOVA test in Table 5, it was determined that
there is a significant difference between the studying department and the individual
innovativeness perceptions (p = 0.000 <0.05). According to the Post Hoc Games-Howell
test conducted in addition to the ANOVA test, the averages of students' individual
innovation perceptions differ according to the departments they study. Accordingly,
H2 hypothesis "Individual innovativeness perceptions differ by department." was ac-
cepted.
ANOVA and Post Hoc Tukey tests were conducted to test whether there is a
difference between the individual innovativeness perceptions of the participants and
their family income and the relevant results are shown in Table 6.
Table 6: Results of One-way ANOVA Analysis Regarding Family Income Status
Individual Innovativeness
Perceptions
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
F
Sig.
Between Groups
12,006
3,001
9,726
,000
Within Groups
95,356
,309
Total
107,362
Family Income (Monthly)
Mean Difference
Sig.
Less than 2500 TL
Between 2501 TL – 3500 TL
,27153*
,002
Between 3501 TL – 4500 TL
-,01633
,874
Between 4501 TL – 5500 TL
-,11538
,916
More than 5501 TL
-,45839*
,016
Between 2501 TL – 3500 TL
Less than 2500 TL
-,27153*
,002
Between 3501 TL – 4500 TL
-,28786
,089
Between 4501 TL – 5500 TL
-,38690*
,030
More than 5501 TL
-,72992*
,000
Between 3501 TL – 4500 TL
Less than 2500 TL
,01633
,617
Between 2501 TL – 3500 TL
,28786
,089
Between 4501 TL – 5500 TL
-,09904
,974
More than 5501 TL
-,44206*
,035
Between 4501 TL – 5500 TL
Less than 2500 TL
,11538
,916
Between 2501 TL – 3500 TL
,38690*
,030
Between 3501 TL – 4500 TL
,09904
,974
More than 5501 TL
-,34301
,335
More than 5501 TL
Less than 2500 TL
,45839*
,016
Between 2501 TL – 3500 TL
,72992*
,000
Between 3501 TL – 4500 TL
,44206
,075
Between 4501 TL – 5500 TL
,34301
,335
Determination of Individual Innovation Perceptions of Students Studying Tourism … 14
Kesit Akademi Dergisi - The Journal of Kesit Academy
Yıl/Year/Год: 7, Sayı/Number/ Номер: 28, Eylül/September/Сентябрь 2021
When the results in Table 6 were examined, it was seen that there was a signifi-
cant difference between family income status and students' perceptions of individual
innovativeness (p = 0.000 <0.05). According to the Tukey test, the averages of students'
individual innovativeness perceptions differ according to family income. Thus, H3
hypothesis, "Individual innovativeness perceptions differ by income level of the fami-
ly." was accepted.
ANOVA and Post Hoc Tukey tests were conducted to test whether there was a
difference between individual innovativeness perceptions and the ages of the partici-
pants and the results are shown in Table 7.
Table 7: Results of One-way ANOVA Analysis Regarding Students' Ages
Individual Innovativeness
Perceptions
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
F
Sig.
Between Groups
12,012
6,006
19,589
,000
Within Groups
95,351
,307
Total
107,362
Age
Mean Difference
Sig.
17 - 19 years
20 - 22 years
-,00023
,916
23 years and older
-,61407*
,024
20 - 22 years
17 - 19 years
,00023
,075
23 years and older
-,61384*
,037
23 years and older
17 - 19 years
,61407*
,012
20 - 22 years
,61384*
,041
According to the results given in Table 7, it was seen that there is a significant
difference between the ages of the participants in the research and their individual in-
novativeness perceptions (p = 0.000 <0.05). According to the Tukey test, the averages of
students' individual innovativeness perceptions differ according to their ages. Accord-
ingly, H4 hypothesis "Individual innovativeness perceptions differ by age." was ac-
cepted.
Conclusions and Recommendations
In this study, it was aimed to determine whether the students' individual inno-
vativeness perception levels differ according to demographic variables by evaluating
the individual innovativeness levels of Kastamonu University Tourism Faculty stu-
dents. The obtained research results are similar to other studies conducted to deter-
mine the individual innovativeness levels of university students (Kılıçer, 2011; Kert &
Tekdal, 2012; Adıgüzel, 2012; Korucu & Olpak, 2012; Bitkin, 2012; Çuhadar et al., 2013;
Işık and Türkmendağ, 2016).
As a result of the factor analysis conducted within the scope of the research, it
was determined that the factors of "Resistance to Change", "Openness to Experience",
Yakup ERDOĞAN-Burhan SEVİM 15
www.kesitakademi.com
"Opinion Leadership" and "Risk Taking" were effective on students' innovation levels.
In the relevant literature, findings supporting these dimensions were found in the
studies of Kılıçer (2011) and Işık and Türkmendağ (2016). In the study, it was examined
whether the individual innovativeness levels of university students differ according to
the gender variable and it was determined that the individual innovativeness levels
differ significantly according to the gender variable. While this finding does not match
with some studies in the literature (Rogers, 2003; Rogers & Wallace, 2011; Bitkin, 2012;
Çuhadar et al., 2013; Kılıç et al., 2014), it is similar to some studies (Demirsoy, 2005).
The findings of the study revealed that there is a significant difference between
the individual innovativeness levels of the students and the departments they study.
According to the results of the ANOVA test, it was determined that there is a signifi-
cant difference between the studied department and individual innovativeness percep-
tions (p = 0.000 <0.05). In addition, in the Post Hoc Games-Howell test results, the aver-
age of the students' perception of individual innovation differed according to the de-
partments they studied.
As a result of the analysis, it was seen that there was a significant difference be-
tween family income and students' perceptions of individual innovativeness (p = 0.000
<0.05). The study was carried out with the students who preferred Kastamonu Univer-
sity for studying and normally live in different cities in Turkey. This situation also af-
fects the economic income and expenditure balance of families. Accordingly, it is
thought that the income levels of families differ among themselves, and the ability to
follow and accept innovations may be related to purchasing power. It was determined
that there is a significant difference between the ages of the participants and their indi-
vidual innovativeness perceptions (p = 0.000 <0.05). According to Zimmer and Chap-
pell (1999), age-related differences affect the adoption and acceptance of technological
innovations.
In order for the tourism sector to cope with the tough competition conditions
and to increase the level of economic prosperity, innovation is seen as an important
component in the global sense as is the case with every sector. For this reason, it is im-
portant that students who will be employed in different businesses and positions in the
tourism sector after graduating are open to innovation. In addition, it is thought that it
would be beneficial to provide an innovative, technological and continuously renewed
innovative learning-teaching environment to students whose education life continues.
In order for this to be implemented, it is recommended to develop/improve physical
and technical infrastructures.
The scope of the research is limited to university students studying at
Kastamonu University. Similar studies can be conducted with students from different
universities to generalize and compare the results obtained in this study. In addition, it
Determination of Individual Innovation Perceptions of Students Studying Tourism … 16
Kesit Akademi Dergisi - The Journal of Kesit Academy
Yıl/Year/Год: 7, Sayı/Number/ Номер: 28, Eylül/September/Сентябрь 2021
is recommended that the suspicious and negative attitudes of students towards inno-
vations and the reasons for other findings be revealed through different qualitative and
quantitative research methods.
REFERENCES
Adıgüzel, A. (2012). The relation between candidate teachers’ moral maturity levels
and their individual innovativeness characteristics: A case study of Harran
University Education Faculty. Educational Research and Reviews, 7(25), 543-547.
Akdoğan, M.Ş. & Karaarslan M.H. (2013). Tüketici yenilikçiliği. Atatürk Üniversitesi
İİBF Dergisi, 27(2), 1-20.
Aksoy, Z. (2012). Uluslararası göç ve kültürlerarası iletişim. Journal of International So-
cial Research, 5(20).
Arslan, M. (2001). Yönetim ve organizasyonun bazı temel kavramları. İçinde S. Güney (Ed.).
Yönetim ve organizasyon (31-45). Nobel Yayıncılık.
Barnett, H.G. (1953). Innovation: The basis of cultural change. McGraw Hill.
Bitkin, A. (2012). Öğretmen adaylarının bireysel yenilikçilik düzeyleri ile bilgi edinme becer-
ileri arasındaki ilişki [Doktora Tezi]. Harran Üniversitesi.
Brettel M. & Cleven, N.J. (2011). Innovation culture, collaboration with external part-
ners and NPD performance. Creativity and Innovation Management, 20 (4), 253-
272.
Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2002). Faktör analizi: Temel kavramlar ve Ölçek Geliştirmede
Kullanımı. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 32(32), 470-483.
Candy, P. C. (2003), Lifelong learning and ınformation literacy. Report for U.S national
commission on libraries and ınformation Science and National Forum on In-
formation Literacy.
Çalıpınar, H. & Baç, U. (2007). The factors effecting the realization of innovation in
SMEs and a field survey, Ege Academic Review, 7(2).
Çaycı, B. & Karagülle, A. E. (2016). İletişimin dijitalleşmesi ve kültürel melezleşme.
Global Media Journal TR Edition, 6 (12).
Çelikkol, M. (2015). Ulusal kültürel özelliklerin rekabetçilik ve yenilik üzerine etkisi:
uluslararası düzlemde bir çalışma [Master Thesis]. Gebze Technical University So-
cial Sciences Institude.
Chappell, N.L. & Zimmer, Z. (1999). Receptivity to new technology among older
adults. Disability and Rehabilitation, 21(5-6), 222-230.
Yakup ERDOĞAN-Burhan SEVİM 17
www.kesitakademi.com
Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. ve Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012), Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli
istatistik: SPSS ve Lisrel uygulamaları. Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
Çuhadar, C., Bülbül, T. & Ilgaz, G. (2013). Exploring of the relationship between indi-
vidual innovativeness and techno-pedagogical education competencies of pre-
service teachers. Elementary Education Online, 12(3).
Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of deter-
minants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555-590.
Demirel, M. (2009). Yaşam boyu öğrenmenin anahtarı: Öğrenmeyi öğrenme. 2. Ulusal
Eğitim Psikolojisi Sempozyumu Bildiri Kitabı.
Demirsoy, C. (2005). Yeniliğin Yayılması Modellerinin ve Yeniliği Benimseyen Kategorile-
rinin İnternet Bankacılığı Ürünü Üzerinde Bir İncelemesi [Yüksek Lisans Tezi].
Hacettepe Üniversitesi.
Duran, C. & Saraçoğlu, M. (2009). Yeniliğin yaratıcılıkla olan ilişkisi ve yeniliği ge-
listirme süreci. Journal of Management & Economics, 16(1).
Efrat, K. (2014). The direct and indirect impact of culture on innovation. Technovation,
34(1):12-20.
Elçi, Ş. (2006). İnovasyon: Kalkınmanın ve rekabetin anahtarı. Nobel Yayıncılık.
Flynn, L. R. & Goldsmith, R. E. (1993), Identifying innovations in consumer service
markets. Service Industries Journal, 13(3), 97-109.
Güleş, H. K. ve Bülbül, B. (2004), Toplam kalite yönetiminin işletmelerde yenilik
çalışmalarına katkıları. Gazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi,
1/2004:115–129.
Gürbüz, S. ve Şahin, F. (2015). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri felsefe – yöntem – ana-
liz. Seçkin Yayıncılık.
Halkos, G.E. & Tzeremes, N.G. (2013). Modelling the effect of national culture on coun-
tries’ innovation performances: A conditional full fontier approach. International
Review of Applied Economics, 27(5):656-678.
Herbig, P. & Dunphy, S. (1998). Culture and innovation. Cross cultural management:
An International Journal, 5(4):13-21.
Hitt, M.A., Black, J.S. & Porter, L.W. (2005). Management. Pearson Hall.
Hurt, H.T., Joseph, K. & Cook, C.D. (1977). Scales for the measurement of innovative-
ness. Human Communication Research, 4, 58-65.
Işık, C. & Türkmendağ, T. (2016). Atatürk üniversitesi turizm fakültesi öğrencilerinin
bireysel yenilikçilik algılarının belirlenmesi. Gazi Üniversitesi Turizm Fakültesi
Determination of Individual Innovation Perceptions of Students Studying Tourism … 18
Kesit Akademi Dergisi - The Journal of Kesit Academy
Yıl/Year/Год: 7, Sayı/Number/ Номер: 28, Eylül/September/Сентябрь 2021
Dergisi, 1(1), 70-99.
Kaasa, A. & Vadi, M. (2010). How does culture contribute to innovation? Evidence
from European countries. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 19(7): 583-
604.
Karaman, S. Z. (2016). Öğretmenlerin sınıf yönetimi yeterlikleri ile mesleki profesyonellikleri
arasındaki ilişki [Yüksek Lisans Tezi]. Yeditepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri En-
stitüsü.
Kavrakoğlu, İ. (2006). Yönetimde devrimin rehberi: İnovasyon. Alteo Yayıncılık
Kayış, A. (2009). Güvenirlik analizi. Ş. Kalaycı (Ed), SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik
teknikleri. Asil Yayıncılık. (403-419).
Kert, S.B. & Tekdal, M. (2012). Comparison of individual innovativeness perception of
students attending different education faculties. Gaziantep University-Journal of
Social Sciences, 11(4), 1150-1161.
Kılıç, H. & Ayvaz Tuncel, Z. (2014). İlköğretim branş öğretmenlerinin bireysel ye-
nilikçilik düzeyleri ve yaşam boyu öğrenme eğilimleri. Uluslararası Eğitim Pro-
gramları ve Öğretim Çalışmaları Dergisi, 4 (7), s. 25-37.
Kılıçer K. & Odabaşı H.F. (2010). Bireysel yenilikçilik ölçeği (BYÖ): Türkçe ‘ye uyarla-
ma geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi
Dergisi, 38: 150-164.
Kılıçer, K. (2011). Bilgisayar ve öğretim teknolojileri eğitimi öğretmen adaylarının bireysel
yenilikçilik profilleri [Doktora Tezi]. Anadolu Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri En-
stitüsü.
Korucu, A. & Olpak, Y.Z. (2015). Öğretmen adaylarının bireysel yenilikçilik özellikle-
rinin farklı değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygu-
lama, 5(1), 109-127.
Küçük, O. (2017). Girişimcilik ve küçük işletme yönetimi. Seçkin Yayınları.
Leagreid P., Roness, P.G. & Verhoest K. (2011). Explaining the innovative culture and
activities of state agencies. Organization Studies, 32, 1321-1347.
Lin, L. H. (2009). Effects of national culture on process management and technological
innovation. Total Quality Management, 20 (12) 1287-1301.
Oktuğ, Z. & Özden, M.S. (2013). Bireycilik/toplulukçuluk ile bireysel yenilikçilik eğili-
mi arasındaki ilişkide içsel motivasyonun biçimlendirici rolü. Eskişehir Osman-
gazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 14(2), 1-22.
Pekdoğan, H. (2017). Yeni kamu yönetimi çerçevesinde iç güvenlik hizmetlerinin mod-
Yakup ERDOĞAN-Burhan SEVİM 19
www.kesitakademi.com
ernizasyonu: Jandarma teşkilatında görevli personelin yenilikçilik düzeyleri
üzerine bir uygulama. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 10(48), 647-652.
Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th Ed.). Delran. Simon & Schuster.
Rogers, R.K. & Wallace, J.D. (2011). Predictors of technology integration in education:
A study of anxiety and innovativeness in teacher preparation. Journal of Literacy
and Technology, 12 (2) 28-61.
Rossberger, R.J. & Krause, D.E. (2012). National culture, heterogeneity and innovation:
New insights into the relationship between the globe dimensions and national
level innovation. GSTF Journal of Law and Social Sciences (JLSS), 2(1), 84.
Sağlam, M. & Kürüm, D. (2005). Türkiye ve Avrupa Birliği ülkelerinde öğretmen
eğitiminde yapısal düzenlemeler ve öğretmen adaylarının seçimi. Milli Eğitim
Dergisi, 33(167), 53-70.
Samli, A.C. (2012). Generating a culture of innovation: The necessary ingredient for
economic progress. The Marketing Review, 12(2), 125-140.
Şahin, F. (2016). Öğretmen adaylarının bilişim teknolojileri kabul düzeyleri ile bireysel ye-
nilikçilik düzeyleri arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi *Yüksek Lisans Tezi+. Anadolu
Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
Tabachnick, B.G. & Fidell, L.S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics, Ed. 6th Pearson Edu-
cation. Inc.
Tabak, A., Erkuş, A. & Meydan, C.H. (2010). Denetim odağı ve yenilikçi bireyler
arasındaki ilişkiler: Belirsizliği tolerans ve risk almanın aracılık etkisi. Anadolu
Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10(1), 159-176.
Tushman, M. & Nadler, D. (1986). Organizing for Innovation. California Management
Review, 28(3), 74-92.
Uygur, A., Öğretmenoğlu, M. & Çalışkan, G. (2019). Innovation and new product de-
velopment: Delving into food and beverage managers’ perspectives. Journal of
Tourism and Gastronomy Studies, 7 (4), 2993-3013. doi: 10.21325/jotags.2019.512
Uzkurt, C. (2008). Pazarlamada değer aracı olarak: yenilik yönetimi ve yenilikçi örgüt kültürü.
Beta Basım Yayım Dağıtım.
Vecchi, A. & Brennan, L. (2009). A cultural perspective on innovation in international
manufacturing. Research in International Business and Finance, 23(2):181-192.
Williams, L. K. & McGuire, S. J. (2010). Economic creativity and innovation implemen-
tation: The entrepreneurial drivers of growth? Evidence from 63 countries.
Small Business Economics, 34(4):391-412.
Determination of Individual Innovation Perceptions of Students Studying Tourism … 20
Kesit Akademi Dergisi - The Journal of Kesit Academy
Yıl/Year/Год: 7, Sayı/Number/ Номер: 28, Eylül/September/Сентябрь 2021
Wong-Kam, J.C. (2012). Creating a climate for innovation in education: Reframing structure
culture and leadership practices [Doctoral Thesis]. University of Southern Califor-
nia.
Yamane, T. (2001). Temel örnekleme yöntemleri (Basic Sampling Methods) (Çev.: Esin, A.,
Bakır, M.A., Aydın, C. ve Gürbüzsel, E.). Literatür Yayıncılık.
Yavuz, A., Albeni M. & Göze Kaya, D. (2009). Ulusal inovasyon politikaları ve kamu
harcamaları: Çeşitli ülkeler üzerine bir karşılaştırma. Süleyman Demirel Üniversi-
tesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(3):65-90.
Yazıcı, M. (2013). Toplumsal değişim ve sosyal değerler. Electronic Turkish Studies, 8(8).
Yeğin, H.İ. (2017). İlahiyat fakültesi öğrencilerinin bireysel yenilikçilik düzeyleri. AİBÜ
Sosyal Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 17(4), 239-262.
Yuan, F. & Woodman, R.W. (2010). Innovative behaviour in the workplace: The role of
performance and image outcome expectations. Academic Management Journal,
53(2), 323-342.
Zaltman, G., Duncan, R. & Holbek, J. (1973). Innovations and organizations. Wiley.
Zerenler, M., Türker, N. & Şahin, E. (2007). Küresel teknoloji, araştırma-geliştirme (Ar-
Ge) ve yenilik ilişkisi. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi (17):
653-667.
Zhang, X. & Bartol, K.M. (2010). Linking empoering leadership and employee creativi-
ty: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrihsic, motivation and crea-
tive process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 107-128.
Zmud, R.W. (1982). Diffusion of modern software practices: Influence of centralization
and formalization. Management Science, 28(12), 1421-1431.
