Studentpreneurship at a South African University: Evaluating Support Mechanisms and Institutional Gaps

Abstract

Studentpreneurship has gained prominence in South Africa as universities are increasingly expected to foster innovation, job creation, and youth participation in the economy. However, despite the establishment of incubators, entrepreneurship centres, mentorship programmes, and EDHE-aligned initiatives, support for studentpreneurs remains unevenly implemented, poorly integrated, and inconsistently accessible, particularly within a historically disadvantaged university. This study examines how university support mechanisms shape the experiences, challenges, and business development trajectories of studentpreneurs in a South African university. Guided by Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Theory, the study adopts a qualitative research design involving in-depth interviews with 15 studentpreneurs. Thematic analysis reveals significant gaps in awareness, accessibility, and continuity of institutional support. While students valued motivational workshops, pitching opportunities, and limited mentorship, these interventions lacked sustained follow-up, sector-specific guidance, and financial or infrastructural resources necessary for business growth. The study contributes to South African entrepreneurship scholarship by highlighting the lived realities of studentpreneurs at a historically disadvantaged university and by proposing institutional reforms to build more coherent, equitable, and sustainable studentpreneurship ecosystems.

1. Introduction and Background

Studentpreneurship is a process where students, usually in high school, college, or university, start and run their own businesses while still studying (Klutse, 2024). While studentpreneurship considers students’ identity to be based on their active participation in business, student entrepreneurship is a broader, less specific concept that describes activities of students who usually aspire to be in business but may not necessarily conduct business (Marchand & Hermens, 2014; Schimperna et al., 2022). Early active participation in entrepreneurial activities helps cultivate foundational entrepreneurial experience (Zeng & Honig, 2016). In developing economies, especially in South Africa, entrepreneurship has become a core element of innovation, economic stability, and employment, as conventional labour markets are unable to absorb the rising youth population (Chen et al., 2023; Fatoki, 2014; Mapanga & Gavaza, 2025). Therefore, promoting student entrepreneurship has emerged as a key strategy for addressing youth unemployment by cultivating students as economically active agents capable of generating income and creating jobs before graduation (Nabi et al., 2017; Neneh, 2022). However, there is a fragmented understanding of students’ experiences with the support they receive in historically disadvantaged universities in South Africa (De Beer, 2024; Ismail et al., 2024). In essence, there is an existing information gap on understanding studentpreneurship experiences and support systems within a particular institutional ecosystem that has limited resources.

Significantly, there have been mounting imperatives on universities to incorporate entrepreneurial education and live learning experiences to prepare students with the skills and attitudes that can support business innovation (Gavaza, 2025; Ndofirepi & Rambe, 2018). This has prompted the creation of entrepreneurial ecosystems on campuses, comprising incubators, accelerator programmes, seed funding, pitch competitions, and mentorship networks (Mensah-Williams & Derera, 2023; Ndofirepi & Rambe, 2018; Klofsten et al., 2019). Nevertheless, limited research suggests that university-based support mechanisms may transform students’ ideas into sustainable business ventures in the South African setting (Mahlaole & Malebana, 2021; Zhang & Van Burg, 2020). Notably, there is an empirical gap in the effectiveness and relevance of the support mechanisms, as well as barriers that affect the success of studentpreneurship in an institutional ecosystem such as a historically disadvantaged South African university.

Based on the aforementioned gaps, this study examines how university support mechanisms shape the entrepreneurial experiences of studentpreneurs across diverse campuses at a historically disadvantaged South African university. It examines the question of whether or not support mechanisms that institutions put in place, namely incubators, funding opportunities, mentorship programmes, and entrepreneurship centres, effectively meet the practical and strategic needs of student-led enterprises. Essentially, the paper contributes to advancing the discourse on studentpreneurship support mechanisms and institutional gaps, as well as the role of a university as a catalyst for nurturing youth entrepreneurial potential and shaping the nation’s broader socio-economic trajectory.

Research Questions:

RQ1: What types of entrepreneurship support systems are currently available to studentpreneurs at South African universities?

RQ2: How do studentpreneurs perceive the effectiveness and relevance of these support systems?

RQ3: What barriers do studentpreneurs encounter when accessing or engaging with university-based support services?

RQ4: What improvements can be made to enhance university support systems for studentpreneurs?

1.1. Problem Statement

There is an increase in the focus of South African universities on entrepreneurship development (Council on Higher Education, 2022). However, studentpreneurs continue to face multifaceted challenges that hinder the growth and long-term sustainability of their ventures (Gavaza & Murire, 2026; Nosike et al., 2024). Many universities have implemented incubators, entrepreneurship centres, and mentorship programmes; however, there is evidence that they are frequently disjointed, underfunded, and inconsiderably linked to the actual requirements of studentpreneurs (Malecki, 2018). The policy framework and its practical application and performance in the university context still pose a substantial gap between EDHE programme enactment and realisation (Neneh & Dzomonda, 2024). Moreover, the experience and opinions of the studentpreneurs are scantily represented in gauging the institutional supporting mechanisms, leading to a top-down assessment, which might lack essential support gaps or unforeseen effects (Martins et al., 2023; Dzomonda et al., 2015).

The issue is exacerbated by the limited research on how South African studentpreneurs perceive institutional entrepreneurial support at historically disadvantaged universities (Oni & Mavuyangwa, 2019; Ismail et al., 2024). The literature on entrepreneurial ecosystems often focuses on more formal start-up or established entrepreneurial contexts (Gavaza et al., 2025) but overlooks hybrid identities, including studentpreneurs who must balance their educational and entrepreneurial commitments (Ajani et al., 2023). This undermines the possibility of creating inclusive and effective support structures that acknowledge the unique needs of students, particularly those with marginalised backgrounds (Ndebele et al., 2022). The limited qualitative evidence makes it difficult to assess the effectiveness and sustainability of university-generated interventions aimed at fostering long-term studentpreneurship (Mensah-Williams & Derera, 2023). There is an existing knowledge gap regarding students’ experiences with the types of entrepreneurship support systems, their effectiveness and relevance, and the barriers to these systems within a historically disadvantaged university. Therefore, the study explores the nature of support systems for studentpreneurs across various campuses in a South African university to determine the optimal approach to benefit studentpreneurship development.

1.2. Significance of the Study

The study has a theoretical significance. There is an information gap regarding students’ experiences with support systems, their effectiveness, and their relevance to studentpreneurship within an academic setting. A study by Ismail et al. (2024) highlighted that there is limited research informing theoretical discourse on support provided to studentpreneurship, with the authors recommending studies to utilise interviews to understand the experiences of the students. Additionally, studentpreneurship could be the way out, but there is a lack of detailed research on the particular role of institutional ecosystems in aiding these studentpreneurs (van der Westhuizen, 2024). Most of the available literature on entrepreneurship in higher education is ‘Western literature’, which tends to ignore socio-economic, institutional, and historical issues that constitute studentpreneurship in historically disadvantaged universities in Africa (Nabi et al., 2017). The study at hand fills the existing literature gap and advances a more South African context-sensitive body of knowledge about studentpreneurship (Mahlaole & Malebana, 2021). It also offers a qualitative, first-hand view of studentpreneurs’ experiences, which are often missing from policy and institutional planning (Botha & Ras, 2016).

The empirical contributions of this study are largely based on students’ experiences, which offer insights into real-life, context-specific encounters with support mechanisms and institutional gaps within a particular university. Shambare (2013) highlights that even with support systems, one of the significant barriers to studentpreneurship is the attitude of students. Mashimbye et al. (2025) mention that barriers to successful studentpreneurship are more centred on budgetary constraints, inadequate resources, and competency inadequacies. Considering these assertions, there is a need for empirical data to understand the experiences of the students, focusing on how the support systems cushion the studentpreneurship and possible institutional gaps affecting their success. The study also has a practical significance. Universities spend considerable resources on producing entrepreneurship programmes before providing adequate systematic evaluations of the practical problems students face and what they aspire to accomplish (Klofsten et al., 2019; Mahlaole & Malebana, 2021; Ncube & Lekhanya, 2021). Thus, the study results shape and enhance the studentpreneurship support system in universities. Moreover, the study leads to improvements in the Entrepreneurship Development in Higher Education initiative, as both the advantages and flaws of the existing support mechanisms are revealed (EDHE, 2024). In which case, the research can also inform curriculum development and post-curricular measures to train students in practical entrepreneurship skills, and connect them to a support system (Hardie et al., 2020). Finally, the study’s contribution is that it might help fill the gap between policy visions and institutional realities, allowing the university to become more supportive of student-led innovation and economic empowerment.

1.3. Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Theory

Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Theory (EET) views entrepreneurship as a function of an interdependent network that supports its formation, rather than an activity pursued in a vacuum (Leendertse et al., 2022; Lubis et al., 2023). One of the major assumptions of the EET is the importance of establishing a comprehensive entrepreneurial environment through the interdependence and interconnection of different components (Iddouch & Jaoual, 2025). The theory provides a holistic lens, which is critical since studentpreneurship does not occur in isolation. This is a model with a core area that includes policy, finance, culture, and human capital, which are flexible and can be adjusted in relation to support within higher education (Lubis et al., 2023). In university settings, incubators, entrepreneurship centres, mentoring networks, funding mechanisms, and a culture that supports innovation form part of the entrepreneurial ecosystem (Nabi et al., 2017). Policy, finance, markets, culture, human capital, and support are core domains of entrepreneurial ecosystems (Cantner et al., 2021; Isenberg, 2011) and serve as the main constructs for the analysis framework in this study. The EET underscores the interconnectedness of support mechanisms within the entrepreneurial environment, including access to financial resources, infrastructure, market linkages, and networks (Wurth et al., 2022). Wilbanks (2013) also highlights that the EET emphasises mentoring as a significant component of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. From the EET perspective, the effectiveness and relevance of support mechanisms within an entrepreneurial ecosystem are assessed by their ability to provide these different core domains. Therefore, it is important to analyse the participants’ experiences holistically, taking into account the effectiveness and relevance of support mechanisms at the university that provide support services to studentpreneurs.

Furthermore, another paramount assumption of the EET is that of territorial embeddedness (De Luca & Landoni, 2026; Giannozzi et al., 2025). Such a framework appears especially useful to studentpreneurs who must develop operations across an academic entrepreneurial environment and new markets, where success tends to depend on the nature of ecosystem interactions (Gavaza et al., 2025). In essence, the theory serves as an analytical lens that captures the dynamics within a particular ecosystem, which may shape a studentpreneur’s activities. Therefore, the researcher employed EET to assess the interaction between diverse components of the institution that can either facilitate or deter entrepreneurial activity among students (Maloka, 2024). Fundamentally, the theory contributes to a systemic view of studentpreneurship as situated within the broader innovation climate within a historically disadvantaged university. The barriers and institutional gaps have to be understood within the territory or ecosystem in which the studentpreneurs are operating. Therefore, the study utilises a single historically disadvantaged university as the ecosystem to provide an understanding of studentpreneurs’ experiences, taking into account the support mechanisms and institutional gaps that facilitate successful studentpreneurship. Furthermore, by grounding the study’s analysis on the EET, the study focuses on the institutional policy as a significant contributing component in the success of studentpreneurship. Consequently, the analysis allows for a simultaneous understanding of micro-level experiences shaped by macro-level policy.

1.4. University Support Mechanisms for Studentpreneurs

Different support needs are associated with studentpreneurs. Wang and Huang (2020) provide the following categories of support needs: core support needs, secondary support needs, and marginal support needs. Wang and Huang (2020) also contend that the support has to be provided through four stages of studentpreneurship, which are the preparatory stage, the start-up stage, the maturity stage, and the failure stage. A university is supposed to structure its support services based on the support needs and stages. Empirical evidence shows that South African universities have introduced a range of support mechanisms designed to foster entrepreneurship; however, the quality of implementation varies considerably across universities (Murire & Gavaza, 2025; Neneh & Dzomonda, 2024). Such support mechanisms encompass business incubators, entrepreneurship centres, pitch competitions, co-working spaces, and entrepreneurship-specific curricula (Mhlongo et al., 2025). Elite universities have more structured incubator programmes; however, other universities, especially historically disadvantaged universities, face funding and capacity constraints (Letsoalo & Rankhumise, 2020).

The effectiveness of support mechanisms is attributed to the dedication of leadership, collaborations with industries, and assimilation into academic programmes (Malecki, 2018). Govender and van der Lingen (2024), observed that resources are not evenly accessed, as some studentpreneurs receive more favourable treatment depending on faculty, gender, or year of study. Additionally, Mngoma (2025) notes that some students miss opportunities to participate in studentpreneurship activities due to a lack of awareness or exposure. Shambare (2013) also posits that, even though universities claim to support and commit to the creation of new studentpreneurship ventures, they do not live up to this pledge. This raises issues of inclusion and structural equity of the support system in higher education. Thus, developing an idea to encourage universities to become more strategic in their studentpreneurship support, with a focus on equity.

1.5. Perceptions of Effectiveness and Accessibility

The perceived support provided by an institution plays a pivotal role in deciding the efficacy and relevance of an entrepreneurship intervention (Hossain et al., 2023). Ncube (2025) posit that although most students value the concept of university support, they tend to recognise the services as bureaucratic, poorly coordinated, or lacking relevance in the context of operating a business. For example, funded mentoring programmes can match students with scholars who have no business experience, or the sources of funds can be accompanied by administrative barriers that discourage use (Nzeh, 2024). The lack of effective and accessible support threatens the sustainability of the studentpreneurship ventures. Abdulahi (2025) underscores that, in a Nigerian university, even though many studentpreneurs participate in creative and innovative business ventures to address urgent financial needs, there are concerns about the long-term sustainability and economic impact of these businesses if they receive proper support.

The idea of entrepreneurship centres can be perceived as alienating or exclusive to certain students (Mahlaole & Malebana, 2021). Such perceptions affect engagement rates, as students who lose hope may lose interest in what the institution offers, opting instead to conduct business on their own or informally (Oni & Mavuyangwa, 2019).

1.6. Challenges Encountered by Studentpreneurs

The literature consistently highlights that studentpreneurs encounter a complex array of obstacles that impede their entrepreneurial progression, including at universities that profess an orientation toward entrepreneurship (Bates et al., 2023; Obiechina, 2024). Limited time also poses a serious impediment, with students having to juggle academic pursuits and business strategy, customer recruitment, and finance (EDHE, 2024). Additionally, the availability of financial capital to studentpreneurs remains low, and many university-associated investment efforts are closed, underfunded, or overly bureaucratic (Klutse, 2024).

The literature also highlights a pervasive lack of customised support services, as many programmes fail to differentiate between ideation-stage ventures and operational start-ups, thereby diminishing the relevance of certain interventions (Meyer et al., 2024). Historically disadvantaged studentpreneurs, specifically rural students, face other structural constraints linked to mobility, mentorship representation, and digital access (Neneh & Dzomonda, 2024). These issues impact the business’s viability and constrain students’ confidence in their long-term entrepreneurial ambitions. Additionally, the lack of coherence between academic curricula and entrepreneurial support mechanisms undermines the potential benefits of entrepreneurship and diminishes opportunities for meaningful learning and collaboration (Makhitha, 2025).

In many instances, entrepreneurship education comes in the form of individual modules or workshops that are not part of a more coherent institutional or ecological strategy (Cera et al., 2020). Thus, students visualise entrepreneurship as an optional or extracurricular activity, rather than an actual academic and career choice (Netshilinganedza, 2020). The performance of mentors and skilled facilitators is undermined by the absence of qualified mentors and skilled facilitators (Ziakis et al., 2022). The persistent disconnect between theoretical frameworks and practical implementation suggests an underlying institutional inertia that has prevented studentpreneurship from becoming fully embedded in the South African higher education landscape (García-Lillo et al., 2023). Thus, universities need to implement systemic changes to make student entrepreneurship an institutional culture, an integral part of the academic curriculum, and a core component of the management structure.

1.7. Best Practices and Institutional Improvement Strategies

Several best practices documented in the local and international literature may help improve the university’s support for studentpreneurs (Neneh & Dzomonda, 2024; Sunarta et al., 2025). Universities that have fully embedded entrepreneurship across all the faculties, rather than solely in business schools, are most likely to realise a broader, sustainable range of student-led businesses (Oni & Mavuyangwa, 2019). Moreover, the establishment of innovation centres and pre-incubation programmes that address students’ needs boosts entrepreneurial involvement (Pivot Global Education, 2020). Entrepreneurship ecosystems, including seed funding, pitch events, mentorship, and international exposure, are being created to provide holistic support in some universities (van der Westhuizen, 2024). The relevance of institutional support also increases with collaborations with industry partners and alumni networks that can offer real-life experiences to studentpreneurs (Neneh & Dzomonda, 2024). These efforts demonstrate how sensitive design informed by student feedback can maximise the development of successful studentpreneurial ecosystems in universities.

Improving institutional support necessitates systemic alignment that integrates policy directives, institutional vision, and student expectations into a cohesive framework (Martins et al., 2023). Padilla-Meléndez et al. (2020) posit that, instead of providing entrepreneurship as an ad hoc programme, universities should integrate it into strategic planning, performance management, and curriculum design. Periodic monitoring of student opinion, joint development of studentpreneurship programmes, and evaluation indices grounded in facts ensure that support networks are attentive and effective (Sunarta et al., 2025). Furthermore, digital platforms offer a viable means to enhance accessibility, facilitate monitoring of student progress, and nurture virtual entrepreneurial ecosystems, an especially relevant strategy for resource-strapped institutions (Ndebele et al., 2022). Pivot Global Education (2020) argues that there must be policy coherence across the Department of Higher Education and Training, university councils, and funding agencies to prevent duplication, fragmentation, and the underutilisation of resources.

2. Methodology

The study employed a qualitative research approach to examine the lived experiences of studentpreneurs and the extent to which university support systems promote entrepreneurship. Qualitative research is especially suited to investigating complicated social phenomena through the lens of those who have immediate experience of it (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Groenewald, 2004). The study utilised a case study design and selected a single historically disadvantaged university as its population. The student population at the historically disadvantaged university is estimated at 17,500. Purposive sampling was used to select university students who are involved in entrepreneurship (running a business) while studying and who are aware of business activities within the university environment. Participant selection continued until no new themes or information emerged, indicating saturation (Braun & Clarke, 2023). The saturation point yielded a sample of 15 studentpreneurs (N = 15). Participants were selected through a purposive sampling method that entailed narrow criteria, such as being actively engaged in an entrepreneurial activity and simultaneously registered students at a historically disadvantaged university in South Africa (Etikan et al., 2016).

Data collection was conducted through face-to-face, in-depth, semi-structured interviews, which were flexible yet consistent across participants. The in-depth interviews were conducted in August and September 2025. Informed consent was obtained before conducting audio-recorded interviews lasting 25–30 min. The researcher started by transcribing all interviews verbatim and engaged in repeated reading to familiarise themselves with the data. The coding was inductive, guided by the research goals and theories of entrepreneurial ecosystems and human capital (Autio et al., 2014). The researcher ensured clarity, relevance, and alignment of the interview questions by conducting a pilot study with two participants, which helped refine the research instrument (Orji, 2026). Researcher bias was minimised through member checking, peer debriefing, and reflective journaling to increase trustworthiness and justify interpretations (Cera et al., 2020).

Thematic analysis was employed for data analysis as it allows the researcher to locate, code, and interpret regularities across the data in a consistent manner (Braun & Clarke, 2023; Gavaza, 2025). The first step of the analysis encompassed the researcher repeatedly sifting through and reviewing the transcribed interviews to become familiar with the collected data (Braun & Clarke, 2023). The second step focused on generating the research’s initial codes, which entailed identifying meaningful sections of data relevant to the research objectives (Ponciano, 2023). The third step encompassed simultaneously categorising the codes into potential, broader themes that reflected the sequences or patterns in the collected data (Ponciano, 2023). The analysis also involved reviewing whether the themes aligned with the coded extracts and the whole dataset, so that they could be split, combined, or discarded where necessary (Braun & Clarke, 2023). Furthermore, the thematic analysis involved clearly defining and naming the themes by focusing specifically on each theme for refinement, thereby generating internal coherence and distinctiveness (Saldaña, 2021). The final write-up encompassed the interpretation of themes, weaving an analytical discussion, and using vivid data extracts of verbatim quotations (Braun & Clarke, 2023). The EET assumes that policy, finance, markets, culture, human capital, and support are core domains of entrepreneurial ecosystems (Cantner et al., 2021; Isenberg, 2011). Thematic analysis in this study framed the themes in line with the EET’s assumptions. Thematic analysis enabled the co-construction of meaning between the researcher and the studentpreneurs (Guest et al., 2014). Ensuring analytical rigour in the research entailed maintaining an audit trail for every step of coding and recording, and systematically documenting every process throughout the study (Saldaña, 2021).

Ethical clearance (certificate number 17/23/07/2025/DRI) and informed consent were obtained to ensure compliance with research ethics principles for all participants. Additionally, to enhance the study’s trustworthiness, the researcher considered the four components suggested by Lincoln and Guba (1985): credibility, dependability, transferability, and confirmability. Credibility was enhanced through member checking, which involved returning the compiled study results for an accuracy check (Kurt, 2025). The researcher achieved dependability by maintaining an audit trail and ensuring that every process in the study was transparent, systematic, and recorded (Throne, 2024). Transferability was achieved by providing a detailed description of the study context, processes, and data analysis to ensure applicability (Schmidt & Brown, 2024). Confirmability was achieved through a peer debriefing to ensure the interpretations reflected the participants’ views rather than the researcher’s assumptions (Flick, 2022). Furthermore, to reduce bias, the researcher utilised an interview guide, which ensured consistency and uniformity across the interviews (Flick, 2024). The researcher also upheld anonymity, confidentiality, and candid responses, thereby reducing social bias. Participants voluntarily participated in the study and were informed of their right to withdraw at any time. The researcher upheld ethical considerations to ensure the attainment of quality research output (Ellis, 2025). The next section focuses on the study’s results.

3. Results

This section reports the results of the interview answers, which were analysed thematically per the framework of Braun and Clarke (2023). Data coding was inductive, and respondents were assigned participant codes (e.g., P1) to ensure anonymity and confidentiality. The main demographic components profiled are gender, age, registered university course, and business type. The demographic profile of the participants is summarised in

Table 1. Biographical profile.

Participant	Gender	Age	Course	Type of Business
P1	Male	27	Business Management	Urban Clothing
P2	Male	22	Small Business Management	Perfume
P3	Female	28	Environmental Science	Urban Gardening Consultancy
P4	Female	27	Tourism & Hospitality	Hotdog Stand (Food)
P5	Female	21	Human Resources Management	Tutoring Services
P6	Female	33	Business Management	Career Coaching Services
P7	Male	20	Public Relations	Spaza Shop (Convenience Store)
P8	Female	30	Public Management	Selling Clothes
P9	Female	23	Human Resources Management	Nail Care & Beauty Services
P10	Female	21	Public Management	Buying & Reselling iPhones
P11	Female	23	Public Relations	Events Makeup & Photo Shoot Services
P12	Male	26	Building Engineering	Mobile Game Development
P13	Female	25	Marketing	Computer/IT Repairs Services
P14	Male	24	Business Management	Beverage Services
P15	Male	29	Small Business Management	Buying & Selling Clothes

Author’s creation.

below.

Six broad themes emerged, including awareness and accessibility, perceived effectiveness, challenges and barriers, mentorship and networking, integration with academics, and best practices with recommended improvements. The themes are introduced in verbatim quotes and commentary.

3.1. Awareness and Accessibility

Awareness is usually directly linked to accessibility. The study’s findings reveal limited awareness regarding entrepreneurship support services. A highlight of this view was given by P1, a male participant who quipped that:

“No, I am not aware of the studentpreneur programmes that are being offered at our institution.”

P12 also shared similar sentiments:

“I have not heard of anything regarding entrepreneurship support services.”

Interestingly, female studentpreneurs were more aware of the university’s support services. P3, a female participant, commented that:

“Yes, familiar with pitch competitions and SWEEP, and I went to an entrepreneur motivation/training session at the college.”

Awareness of entrepreneurship support services is limited, but this study’s findings reveal that male studentpreneurs are particularly unaware. This is likely attributable to information sharing among female studentpreneurs, in contrast to their male counterparts.

Furthermore, the limited awareness has a ripple effect on accessibility and participation in entrepreneurship support programmes within a historically disadvantaged university. While a minority of participants reported familiarity with the studentpreneur support ecosystem, the majority remained unaware of available opportunities. This fragmented awareness is not only about communication but also about the visibility of the support services. The EET points to interconnectedness as a key feature of the entrepreneurial ecosystem (Wurth et al., 2022). This limited awareness, with its ripple effect on access to support services, disrupts interconnectedness. The findings show that even though the support services exist, the starting point of awareness is flawed. The foundational components, such as awareness and visibility, must be properly aligned with existing institutional support mechanisms.

Awareness in these contexts often emerges informally, through peer networks or chance encounters, rather than through structured institutional communication. Essentially, these communication strategies become inconsistent and fail to reach the broader student population. Studentpreneurs who knew about support mechanisms often learned about them through personal connections, highlighting the reliance on social capital within a historically disadvantaged university, as the following excerpts indicate:

“I know about ENACTUS and entrepreneurial business support programmes through a classmate who had benefited from the support systems at the university.”

as stated by P4

“Yes, I do know about the support systems on campus, but I strongly think that not everyone has equal access to these opportunities, as certain members of some societies are prioritised.”

as noted by P11

These perceptions suggest that, despite the existence of entrepreneurship support structures, many students believe access remains inequitable. Participants expressed concerns about selective dissemination of information, often influenced by faculty dynamics, institutional gatekeepers, or participation in specific student societies. Most students, who were largely female, were aware of opportunities that they heard about through announcements, peer networks, or faculty-organised events, which were more readily accessible to those already connected to supportive institutional environments. This finding points to the need to structure awareness and visibility to be largely inclusive and appealing to male studentpreneurs.

Additionally, low awareness undermines the utilisation of the support mechanisms. Studentpreneurs who remained unaware or underinformed often felt marginalised, perceiving entrepreneurship programmes as irrelevant or inaccessible to them. This underscores that awareness extends beyond mere service existence; it is deeply embedded in the institutional structures that mediate access. Overall, the findings point to the need for the university to adopt deliberate, inclusive communication strategies that do not rely on privileged networks or informal channels. Ensuring equitable access requires systematic outreach, transparent processes, and communication models that proactively reach underserved student groups.

3.2. Perceived Effectiveness of Support

The effectiveness of support mechanisms is determined by the services’ ability to assist studentpreneurs in their business ventures. Most participants reported that the studentpreneur support services were inspiring but not sufficient to realise long-term growth. There is an indication that the students value early exposure to entrepreneurship, but the depth and quality of the support mechanism are poor. P5, who is registered for a Human Resource Management programme at the university, stated that:

“Moderately effective in providing knowledge but limited in networking.”

Another view by P14, studying Business Management, exposed the inadequacies in depth and quality of the effectiveness of support services, explaining that:

“Quite effective in the early stages, but financial support was lacking.”

The excerpts presented above depict poor support services, as some critical services needed for entrepreneurial capacity are not provided. The EET highlights networking and financial support as core components of an entrepreneurial ecosystem, essential to enterprise success (Lubis et al., 2023). Moreover, the perceived effectiveness of the support services depends on the students’ specialisation. While one studentpreneur felt the Human Resources Management student viewed networking as a priority, the other Business Management student felt financial support was more significant. Effectiveness is context-connected and not uniform. Therefore, the perceived effectiveness of the support services diminishes as the studentpreneurs fail to obtain their prioritised support services.

Additionally, the study’s findings indicate that the lack of sustained interventions undermines the perceived effectiveness of student support interventions. A considerable number of students found the services very useful:

‘That it was inspiring and educational, yet he wanted to have more such opportunities.’

as reported by P6

‘Pitching was used to clarify business objectives, but no follow-up assistance.’

as noted by P2

‘Very effective… helped me understand how to develop my business ideas, plan effectively, and gain confidence.’

as indicated by P10

‘Moderately effective in terms of knowledge delivery but poor in networking.’

as highlighted by P15

Their perceptions of effectiveness are inconsistent and depend on the design and the continuity of support. The inconsistency influences the ability to engage the support mechanisms and their services. The studentpreneurs might feel discouraged by the inconsistencies and unreliability of the support services. Consequently, the perceived effectiveness of the support services dwindles due to the lack of sustained interventions.

A further review revealed that effectiveness is closely related to the extent to which support aligns with students’ needs. For example, retail and vending business participants stressed financial or infrastructure requirements, whereas service providers focused on mentorship and visibility. According to P4, ‘the services have been useful in making my business more visible, but others said they could not be seen without resources.’ Such divergent needs emphasise that effectiveness cannot be objectively evaluated but must be interpreted in context. In the absence of tailoring, the assistance will be aligned incorrectly and thus less efficient. Students kept demanding practical, continuous interventions that would link inspiration to real business results. Effectiveness is therefore not merely about satisfaction, but also about the solutions the services offer to the realities of student entrepreneurship. These findings imply that in a historically disadvantaged university, there is a need to develop flexible support systems to address sector-specific needs.

3.3. Mentorship and Networking

Mentorship and networking support services are prioritised and largely relevant to studentpreneurs. The findings suggest that mentorship and networking opportunities are at the heart of fostering student entrepreneurship, even though access to these resources appears unequal across the institution. Several participants emphasised that mentorship significantly improved their entrepreneurial knowledge and confidence, as well as their strategic decision-making. Students who had access to mentors said they gained practical knowledge in areas such as personal finance handling, profitability, entrepreneurial skills, marketing, and business strategy. This positive impact is reflected in the accounts of the participants below:

‘I attribute my entrepreneurial knowledge to the help of mentorship from programmes such as ENACTUS, EDHE, and Hult Prize, which helped with some business skills set.’

as mentioned by P9

‘The entrepreneurial network here at school is very effective… it helped me understand how to develop my business ideas, plan effectively, and gain confidence.’

as expressed by P3

Mentorship plays a role in building entrepreneurial capability by providing guidance, encouragement, and practical business knowledge to students within a historically disadvantaged university. Mentorship is an important supporting mechanism for translating business ideas into a more structured, viable business. The EET emphasises mentoring as a significant component of the entrepreneurial ecosystem (Wilbanks, 2013). However, despite its significance for studentpreneurship, some participants expressed concerns about inequitable access to mentorship programmes. One participant commented that:

‘The lack of capital and lack of support (mentorship) from the institution is affecting the support services.’

as articulated by P2

“Not everyone has equal access; I think certain members are the priority and get all the support, or maybe it is just that we have not yet knocked on the correct doors at the right time.”

according to P14

The excerpts above highlight the issue of access to support services, including financial support and mentorship. The university has made relevant support services available, but access is limited. The lack of access to mentorship for some studentpreneurs underscores policy and governance concerns about the support mechanisms for studentpreneurship within a historically disadvantaged university. Considering the significance of mentorship to young prospective entrepreneurs, this finding reveals that a historically disadvantaged university might not have adequate mechanisms to support studentpreneurship due to limited resources or willingness.

Supporting this assertion of limited resources or willingness is the other major research finding on mentorship, which indicates fragmented mentorship. Some studentpreneurs remarked that:

‘The support services were fairly effective for exposure but lacked follow-up mentorship.’

as explained by P7

‘Pitching my business in one of the innovativeness competitions that was done last year helped me clarify my objectives, but I so wish that the panel that provided us with feedback would do follow-up and support or nurture my business.’

as mentioned by P1

The statements by P7 and P1 raise concerns about the fragmented support services. Even though the mentorship services are deemed relevant, the implementation remains inadequate. As a result, services become unevenly distributed, with some students benefiting more from the mentorship support mechanism than others, especially female studentpreneurs within the university. The findings imply that mentorship opportunities are concentrated in specific networks, that is, studentpreneurs who are aware of the support services, thereby restricting access for those who do not have adequate information about support mechanisms, including those outside the structures of studentpreneurship. While support services, such as pitching competitions and training sessions, were considered relevant and useful, they are not followed by ongoing guidance. Essentially, mentorship services lack continuity and long-term engagement, thereby limiting their impact on business development.

Networking, also closely linked to mentorship, was found to be one of the frequently utilised support services. Networking was found to take different forms, mainly peer-to-peer, alumni, entrepreneurship platforms, and industry players. Some participants had positive remarks about events such as business fairs, competitions, and studentpreneurship programmes, which provide opportunities to build visibility and make contacts with potential collaborators. These platforms allowed students to showcase their businesses and engage with experts and business practitioners who offer advice and also market exposure. Participants also mentioned the potential of industry partnerships and alumni involvement in providing networking opportunities beyond student-based groups on campus. One participant emphasised the benefits of such connections, stating:

‘Networking with alumni has helped me a lot with my business, as they have constantly advised me on how to handle some of the issues.’

as noted by P12

This observation underscores the importance of strengthening relationships’ capital through structured engagement with alumni, industry professionals, and external stakeholders. Such networks have the potential to offer mentorship, exposure to the job market, and practical gain that go beyond the university experience. However, it is worth noting that the networking services mentioned by the studentpreneurs were all offline. There is a notable gap in the provision of online networking services. Such online networking services can expose studentpreneurs to other opportunities that help sustain and grow their business ventures.

3.4. Barriers and Challenges

The challenges and barriers to support services are categorically structural. The results confirm the presence of several constraints and institutional challenges that continue to hinder the development of student entrepreneurship in the university environment. Participants generally cited limited financial resources, administrative bureaucracy, and socio-economic inequalities as the biggest obstacles that impacted their entrepreneurial activities. Among these, access to funding was the most commonly cited constraint, suggesting that financial capital is a critical need for starting and sustaining student-led businesses. These challenges are reflected in the accounts of the participants:

‘We often struggle with funding. We really have ideas, and we are willing to implement these ideas, but funding is difficult to get.’

as outlined by P3

‘Yes, I have experienced bureaucratic and administrative hurdles. For instance, when trying to access university support services, I encountered delays due to complex forms, multiple approval layers, and unclear communication channels. This sometimes made it challenging to get timely assistance or support for my needs.’

as highlighted by P7

‘I encountered delays due to complex forms, multiple approval layers, and unclear communication channels.’

as explained by P5

The lack of financial support undermines the studentpreneurship operating capacity. Like any business that needs investment for expansion, studentpreneurship ventures also need financial support to grow. However, the results indicated limited financial support for studentpreneurs, which affects their ability to build sustainable businesses. Given their limited access to venture capital, students without financial resources are unable to transition from ideation to implementation and expansion. The EET emphasises the significance of financial support as a core dimension in the entrepreneurial ecosystem (Isenberg, 2011). Therefore, limited financial resources become a critical barrier to studentpreneurship output by undermining venture development and curtailing risk-taking and innovation among studentpreneurs.

Poor administrative and bureaucratic procedures are also affecting the effectiveness of entrepreneurship support services. The current institutional procedures and administrative requirements are having unintended, negative effects on encouraging entrepreneurial involvement. The studentpreneurs’ inability to obtain the support they need, such as financial resources, underscores the inadequacies in institutional policy and governance. Instead of assisting studentpreneurship, the lengthy bureaucratic processes and documentation requirements are adversely affecting business operations and diminishing the impact of available support systems. Furthermore, poor administrative bureaucratic procedures result in poor implementation of support services. P9 mentioned that:

‘Even though there is a mentorship programme, there is a lack of continuous mentorship. This leaves you not knowing how to handle situations when you encounter difficulties. Some people I started with ended up losing interest.’

The excerpts reveal the deepening negative effects of poor administrative procedures, which impede implementation and lead to disengagement among some studentpreneurs. Considering the important role of entrepreneurship in the South African and global economy, incubation, supported by sustained bureaucratic backing, must be prioritised to increase the rate of prospective successful entrepreneurs graduating from universities. Evidently, poor administrative bureaucracy is a barrier that undermines the effectiveness of the support mechanisms offered by this historically disadvantaged university.

Socio-economic disparities were also identified as a challenge affecting students’ entrepreneurial experience. Participants indicated that students from disadvantaged backgrounds sometimes lack access to resources such as technology, start-up capital, and mentorship opportunities. See the excerpt below from one of the participants:

‘It is not easy for us, especially the students from historically disadvantaged backgrounds; we do not have early access to resources, technology, or mentorship.’

as indicated by P5

The study’s outcome review shows that challenges are often interconnected, which compounds the disadvantage for certain student groups. For instance, students from financially disadvantaged backgrounds may not only have difficulty funding their studies but also face greater difficulty navigating complex administrative procedures. Some studentpreneurs complained about both a lack of access to vending spaces and poor visibility within the entrepreneurial networks. Students from non-business faculties also reported that studentpreneurship support programmes are sometimes less available to them, contributing to a sense of exclusion from institutional support systems. Furthermore, differences in administrative practices across faculties were found to affect students’ experience of institutional support. While some participants reported few challenges, others experienced major difficulties in accessing support services. This lack of consistency suggests that structures supporting student entrepreneurship might not be rolled out uniformly across the institution. Participants also identified that a lack of physical infrastructure, such as vendor stalls, incubation spaces, and a dedicated studentpreneurship hub, further limited entrepreneurial activity on campus.

Despite universities providing some forms of entrepreneurial support, structural constraints and procedural inefficiencies continue to limit their effectiveness. Therefore, simplifying administrative processes, improving access to financial resources, and expanding inclusive infrastructure significantly enhance the entrepreneurial environment for students.

3.5. Integration with Academics

The integration of studentpreneurship with academics, institutional policy, and support mechanisms has to be comprehensive. The results suggest that there is still a shortcoming in the institutional support environment, namely, limited integration between studentpreneurship and academic programmes. Many participants view studentpreneurship as an extracurricular activity rather than a formally recognised academic pathway, making it hard for studentpreneurs to balance their business activities with their academic responsibilities. Students indicated that their academic programmes often include entrepreneurial training or practical business development. This limitation is reflected in the accounts of the participants:

‘My qualification does not offer much support to student entrepreneurship, and hence it may be difficult for me to develop my idea into a business and maintain it.’

as noted by P3

The responses suggest that, though some transferable skills, such as communication, are taught as part of academic programmes, entrepreneurship itself is not well integrated in every qualification offered at the institution. As a result, students who want to pursue studentpreneurship often rely on external programmes or personal initiatives rather than academic support structures. Several participants suggested introducing project-based, interdisciplinary modules that introduce studentpreneurship across different academic disciplines. They proposed that entrepreneurship should be offered across faculties rather than restricted to business-related programmes.

‘Collaborative projects among faculties and linking entrepreneurship to all programmes would help.’

as noted by P15

These views suggest that entrepreneurship education is still heavily focused on business faculties, making it less accessible to students in other disciplines. Consequently, student businesses often are not formally recognised in the academic system, forcing studentpreneurs to juggle their businesses and busy academic schedules. Some students suggested that practical subjects, such as entrepreneurial finance, marketing, and inventory management, should be part of the curriculum to enhance the practical application of entrepreneurial knowledge. Additionally, several participants expressed support for credit-bearing incubation programmes, whereby participation in business incubators or entrepreneurial projects could count toward academic credit. Such initiatives could lend legitimacy to studentpreneurship as a recognised component of academic learning. Currently, the integration with academics is not comprehensive, which does not reinforce the university’s EET advances as an entrepreneurial ecosystem that facilitates entrepreneurial activities (Maloka, 2024). By incorporating entrepreneurship education into formal academic structures, universities may reinforce both student innovation and the broader institutional culture of entrepreneurship.

3.6. Best Practices and Suggested Improvements

The university as an entrepreneurial ecosystem (as outlined by the EET) is supposed to provide comprehensive, effective, and relevant support mechanisms for studentpreneurship. However, if institutional gaps proliferate, the institutional policies and governance that are supposed to enable best practices are adversely affected. To improve the current entrepreneurial ecosystem, the studentpreneurs identified several changes to make university studentpreneurship support systems more effective. Participants pointed out several practices that currently drive studentpreneurs and areas where institutional support could be strengthened. In particular, the visibility of successful students and alumni entrepreneurs was frequently cited as an important source of inspiration and encouragement for aspiring studentpreneurs. Successful entrepreneurial role models have an important motivational role in encouraging student participation in studentpreneurship programmes. See the excerpts below:

‘Success stories publicised by WSU Alumni and EDHE motivate participation in entrepreneurial programmes.’

as stated by P8

‘Seeing other businesses grow with the help of the university support services motivates us to open ours as well.’

as noted by P13

Participants also emphasised the importance of practical institutional support, in particular in relation to infrastructure and administrative processes. Students suggested that simplifying operational procedures and increasing access to business spaces could significantly improve entrepreneurial activities on campus. The suggestions accentuate the importance of universities integrating motivational initiatives with practical support mechanisms, including access to funding, infrastructure, and simplified administrative procedures. Students emphasised the importance of focused entrepreneurial training, better access to funding, and industry-focused mentorship programmes:

‘We would like to see simplified entrepreneurial processes and be provided with a dedicated business space.’

as stated by P10

‘Maybe the institution should provide us with start-up capital and inventory financing rather than only providing people who would have won in a specific competition.’

as noted by P4

‘Undoubtedly, funding support would enhance the image of studentpreneurs. Develop industry-specific mentorship programmes and provide spaces where studentpreneurs can operate.’

as indicated by P6

‘There is a need to simplify access to funding and mentorship programmes, create awareness of available resources, and offer flexible schedules for studentpreneurs.’

as documented by P11

Participants emphasised the need to raise awareness of available resources and to make mentorship programmes more accessible to all students. Three main areas of focus for students: financial assistance, mentorship, and access to resource infrastructure. Participants also emphasised the need for practical, industry-focused training programmes rather than purely theoretical entrepreneurship training. In addition, students suggested that universities should monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of entrepreneurship programmes to identify successful practices that can be replicated or expanded. The results indicate a need for more coordinated, responsive institutional support systems that align with the realities of studentpreneurs. While existing efforts, such as alumni success stories and entrepreneurship programmes, provide motivation, students believe that the entrepreneurial ecosystem within universities needs further reforms to a more structured, sustainable entrepreneurship support framework that effectively cultivates studentpreneurship.

4. Discussion

Studentpreneurship is a process that provides a platform for studentpreneurs to engage in economically beneficial activities. However, the benefits can only be achieved when the entrepreneurial ecosystem provides effective and relevant support mechanisms and addresses barriers to accessing those services. Therefore, the study focused on assessing the support mechanisms and institutional gaps that affect studentpreneurship within a historically disadvantaged university.

The research results indicate that, even though the university has established entrepreneurship support systems, these systems are not fully effective due to unequal access, disjointed delivery, and structural constraints. Awareness is unevenly distributed. Studentpreneurs are aware of programmes such as workshops, mentorship, and incubators, but this knowledge is often mediated through networks like student societies or faculty-specific programmes, resulting in unequal access. This aligns with Meyer et al. (2024), who suggest that in South Africa, entrepreneurship education and support are often focused on business schools, neglecting students from other faculties. Moreover, the female studentpreneurs were more aware of support services, suggesting they have stronger networking structures. The finding reveals poor institutional communication strategies that are neither inclusive nor effective in reaching the intended targets. This finding supports Mngoma’s (2025) discovery that some students miss opportunities to engage in studentpreneurship activities due to a lack of awareness or exposure. Given that a historically disadvantaged university is likely to have limited and underfunded resources, conventional communication channels (such as emails, posters, and university portals) are the most commonly used. The adverse effect is weak information flow and reduced access. Awareness is connected to visibility. When there is no visibility, there is a lack of awareness. When studentpreneurs are unaware of support services, they do not access them.

The EET, as suggested by Iddouch and Jaoual (2025), focuses on the interdependence and interconnectedness of the components through comprehensive networks. However, the study reveals a disconnect within the entrepreneurial ecosystem, with communication strategies failing to ensure awareness, thereby reducing access to support mechanisms. This lack of awareness and reduced access undermine the effectiveness of support mechanisms. Furthermore, it depicts that there are institutional gaps, primarily poor communication and coordination, that result in the underdevelopment of studentpreneurship ventures, innovation, and expansion. Therefore, the practical implications of the findings demand that the university shift and improve communication and awareness to increase access to support mechanisms. The university has to integrate and institutionalise centralised, user-friendly, relatable channels, including social media platforms such as WhatsApp, TikTok, X, and Facebook, as well as university campus radio and awareness campaigns. The entrepreneurial ecosystem-building approach has to be implemented through proactive outreach, aggressive marketing, and inclusive communication strategies that also target male studentpreneurs.

The perceived effectiveness of support mechanisms indicates that support services are relevant but have limited effectiveness due to a lack of depth and quality. Studentpreneurs favoured training, pitching competitions, and mentorship opportunities but tended to view them as one-time, non-continuous experiences. This finding supports the assertion by Ncube (2025), who posits that although most students value the concept of university support, they tend to recognise the services as bureaucratic, poorly coordinated, or lacking relevance in the context of operating a business. Due to inconsistent and unreliable support services, some studentpreneurs may feel discouraged from continuing their entrepreneurial ventures. This is similar to Maloka’s (2024) findings, which showed that entrepreneurship learning at higher education levels has been more of a source of inspiration and confidence, but has not translated into the creation of sustainable businesses.

Additionally, the study found that support services are not necessarily addressing the needs of studentpreneurs, undermining their effectiveness. In the same vein, Shambare (2013) also posits that, even though universities claim to support and commit to the creation of new studentpreneurship ventures, they do not live up to this pledge. The study found that support services are not responsive to the realities of studentpreneurs. This affects their actual value in providing support within the entrepreneurial ecosystem, as highlighted by the EET. This finding aligns with the standpoint of Govender and van der Lingen (2024), who also confirm the short-term nature of the benefits of the studentpreneurship programmes without long-term mentoring, incubation, and access to finance. Institutional and socio-economic inequalities, bureaucracy, and low funding are additional obstacles that hinder support. This was also echoed by Neneh (2022), who noted that South African studentpreneurs face considerable institutional and contextual barriers that limit their opportunities to scale their businesses. When studentpreneurs perceive the support mechanisms as ineffective, they might be discouraged from further engaging in business ventures. Moreover, it is alarming that support services did not include online support mechanisms, given that the global and South African economies are increasingly centred on digital technologies. Additionally, the support mechanisms are not structured to encompass all core components proposed by the EET. There is no component of entrepreneurial culture that is critical for the preservation of studentpreneurship. The entrepreneurial culture can help ensure continuous mentorship and guidance. Other support services, such as emotional support and soft skills development, will be integrated if the culture component is introduced. Based on these findings, the practical implication is that in a historically disadvantaged university, there is a need to develop flexible support systems to address context-specific needs.

Furthermore, the institutional gaps highlighted in this study include the inability to address issues such as insufficient financial support, poor administrative procedures, and socio-economic inequality. These barriers remain embedded in the entrepreneurial ecosystem, undermining efforts to support studentpreneurship within the university. The support services of mentoring and networking, intended to help eliminate some challenges and barriers, are also not being implemented properly. The ripple adverse effect is a fragmented entrepreneurial ecosystem. This finding underscores the policy and governance inadequacies stemming from institutional gaps, which require the university, as the entrepreneurial ecosystem, to restructure its policies. In this regard, the best practises and recommendations identified in this paper include showcasing alumni role models, specific financial support, streamlined administrative procedures, and integrating entrepreneurship into the academic programmes. This aligns with Cera et al. (2020), who emphasised that entrepreneurship education needs to be experiential and integrated into academic programmes. Furthermore, van der Westhuizen (2024) posits that to create actual entrepreneurial outcomes, a university needs to connect training with networks and finance. Therefore, to enhance the entrepreneurial ecosystem, there is a need for the university to move beyond disunified, extracurricular intervention strategies to integrated, inclusive, and academic strategies (Muchineripi et al., 2025). The university needs to take note of the various challenges and barriers and design support mechanisms that are relevant, responsive, inclusive, and effective in addressing the needs of studentpreneurship ventures. This will not only address students’ entrepreneurial requirements but also help achieve broader developmental objectives aimed at creating a more diverse and resilient pool of graduate entrepreneurs. The practical implication will be a university entrepreneurial ecosystem that offers inclusive, context-responsive support mechanisms, encouraging engagement from current and prospective studentpreneurs.

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

The study explored the nature of university support available to studentpreneurs in a historically disadvantaged university in South Africa. This included the perceived effectiveness and relevance of studentprenuer support, the challenges students experienced, and the best practices for improving institutional support. There are support systems, such as workshops, incubators, and studentpreneurship societies, but they are not well distributed and often rely on networks. The training and pitching competitions were effective in that they were motivational, but they lacked continuity, mentorship, and practical resources, such as financial and infrastructure support. The study highlighted systemic issues such as bureaucratic stalling, limited access to capital, socio-economic disparities, and the marginalisation of entrepreneurship in the academic curriculum.

The study concludes that entrepreneurship support within historically disadvantaged South African universities is decentralised. Therefore, it cannot be evenly distributed, restricting the growth of a diverse group of studentpreneurs. Therefore, the researchers support that the idea of continuous, inclusive, and sector-sensitive support, integrated with training and mentorship, finance, and visibility, is the most effective intervention. There is no scholarly integration, and student entrepreneurship is seen as an extracurricular activity rather than a well-established part of higher education. This inhibits students’ ability to reconcile academic commitments with entrepreneurial activities, thereby limiting the development of viable businesses.

The study recommends that universities should reinforce communication strategies to ensure that awareness of studentpreneurship support is equally shared among faculties and various student groups. Institutions are to embrace holistic, sustained support models in which workshops, mentorship, finance, and incubation are organised as coherent streams rather than standalone activities. The bureaucracy needs to be streamlined, and specific financial assistance, including microgrants and inventory loans, should be proposed to reduce obstacles faced by students from historically disadvantaged backgrounds. Additionally, the study recommends institutionalising mentorship and networking for alumni and industry relations to make the programme inclusive and sustainable. Furthermore, inculcating entrepreneurship into academic programmes through project-based learning, credit-based incubation, and flexible evaluation models can legitimise entrepreneurial activity in higher education.

Therefore, further research is needed to assess the long-term effects of studentpreneurship support, including its impact on business survival, growth, and employability. A comparative study across universities would be more useful for gaining a broader understanding of how institutional settings influence outcomes. Thus, universities will be able to go beyond isolated interventions and create comprehensive, inclusive, and functioning entrepreneurial support ecosystems that enable graduates to develop the skills, resources, and networks needed to survive in South Africa’s challenging socio-economic context. Furthermore, the utilisation of a qualitative research methodology is accompanied by non-probability sampling and a small sample, limiting the generalisability of the research findings. Therefore, a quantitative study, with a large sample, focusing on the impact of support mechanisms can quantify effective and ineffective services to allow generalisation. Moreover, the use of a single university implies that the findings cannot be generalised to other universities. Further research can be conducted to include more universities and compare historically disadvantaged universities with other universities.