Systems Analysis of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Competence Structure Among Chinese University Students: Evidence from Policy Texts
1
College of Education, Zhejiang Normal University, Jinhua 321001, China
2
College of Teacher Education, Quzhou University, Quzhou 324099, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Systems 2026, 14(2), 221; https://doi.org/10.3390/systems14020221
Submission received: 5 January 2026
/
Revised: 14 February 2026
/
Accepted: 17 February 2026
/
Published: 20 February 2026
(This article belongs to the Section Systems Practice in Social Science)
Abstract
This study investigates the structure of innovation and entrepreneurship competence among university students in China. Based on an analysis of 33 policy texts on innovation and entrepreneurship education from 2010 to 2022, it constructs a structural model of university students’ innovation and entrepreneurship competence comprising the knowledge layer, ability layer, and literacy layer by employing the Onion Model. From the perspective of policy instruments, a two-dimensional competence–policy instrument analytical framework is established. The analysis reveals that the articulation of university students’ innovation and entrepreneurship competence in policy texts exhibits distinct stage-wise evolutionary characteristics. Furthermore, the current policy support system suffers from three structural imbalances: an over-reliance on supply-side policy instruments, with insufficient synergy from environmental and demand-side instruments; weak support from environmental and demand-side instruments for certain key competencies; and an emphasis on explicit knowledge over implicit literacy in the cultivation logic. Consequently, this study proposes a shift in the policy paradigm from factor input to system generation. Recommendations include optimizing the mix of policy instruments, improving the precision of interventions by environmental and demand-side instruments targeting key competencies, and reconstructing the cultivation system based on the different generative logics of explicit and implicit competence.
1. Introduction
Entrepreneurship education has gained increasing scholarly attention as a research field in recent decades [1]. Against the backdrop of the innovation-driven development strategy and the new round of scientific and technological revolution, innovation and entrepreneurship education in universities has become a core issue in the reform of China’s higher education. Improving the quality of higher education and cultivating innovation and entrepreneurship talent are central tasks of the current higher education reform [2]. Presently, China’s university innovation and entrepreneurship education system has basically taken shape, with its scale ranking among the largest in the world. It is in a transition period, shifting from scale expansion to quality dominance. Cultivating students’ innovation and entrepreneurship competence is the essence of this education, and these competencies serve as a key metric for its quality. This compels us to ponder a fundamental question: what constitutes the structure of university students’ innovation and entrepreneurship competence?
The concept of “innovation and entrepreneurship education” applied in China was primarily proposed by drawing on foreign concepts of entrepreneurship education. Research on the structure of innovation and entrepreneurship competence also differs between domestic and international contexts. Foreign research on this structure began earlier.
Competency refers to the knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, and behaviors that people need to successfully perform a particular activity or task [3]. Research on entrepreneurial competency originated from studies on managerial capabilities that influence the performance of large enterprises [4]. Subsequently, Bird advocated for applying a competency-based approach to the entrepreneurial domain [5], a view supported by numerous scholars who argued that different stages of a venture require distinct competencies [6]. During this phase, studies on the composition of entrepreneurial competencies primarily focused on the skills needed in the process of starting a business. These included social skills, such as team organization and motivation, opportunity recognition, and resource allocation [7]; interpersonal communication, coordination, and social adaptation [8]; as well as practical skills, like marketing, financial and fund management, and strategic planning [9]. Overall, no consensus on the structure of entrepreneurial competency was reached during this period, and the understanding among researchers remained relatively narrow [10]. Building upon this foundation, Morris et al. conducted an in-depth and detailed study using the Delphi method to explore the composition of entrepreneurial competencies. They identified 13 critical behavioral competencies and attitudes: Opportunity Recognition; Opportunity Assessment; Risk Management/Mitigation; Conveying A Compelling Vision; Tenacity/Perseverance; Creative Problem-Solving/Imaginativeness; Resource Leveraging; Guerrilla Skills; Value Creation; Ability to Maintain Focus Yet Adapt; Resilience; Self-Efficacy; and Building and Using Networks [11]. These 13 entrepreneurial competencies are distinct from traditional business operation and management skills and have since gained broader recognition as a foundational structure for innovation and entrepreneurial competence.
With societal development, nations have come to recognize that innovation and entrepreneurship competencies are essential not only for independent entrepreneurs but also for the survival and development of individuals and organizations in modern society. By 2006, the European Commission had identified a “sense of initiative and entrepreneurship” as one of the eight key competences necessary for all members of a knowledge-based society. At this stage, the concept of innovation and entrepreneurship competency was understood in a broad sense. It encompassed not only various types of entrepreneurs, such as independent entrepreneurs, self-employed people, and intrapreneurs, but also managerial and business operation capabilities. As shown in Table 1, which outlines the descriptions of innovation and entrepreneurship competency composition from the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union, their definitions of this competency are all broad in nature.
In recent years, research on the structure of university students’ innovation and entrepreneurship competence by Chinese scholars has gradually increased. For example, Wang Hongcai’s team, based on self-development theory and from the perspective of the ontological connotation of innovation and entrepreneurship, constructed a structural model consisting of seven sub-competences, including goal-setting ability and action planning ability [15]. Yang Dong, drawing on previous logic for determining core and key innovation and entrepreneurship competence and selectively extracting their overlapping dimensions, identified innovation and entrepreneurship capability as an integrated system comprising four core competencies: learning ability, creativity, leadership, and practical ability [16].
A review of existing research on the structure of innovation and entrepreneurship competence reveals that foreign studies often stem from Western contexts or corporate perspectives. Unlike the “university demand-driven” path of American entrepreneurship education, innovation and entrepreneurship education in Chinese universities was rapidly initiated under significant pressure from graduate employment. Its reform and development model is characterized by administrative impetus and policy guidance. A series of policy documents issued by the Chinese government at all levels to promote the development of innovation and entrepreneurship education has provided a clear policy basis and directional guidance for its practical advancement in universities, reflecting the state’s value orientation and capability requirements for talent cultivation. Currently, domestic research on the structure of innovation and entrepreneurship competence remains relatively fragmented and unsystematic. There is also a lack of fine-grained extraction and structural analysis of “capability elements” within policy texts, and even less attention is paid to the matching relationship between the “capability structure” and “policy instruments.”
This study, from the perspective of China’s innovation and entrepreneurship education policy texts, systematically deconstructs the innovation and entrepreneurship capability structure advocated at the national level, its evolutionary logic, and the use of policy instruments. It aims to reveal the government’s attention allocation preferences, summarize existing problems, and propose optimization suggestions. This study intends to provide references for constructing an innovation and entrepreneurship capability framework suited to the Chinese context and for improving innovation and entrepreneurship education policies.
2. Methods
2.1. Selection of Policy Texts
A landmark policy with distinctive Chinese characteristics, the Opinions of the Ministry of Education on Promoting Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education Institutions and Supporting College Students’ Self-employment Initiatives (2010; hereafter referred to as the 2010 Opinions on Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education), formally initiated the national drive in this field. It explicitly states that innovation and entrepreneurship education is a teaching philosophy and model arising from the needs of economic and social development and national development strategies. This study takes the 2010 Opinions on Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education as its starting point. To construct the policy corpus, we conducted a systematic search for national and provincial-level policy documents on innovation and entrepreneurship education issued between 2010 and 2025. The search was performed primarily on the “Mass Entrepreneurship and Innovation Policy Database” of the Chinese Government Website, using keywords such as “innovation and entrepreneurship”, “entrepreneurship education”, and “innovation and entrepreneurship education” for exact matching in titles or full texts. The initial screening yielded 83 policy documents. To enhance the representativeness of innovation and entrepreneurship policies, the selection of relevant policy texts in this study follows the principles outlined below:
- The target of the policies is explicitly limited to university students. To ensure a strong alignment between the policy samples and the research focus, this study only includes policy documents specifically aimed at university students; policies targeting youth or the general population are excluded.
- The content of the policies must be directly related to innovation and entrepreneurship education. For instance, management measures for university students’ innovation and entrepreneurship training programs are not selected, as they primarily emphasize specific administration and implementation rather than educational planning. Furthermore, policy documents focusing on employment and entrepreneurship are excluded if their main content emphasizes government support measures for employment and entrepreneurship rather than educational designs aimed at cultivating university students’ innovation and entrepreneurship capabilities.
As shown in Appendix A, 33 valid policy documents were selected.
2.2. The Structure of University Students’ Innovation and Entrepreneurship Competence
This study employed NVivo 12.0 software to code the raw data and used the grounded theory method for bottom-up, progressive coding of the policy text data.
- Open Coding: During open coding, the researcher “bracketed” personal preconceptions and coded the text data. Original phrases and sentences in the text were summarized into reference points with similar meanings. These reference points were then conceptualized into nodes. Ultimately, 457 reference points and 41 nodes were extracted, representing the most primitive textual expressions of students’ innovation and entrepreneurship competence.
- Axial Coding: Axial coding involved re-analyzing and clustering the disaggregated text data based on open coding to extract more focused core categories. Through integration and categorization, the initial categories were refined into 15 key core categories, including innovative spirit, entrepreneurial awareness, social responsibility, personal ethics, etc.
- Selective Coding: Selective coding further refined and identified the most central, highest-level categories from the various categories formed in axial coding. The 15 axial codes were further integrated, ultimately extracting 10 core elements constituting innovation and entrepreneurship competence, including innovation and entrepreneurship awareness, ethical norms, psychological resilience, etc. Table 2 illustrates the three-round encoding process and the final result.
The transition from the emergence of entrepreneurial awareness to the achievement of innovation and entrepreneurship goals involves many specific competences, which are interwoven and often indistinguishable. Therefore, innovation and entrepreneurship capability is a comprehensive ability, not a simple patchwork of individual skills. Based on the results of the grounded theory analysis, the core elements of students’ innovation and entrepreneurship competence are summarized into the following 10 aspects: (1) innovation and entrepreneurship awareness; (2) ethical norms; (3) psychological resilience; (4) learning ability; (5) digital competence; (6) practical ability; (7) problem-solving; (8) professional knowledge; (9) entrepreneurial knowledge; (10) interdisciplinary knowledge.
The innovation and entrepreneurship competency framework established in this study incorporates internationally recognized elements, such as opportunity recognition, practical action, resilience in the face of setbacks, and innovative capability. Compared to Morris’s framework, which focuses on entrepreneurial behaviors, the U.S. framework emphasizing a commercial knowledge system, and the European Union’s framework promoting practical and applied civic literacy, the fundamental distinction of this framework lies in its underlying logic and core objective: it serves as a systematic educational blueprint rooted in the fundamental mission of “fostering virtue and cultivating talents” in Chinese higher education. This framework not only encompasses explicit knowledge and skills but also places character formation and value guidance at the core of the competency structure while emphasizing the systematic construction of a professional knowledge system. It thus transcends a purely instrumental definition aimed solely at entrepreneurial success or workplace adaptation. Therefore, this framework possesses distinct Chinese characteristics and higher education attributes. Its educational logic aligns more closely with the mission of Chinese universities to cultivate innovative talents with both moral integrity and professional competence, representing an attempt at a localized construction of innovation and entrepreneurship competency within the context of higher education in China.
2.3. Policy Analysis Framework
2.3.1. X-Axis Dimension: Competence Dimensions
In the field of management, McClelland’s “Iceberg Model” and Boyatzis’s “Onion Model” provide classical analytical frameworks for understanding the structure of competencies. McClelland systematically proposed the “Iceberg Model” in 1973, dividing human qualities into “explicit” and “implicit” components, and emphasized that the traits hidden beneath the surface—those not easily observable—often play a decisive role in individual behavior and long-term performance [17]. Subsequently, Boyatzis further developed the “Onion Model” in 1982 based on this foundation [4]. Through a layered structure from the inside out—such as motivation, traits, self-concept, knowledge, and skills—it more meticulously illustrates the process through which qualities manifest from the core to the surface.
The Onion Model emphasizes that external qualities (e.g., knowledge and skills) are easier to identify, develop, and evaluate, while internal qualities (e.g., values and motivation) are more stable and harder to change through short-term interventions, yet serve as the fundamental drivers of individual behavior and sustained performance. This perspective offers important insights for understanding the innovation and entrepreneurship capabilities of university students: such capabilities are not merely the expression of external skills but rather the gradual externalization of students’ inner qualities, attitudes, and value orientations.
Based on this, this study adopts the “Onion Model” as the theoretical framework to construct a structural model of innovation and entrepreneurship capabilities among university students. The model is divided into three layers from the inside out: the literacy layer (encompassing values, motivation, and traits), the ability layer (including comprehensive practical and cognitive abilities), and the knowledge layer (involving specialized theoretical and applied knowledge). This division reflects the outward-acting logic of innovation and entrepreneurship capability from the internal to the external, demonstrating strong theoretical relevance for the present study. As illustrated in Figure 1, the Onion Model conceptualizes university students’ innovation and entrepreneurship competence through three concentric layers; the difficulty of cultivation increases from the outer to the inner layers, with longer cultivation cycles and being less amenable to evaluation and acquisition.
The innermost layer is the literacy layer, belonging to the dimension of innovation and entrepreneurship attitudes and values. Its core elements include innovation and entrepreneurship awareness, ethical norms, and psychological resilience. Innovation and entrepreneurship awareness are reflected in innovative spirit and entrepreneurial awareness; ethical norms encompass social responsibility and personal ethics; psychological resilience refers to students’ ability to cope with setbacks and failure and their self-efficacy in daring to innovate and attempt.
The middle layer is the ability layer, belonging to the dimension of innovation and entrepreneurship behavioral abilities. Its core elements include learning ability, digital competence, practical ability, and problem-solving ability. Learning ability is primarily manifested in students’ independent learning through online resources and AI tools; digital competence requires both the ability to deeply integrate entrepreneurial activities with information technology and students’ ability to apply digital technologies; practical ability requires students to take action and actively participate in social practices, innovation and entrepreneurship competitions, and other practical activities; and problem-solving is a composite ability including knowledge application, decision-making ability, and risk prevention.
The outermost layer is the knowledge layer, belonging to the dimension of innovation and entrepreneurship knowledge. Its core elements are professional knowledge, entrepreneurial knowledge, and interdisciplinary knowledge. Professional knowledge and skills form the foundation for innovation, entrepreneurial knowledge provides the necessary theoretical support, and interdisciplinary knowledge becomes the core driving force for stimulating original ideas and achieving breakthrough innovations. The three are interdependent and progressive and, together, build a comprehensive innovation and entrepreneurship knowledge system for the future.
Table 3 presents the framework of the innovation and entrepreneurship competence of Chinese university students.
2.3.2. Y-Axis Dimension: Policy Instrument Type
Policy instruments are the elements that constitute a policy system, referring to the means and measures that the government can employ to achieve policy objectives. In the 1980s, the Dutch Geelhoed Commission concluded that various policy failures were due to insufficient knowledge of policy instruments [18]. Therefore, studying policy instrument preferences provides new perspectives and ideas for enhancing our understanding of policy scientification and democratization. Throughout the history of policy instrument development, several classifications have laid a scientific theoretical foundation for governments in policy formulation, implementation, and evaluation. These include Rothwell and Zegveld’s tripartite classification of supply-side, environmental, and demand-side instruments [19]; McDonnell and Elmore’s classification of mandates, inducements, capacity-building, and system-changing instruments [20]; Howlett and Ramesh’s classification of compulsory, mixed, and voluntary instruments [21]; and Woolthuis, Lankhuizen, and Gilsing’s fourfold classification of information-based, authority-based, organizational, and financial instruments [22].
This paper adopts the “supply–environment–demand” classification proposed by Rothwell and Zegveld, primarily due to its alignment with this study in terms of theoretical logic, systemic perspective, and analytical efficacy.
Firstly, this classification originates from innovation policy research, systematically addressing how governments promote industrial innovation and technological upgrading through public policy. Its three-dimensional structure closely corresponds to the entire process of innovation and entrepreneurship—“factor input, environmental optimization, and market traction”—providing an appropriate theoretical lens for this study. Secondly, the framework emphasizes the systemic nature and synergy of policy instruments, which aligns with the policy practice in Chinese higher education that often employs integrated approaches through formats such as “projects” and “plans.” Additionally, its dimensions are clearly defined, enhancing the explanatory power of the classification. Finally, this framework is widely recognized as a classic analytical paradigm in the fields of innovation and industrial policy research.
For China’s innovation and entrepreneurship education policies, supply-side policy instruments refer to the government’s use of the supply and allocation of production factors such as capital, technology, and talent to provide a solid material foundation for achieving the objectives of innovation and entrepreneurship education. Environment-side policy instruments aim to create a healthy and orderly environment and platform conducive to the development of innovation and entrepreneurship education by optimizing policy orientations and supporting mechanisms across various fields. Demand-side policy instruments focus on the government’s efforts to meet the multidimensional needs of enterprises, universities, research institutions, and others through incentives and demonstrations, thereby pooling high-quality social resources to reduce potential obstacles in the development of innovation and entrepreneurship education. Based on an analysis of the 33 policy documents listed in Table A1 of Appendix A, this study identifies the specific elements of supply-side, environment-side, and demand-side policies involved in China’s innovation and entrepreneurship education policies. The classification results are presented in Table 4, where the policy contents are categorized under their corresponding policy instrument types to clearly illustrate which policy dimensions belong to each instrument.
Policy tools can reveal the specific means by which policies achieve their objectives, but they often fail to directly reflect the goals these policies aim to pursue. Therefore, it is necessary to systematically integrate the analysis of policy tools with the specific content of policies. In this study, to achieve this purpose, the dimension of policy tools is combined with the three core dimensions of the innovation and entrepreneurship competency structure to construct a two-dimensional analytical framework applicable to policy texts on innovation and entrepreneurship education for university students. This framework aims to more clearly reveal the correspondence and internal logic between policy instruments and the objectives of competency cultivation through cross-analysis.
Based on the structure of university students’ innovation and entrepreneurship competence presented in Table 3, the competency framework is organized into three hierarchical layers: the literacy layer, the ability layer, and the knowledge layer. Each layer consists of specific dimensions and corresponding core elements. Specifically, the literacy layer encompasses attitude and values, which include innovation and entrepreneurship awareness, ethical norms, and psychological resilience. The ability layer focuses on behavioral abilities, such as learning ability, digital competence, practical ability, and problem-solving. The knowledge layer comprises professional knowledge, entrepreneurial knowledge, and interdisciplinary knowledge.
Figure 2 provides a quantitative illustration of how different policy instruments—namely, supply-side, environmental, and demand-side tools—correspond to each of these competency dimensions. By mapping policy instruments onto the competency structure, this cross-analysis demonstrates that policy tools are not only classified by their functional roles but are also systematically aligned with multidimensional competency development goals. Such alignment helps to clarify the internal logic connecting policy instruments to the intended outcomes of innovation and entrepreneurship education.
2.4. Coding of Policy Texts
Content analysis and text coding techniques were employed, using NVivo 12.0 software to code the policy texts, identify specific expressions related to “capability requirements” and “policy instruments,” and conduct frequency statistics and co-occurrence analysis to reveal their internal relationships.
The 33 policy texts were numbered sequentially from 1 to 33 according to their names. Paragraphs with a single main point were treated as separate analysis units; other policy texts were split into clauses based on their main points. The units contained in the policy texts were classified and coded in the format of “serial number-policy name-policy item-content unit-code,” ultimately forming coding for the distribution of core elements of innovation and entrepreneurship competence and basic policy instruments, resulting in 1140 analysis nodes.
3. Findings
Through coding and content analysis of the 33 national and provincial policy texts, this study reveals the core characteristics and evolutionary logic of China’s university innovation and entrepreneurship education policy from the two dimensions of “capability structure” and “policy instruments.”
3.1. The Phased Characteristics in the Articulation of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Competence Requirements
Based on policy text analysis, the description of students’ innovation and entrepreneurship competence in China’s innovation and entrepreneurship education policies exhibits stage-wise evolutionary characteristics, which can be broadly divided into three phases.
3.1.1. Phase 1 (2010–2014): Awareness Awakening and Initial Exploration Period
Policy articulation focused on macro-level value concepts such as “innovative spirit” and “entrepreneurial awareness,” aiming for conceptual enlightenment. Capability descriptions were relatively vague, belonging to the initial awakening stage of top-level design, which can be summarized as a stage-oriented approach characterized by “emphasis on conceptual enlightenment, neglect of skill concretization.” Looking at the landmark document that first systematically proposed the holistic concept of “innovation and entrepreneurship education” at the national level—2010 Opinions on Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education—the policy explicitly established “enhancing students’ sense of social responsibility, innovative spirit, entrepreneurial awareness, and entrepreneurial competence” as the core goal. “Innovative spirit” and “entrepreneurial awareness” became high-frequency core concepts in policy discourse. According to statistics, the coding frequency share of “innovative spirit” and “entrepreneurial awareness” in policy documents from this stage reached 26.7% and 23.3% respectively, significantly higher than other core elements. This reflects that the policy focus during this period was on guiding students from passive employment acceptance to active career possibility construction, aiming to awaken college students’ preliminary cognition and intrinsic interest in innovation and entrepreneurship through value-level mobilization and attitude-level shaping, thereby responding to employment pressure during socio-economic transformation and stimulating individual agency. At the same time, policies also began advocating for the systematic integration of previously relatively separate employment guidance, entrepreneurship education, and innovation education, attempting to construct a development philosophy for higher education with Chinese characteristics. In terms of specific pathways for capability development, although this stage encouraged universities to engage in practical attempts such as entrepreneurial training, competitions, and base construction, the overall approach still primarily relied on classroom lectures, theoretical dissemination, and lecture-based training as the main carriers. Practical teaching components had not yet been systematically integrated into the entire talent cultivation process, and the cultivation of students’ specific innovation and entrepreneurship competence, such as digital competence and problem-solving, remained relatively weak, exhibiting a stage characteristic of “strong advocacy of concepts, weak practical support.”
In summary, the articulation of students’ innovation and entrepreneurship competence in policies from 2010 to 2014 was essentially in the initial stage of transition from value advocacy to capability construction. Its core contribution lies in establishing the status of innovation and entrepreneurship education within the national policy discourse system and completing the preliminary enlightenment of college students’ awareness of innovation and entrepreneurship, laying an important conceptual foundation for the refinement, practicalization, and systematization of capability orientation in subsequent stages.
3.1.2. Phase 2 (2015–2020): System Construction and Capability Expansion Period
Marked by the Implementation Opinions of the General Office of the State Council on Deepening the Reform of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education Institutions (2015), policy articulation of innovation and entrepreneurship competence shifted from the previous stage’s “awareness awakening” towards systematic and operational construction. The most significant change in this stage’s policies was the systematic top-level design, proposing that deepening innovation and entrepreneurship education was an urgent need for implementing the national innovation-driven development strategy and promoting economic quality and efficiency improvement. The overall goal by 2020 was to establish a sound university innovation and entrepreneurship education system integrating “classroom teaching, independent learning, integrated practice, guidance and assistance, and cultural guidance.” This aims to significantly enhance “innovative spirit, entrepreneurial awareness, and innovation and entrepreneurship capabilities,” marking a transition from a localized “educational initiative” to a national “talent strategy.”
The articulation of innovation and entrepreneurship competence in policies evolved from vague descriptions to specific requirements. The structural connotation and practical orientation of competence were clarified and refined into operational quality requirements. This included, for example, cultivating critical and creative thinking by reforming teaching methods; exercising students’ ability to analyze and solve problems using knowledge by strengthening practice; cultivating the exploratory spirit of independent thinking, questioning, and innovation, as well as the will and character to dare to venture and know how to create, by implementing the National College Student Innovation and Entrepreneurship Training Program; and cultivating students’ interdisciplinary knowledge ability by establishing new mechanisms for cross-departmental, cross-disciplinary, and cross-major cultivation of innovation and entrepreneurship talent. During this stage, the coding frequency share of nodes related to “problem-solving,” “learning ability,” and “practical ability” increased from around 5% to 10%, 9.6%, and 15% respectively.
3.1.3. Phase 3 (2021–Present): Value Guidance and Capability Strengthening Period
Since the beginning of the 14th Five-Year Plan in 2021, the paradigm of China’s innovation and entrepreneurship education policy has undergone a profound transformation. Under the strategic guideline of high-quality development, the articulation of students’ innovation and entrepreneurship competence in policy texts has leapt from the previous broad-spectrum stage of constructing a universal capability system to a high-order new stage emphasizing deep integration, precise empowerment, and value guidance. The core characteristic of this stage’s policies is the complete dismantling of institutional and cognitive barriers between innovation and entrepreneurship education and professional education, promoting the former from an “add-on” activity to a “foundational” gene inherent in talent cultivation. The Guiding Opinions of the General Office of the State Council on Further Supporting Innovation and Entrepreneurship among College Students (2021) explicitly instructs this in its second part, “Enhancing College Students’ Innovation and Entrepreneurship Competence”.
This stage focuses on technological innovation capability characterized by original innovation, systematically enhancing innovation and entrepreneurship competence oriented towards high-quality development. Compared to the earlier generalized emphasis on business awareness, the latest policy texts significantly strengthen the orientation towards technological innovation, explicitly requiring enhanced support for college students’ technological innovation activities. This essentially elevates the benchmark of innovation and entrepreneurship competence from general market opportunity identification to the high-order level of solving complex technological problems and achieving the transformation of scientific and technological achievements. Secondly, coding analysis of policy texts reveals a profound change: the expansion and sublimation of value connotations. The share of value-oriented capability articulations such as “sense of social responsibility,” “patriotic sentiment,” and “national mission consciousness” increased from less than 10% in the early stages to 15.3%, marking a qualitative leap in the policy core from “skill imparting” to “soul forging.” Innovation and entrepreneurship are no longer merely defined as a path for personal career development but are constructed as a practical field for the younger generation to shoulder the great task of national rejuvenation.
3.2. Characteristics of Policy Instrument Usage Distribution
While the descriptive statistics reveal clear patterns in the frequency of policy instrument usage across the three phases, a more cautious interpretation is warranted regarding their relative impact and implementation depth.
As shown in Figure 3, supply-side instruments consistently constituted the highest percentage of tools employed. Their share, however, decreased over time from 60.0% to 49.6%. This trend may indicate an evolving policy mix. The predominant use of supply-side tools highlights a historical and persistent focus on direct resource and capacity provision within China’s innovation and entrepreneurship education framework.
Conversely, demand-side instruments, while occupying the smallest share in all phases, demonstrated a consistent increase from 16.0% to 23.2%. Measures such as “establishing institution-specific education outcomes and student success models, and promoting results through lectures and forums” were noted. Nonetheless, their relatively low frequency suggests these market-pull mechanisms may not yet be as fully integrated into the core policy arsenal as supply-side or environmental tools.
Environmental instruments exhibited the most stable application, underscoring the government’s sustained role in steering policy formulation and regulation. This stability may reflect the continuous centrality of government oversight, while the evolving shares of supply and demand instruments could point to ongoing adjustments in the roles of governmental and institutional actors.
In summary, the quantitative shifts in instrument frequency outline the changing composition of the policy toolkit. They suggest a potential, though not definitive, rebalancing from direct provision toward mechanisms that shape the ecosystem and stimulate market demand. The actual influence of these tools depends on implementation quality, synergistic effects, and contextual factors beyond their numerical count. This analysis, therefore, presents the observed patterns as indicative of strategic directions, with their ultimate impact remaining a crucial subject for further qualitative and outcome-oriented research.
3.3. Matching Relationship Between Capability Dimensions and Policy Instruments
Cross-analysis and co-occurrence coding reveal significant differences in the matching between different policy instrument usage and core elements of innovation and entrepreneurship. The co-occurrence coding share of supply-side, environmental, and demand-side instruments with various innovation and entrepreneurship competencies is 85.3%, 4.6%, and 10.2% respectively. There are also significant matching differences between different capability dimensions and policy instruments. The core elements contained in the ability layer and knowledge layer of the innovation and entrepreneurship structure model are most closely related to supply-side instruments (100% share), lacking effective support from environmental and demand-side instruments.
Supply-side policy instruments, by directly allocating talent, funds, courses, guidance, and practical opportunities, deeply intervene in the talent cultivation process, substantially constructing the core pathway from knowledge transmission to capability generation. Therefore, they constitute the most direct and foundational dimension of policy intervention supporting the development of innovation and entrepreneurship competence. Among them, teaching reform (28.5%) and practical training (28.1%) are the most prominent, indicating that these two methods are the primary means for strengthening the cultivation of students’ innovation and entrepreneurship competence. Moreover, practical training has co-occurrence coding with all core elements of innovation and entrepreneurship competence, further illustrating that practice is an important support for cultivating various innovation and entrepreneurship competencies [23].
Environmental policy instruments have no direct supportive relationship with most innovation and entrepreneurship competence, only directly associated with innovation and entrepreneurship awareness in terms of standard setting and policy support. This is mainly because the core function of environmental policy instruments (such as goal planning, assessment and supervision, and management mechanisms) is to construct the macro policy ecology and institutional framework, not directly act on the teaching and training links of innovation and entrepreneurship competence [24]. Although environmental policies successfully construct top-level strategy and legitimacy foundations, their indirect and institutional characteristics may lead to efficacy attenuation or ambiguous pathways when grand strategic goals are transmitted to specific, individual capability development links.
Demand-side policy instruments are closely related to literacy layer competence, reflecting the role of value guidance. Among them, characteristic demonstration content has the highest share at 72.4%. Despite repeated advocacy for “serving national strategies” in policy texts, the current policy framework still lacks effective demand-side instruments for tangible support. Operable demand-pull mechanisms—such as preferential procurement for student startups in major national projects or public service contracts—remain scarce. This reflects a certain structural misalignment between policy instruments and overarching goals.
Analyzing from the perspective of core elements of innovation and entrepreneurship competence, among all competencies, only innovation and entrepreneurship awareness in the attitude and values dimension has co-occurrence coding with supply-side (share 58.4%), environmental (share 19.5%), and demand-side (share 22.1%) instruments. This indicates that policy texts on innovation and entrepreneurship most prominently focus on students’ innovation and entrepreneurship awareness. In contrast, the policy instrument content corresponding to psychological resilience is the most singular, primarily relying on practical training and characteristic demonstration for support, focusing on behavioral “tempering” (through practice) and cognitive “guidance” (through demonstration); this approach exercises resilience during practice, which belongs to adaptation after encountering stress [25]. However, there is insufficient attention to prospective management and preventive cultivation of stress sources. This reflects shortcomings in current policies for cultivating psychological resilience: insufficient synergy of instruments, lagging intervention nodes, and singular support dimensions.
4. Discussion
The innovation and entrepreneurship competence constructed by Chinese policy texts constitutes a dynamic, evolving, and multidimensional strategic capability framework. However, policy text analysis reveals three key structural imbalances between the current cultivation of innovation and entrepreneurship competence in university students and their supporting policy system. These imbalances may constrain the systematic enhancement of students’ various competencies.
4.1. Uneven Distribution in the Use of Basic Policy Instruments
Since 2010, China’s innovation and entrepreneurship education policies have exhibited a significant supply-dominant characteristic. The usage share of supply-side policy instruments has consistently been the highest. Although its value has gradually decreased from about 60% to 49.6%, it remains consistently higher than the combined share of environmental and demand-side policy instruments. This indicates a structural imbalance in the application of current policy instruments, namely an over-reliance on direct resource input and factor supply, relatively weakening the long-term shaping of the institutional environment and the effective traction of market demand.
This imbalance leads to synergy issues among different policy instruments. Environmental instruments aimed at constructing the macro-ecology and stabilizing expectations, and demand-side instruments aimed at guiding innovation direction through market signals, have not yet formed finely tuned matching and linkage with supply-side instruments that directly empower individuals. The result is that while the policy system continues to intensify “factor input,” it fails to provide equally strong support in the two dimensions of “ecology creation” and “demand pull,” constraining the overall policy effectiveness from progressing from resource accumulation to systemic innovation [26].
4.2. Insufficient Coverage of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Competence by Basic Policy Instruments
Existing policy instruments, especially environmental and demand-side ones, have obvious limitations in their scope of support for innovation and entrepreneurial competence. Currently, the main focus of these two types of instruments is on value and attitudinal aspects such as innovation and entrepreneurship awareness, ethical norms, and psychological resilience. However, they lack direct and effective policy intervention and resource support for key cognitive and practical competencies that constitute the core competitiveness of innovation and entrepreneurship, such as learning ability, digital competence, practical ability, and problem-solving ability.
This coverage deviation creates a structural contradiction: the policy system can effectively shape the value orientation and psychological foundation for “why to innovate,” but a gap appears in the specific capability supply for “how to innovate.” The root cause lies in the fact that environmental and demand-side policy instruments operate through relatively macro and indirect mechanisms. While they are adept at guiding behavior through institutional atmospheres and market signals, they struggle to penetrate precisely into the micro-level, specialized processes of competence generation, such as the development of decision-making ability or knowledge application. Consequently, students may possess strong entrepreneurial intention and resilience, yet lack the necessary, cutting-edge methodological tools and hard skills to translate ideas into viable solutions [27]. This ultimately constrains the practical effectiveness and outcome transformation of innovation and entrepreneurship education [28].
4.3. Imbalance in the Cultivation of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Competence by Policy Instruments
Current policy instruments exhibit a structural bias of “emphasizing the explicit, neglecting the implicit” when targeting innovation and entrepreneurship competence. Policies and resources are more concentrated on explicit, quantifiable, and easily observable abilities such as professional knowledge and entrepreneurial knowledge. These competencies can be readily taught and assessed through courses, examinations, and competitions. However, relatively less policy attention is given to implicit core literacy that supports long-term innovation, adaptation to complex environments, and coping with uncertainty, such as ethical norms, psychological resilience, and learning ability, with more reliance on singular support instruments.
This imbalance stems from a fundamental contradiction: explicit competence and implicit literacy follow different generative logics. Explicit knowledge can be directly inputted and replicated through systematic supply-side instruments such as curriculum construction, practical training, and faculty development. In contrast, the essence of implicit literacy is the shaping of attitudes, values, and abilities. Its cultivation requires long-term immersion in an institutional culture that tolerates failure, encourages exploration, and emphasizes ethics (environmental instruments), as well as an evaluation and market system that provides genuine return for qualities like responsibility, resilience, and learning ability (demand-side instruments). Precisely because current policies fall short in constructing the latter, the cultivation of implicit literacy lacks the essential “soil” and “climate” in which to take root. As a result, students find it difficult to transform explicit knowledge into sustainable, responsible, and persistent innovation and entrepreneurship actions. This ultimately constrains their deep-seated potential to address future complex challenges.
5. Recommendations
Based on the aforementioned research conclusions, the following three research recommendations are proposed to systematically bridge the three structural imbalances between the cultivation of innovation and entrepreneurship competence and its policy support system.
First, the policy instrument mix must be optimized to construct a synergistic supply–environment–demand three-dimensional support system. In future policy formulation, the current singular supply-dominant model should be broken through to systematically enhance the weight and refinement of environmental and demand-side policy instruments. Specifically, while continuously investing in factor supply, such as courses and practice, policymakers should simultaneously design matching institutional environments and strengthen market demand traction [29]. For example, they should reform student evaluation and teacher assessment mechanisms to accommodate exploratory failure and use government procurement and tax incentives to encourage enterprises to accept student innovation projects [30]. The ultimate goal is to enable the three types of instruments to form a “policy combination punch” with aligned targets and precise matching, shifting from simple resource accumulation to constructing a self-reinforcing, continuously innovative ecosystem.
Second, the capability coverage mechanism should be deepened to promote precise alignment between policy instruments and core cognitive-practical competence. To address the current weak support of policies for the literacy and ability layers of innovation and entrepreneurship competence, the mechanism of action of environmental and demand-side instruments should be deepened towards micro-level teaching and capability generation links. For example, environmental instruments such as goal planning (talent training program formulation) and standard setting (formulation of various teaching quality standards) can be used to explicitly list digital competence and problem-solving as rigid requirements in professional talent cultivation. Simultaneously, demand-side instruments, such as industry innovation demand guides and future skill prediction reports, should be utilized to continuously feed market demand signals for cutting-edge competence to universities, thereby guiding dynamic adjustments in the content of supply-side instruments to ensure no “gap” in the supply of key competence.
Third, the capability cultivation ecology must be balanced to establish a long-term cultivation mechanism that values both explicit knowledge and implicit literacy. The design of innovation and entrepreneurship education policies must recognize and follow the different generative logics of explicit competence and implicit literacy. While continuing to solidify the transmission of explicit knowledge, focused efforts must be made to construct a specialized, integrated institutional and cultural ecology for cultivating implicit literacy [31]. This requires going beyond singular classroom teaching. Environmental instruments can be used to create a campus and institutional culture that allows for trial and error and encourages reflection [32]. By leveraging demand-side instruments, competencies such as ethics, resilience, and lifelong learning can be accorded genuine social value recognition. This, in turn, fosters a deep and enduring foundation for students to translate explicit knowledge into responsible and sustainable innovative practices.
In summary, the optimization of innovation and entrepreneurship education policy must strive to achieve a fundamental paradigm shift from “resource accumulation” to “mechanism innovation”. The core path lies in finely coordinating supply-side, environmental, and demand-side policy instruments to construct a self-enhancing support ecosystem [33]; promoting the precise connection between macro policy signals and micro-level capability generation links to comprehensively cover the core capability spectrum; and designing separate yet integrated cultivation systems based on the different generative logics of explicit knowledge and implicit literacy. Only through such systematic reconstruction can innovation and entrepreneurship education be transformed from dispersed activities and inputs into a high-order capability system capable of continuously generating, dynamically evolving, and supporting national strategic needs, ultimately completing the profound transformation from extensive resource-driven to intensive capability-driven development.
6. Conclusions
This study investigates the structural dimensions of innovation and entrepreneurship competence among university students in China. Based on a systematic analysis and coding of 33 Chinese government policy documents concerning innovation and entrepreneurship education, the research applies the Onion Model to construct a three-layered competence structure model, comprising the knowledge layer, ability layer, and literacy layer. Building on this framework, a two-dimensional competency–policy instrument matrix is developed from a policy tool perspective. The findings reveal that the policy expressions regarding university students’ innovation and entrepreneurship competence exhibit distinct phased evolutionary characteristics. Furthermore, the current policy support system is characterized by a triple structural imbalance in the development of innovation and entrepreneurship competence. In response, the study proposes three recommendations.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, X.S. and Z.W.; methodology, Z.W.; software, X.S.; validation, X.S. and Z.W.; formal analysis, Z.W.; investigation, X.S.; resources, X.S. and Z.W.; data curation, X.S.; writing—original draft preparation, X.S.; writing—review and editing, Z.W.; visualization, X.S.; supervision, Z.W.; project administration, Z.W.; funding acquisition, X.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This Research was funded by the National Educational Science Planning Project of China (No. BIA240112), Quzhou Philosophy and Social Sciences Planning Project (No. 25QSKG70LX), and Science and Technology Plan Project of Quzhou (2023K237).
Data Availability Statement
Data are contained within the article.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Appendix A
Table A1.
List of 33 Chinese innovation and entrepreneurship education policy documents.
| No. | Release Time (Year) | Policy Title |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2010 | Opinions of the Ministry of Education on Promoting Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education Institutions and Supporting College Students’ Self-employment Initiatives |
| 2 | 2011 | Implementation Opinions of the Tianjin Municipal Education Commission on Strengthening Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education and Independent Entrepreneurship Work in Higher Education Institutions |
| 3 | 2012 | Basic Requirements for Entrepreneurship Education and Teaching in Regular Undergraduate Institutions (Trial) |
| 4 | 2013 | Several Opinions of Liaoning Provincial Department of Education on Strengthening Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education for College Students in Regular Higher Education Institutions |
| 5 | 2014 | Several Opinions of Guizhou Provincial Department of Education on Strengthening Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education for College Students in Regular Higher Education Institutions (Trial) |
| 6 | 2015 | Implementation Opinions of the General Office of the State Council on Deepening the Reform of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education Institutions |
| 7 | 2015 | Notice of Tianjin Municipal Education Commission on Implementing the Implementation Opinions for Deepening the Reform of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education Institutions |
| 8 | 2015 | Notice on the Implementation Plan for Deepening the Reform of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education in Regular Higher Education Institutions in Liaoning Province |
| 9 | 2015 | Several Opinions of Guangdong Provincial Department of Education on Deepening the Reform of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education Institutions |
| 10 | 2015 | Notice of Fujian Provincial Department of Education on Sixteen Measures for Deepening the Reform of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education Institutions |
| 11 | 2015 | Implementation Opinions of the General Office of Anhui Provincial People’s Government on Deepening the Reform of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education Institutions |
| 12 | 2015 | Notice of the General Office of Chongqing Municipal People’s Government on Deepening the Reform of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education Institutions |
| 13 | 2015 | Implementation Plan of Heilongjiang Provincial Department of Education on Deepening the Reform of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education Institutions to Promote College Students’ Innovation and Entrepreneurship |
| 14 | 2015 | Implementation Plan for Deepening the Reform of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education Institutions in Qinghai Province |
| 15 | 2015 | Implementation Plan for Deepening the Reform of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education Institutions in Shanxi Province |
| 16 | 2015 | Implementation Plan for Deepening the Reform of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education Institutions in Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region |
| 17 | 2015 | Implementation Opinions of the General Office of Jiangxi Provincial People’s Government on Deepening the Reform of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education Institutions |
| 18 | 2015 | Several Opinions of the General Office of Hebei Provincial People’s Government on Deepening the Reform of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education Institutions |
| 19 | 2016 | Implementation Plan for Deepening the Reform of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education Institutions in Guizhou Province |
| 20 | 2016 | Opinions of the General Office of Hubei Provincial People’s Government on Further Deepening the Reform of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education Institutions |
| 21 | 2016 | Implementation Opinions of Hunan Provincial Department of Education on Deepening the Reform of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education Institutions |
| 22 | 2016 | Implementation Plan for Deepening the Reform of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education Institutions in Shanghai Municipality |
| 23 | 2016 | Implementation Opinions of the General Office of Zhejiang Provincial People’s Government on Promoting Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education Institutions |
| 24 | 2016 | Implementation Opinions of the General Office of Henan Provincial People’s Government on Deepening the Reform of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education Institutions |
| 25 | 2016 | Opinions on Implementing the Promotion Plan for Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education Institutions |
| 26 | 2016 | Notice on the Implementation Plan for Deepening the Reform of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education Institutions |
| 27 | 2016 | Implementation Plan for Deepening the Reform of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education Institutions in Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region |
| 28 | 2016 | Implementation Plan for Deepening the Reform of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education in Regular Higher Education Institutions in Tibet Autonomous Region (Trial) |
| 29 | 2017 | Notice of Henan Provincial Department of Education on Issuing the Implementation Plan for Deepening the Reform of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education Institutions |
| 31 | 2018 | Guiding Opinions of the Fujian Provincial Department of Education on Further Strengthening the Construction of the Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education Curriculum System in Higher Education Institutions |
| 32 | 2021 | Guiding Opinions on Further Supporting Innovation and Entrepreneurship among College Students |
| 33 | 2022 | Notice of the Hebei Provincial Department of Education on Implementing the Promotion Project for the Reform of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education in Undergraduate Universities |
Table A2.
Two-dimensional analysis (X,Y): innovation and entrepreneurship competence vs. policy instruments.
Table A2.
Two-dimensional analysis (X,Y): innovation and entrepreneurship competence vs. policy instruments.
| Policy Instrument (Y) | Innovation and Entrepreneurship Competence (X) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specific Content | Attitude and Values | Behavioral Abilities | Knowledge | ||||||||
| Innovation and Entrepreneurship Awareness | Ethical Norms | Psychological Resilience | Learning Ability | Digital Competence | Practical Ability | Problem-Solving | Professional Knowledge | Entrepreneurial Knowledge | Interdisciplinary Knowledge | ||
| Supply-side | Curriculum Development | 20 | 10 | 0 | 28 | 27 | 0 | 0 | 32 | 35 | 27 |
| Practical Training | 32 | 5 | 32 | 28 | 16 | 56 | 34 | 20 | 45 | 5 | |
| Teaching Reform | 28 | 0 | 0 | 48 | 5 | 45 | 36 | 55 | 30 | 30 | |
| Faculty Development | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 34 | 7 | |
| Financial Support | 32 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Information Services | 19 | 0 | 0 | 27 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 27 | 0 | |
| Entrepreneurial Guidance | 25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Policy Instrument | Specific Content | Innovation and Entrepreneurship Awareness | Ethical Norms | Psychological Resilience | Learning Ability | Digital Competence | Practical Ability | Problem-Solving | Professional Knowledge | Entrepreneurial Knowledge | Interdisciplinary Knowledge |
| Environmental | Goal Planning | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Standard Setting | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Assessment and Supervision | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Policy Support | 32 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Management Mechanisms | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Demand-side | Characteristic Demonstration | 27 | 25 | 32 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Publicity and Promotion | 25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Social Cooperation | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
References
- Fayolle, A. Personal views on the future of entrepreneurship education. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2013, 25, 692–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henry, C.; Lewis, K. A review of entrepreneurship education research: Exploring the contribution of the Education + Training special issues. Educ. + Train. 2018, 60, 263–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brophy, M.; Kiely, T. Competencies: A New Sector. J. Eur. Ind. Train. 2002, 26, 165–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boyatzis, R. The Competent Manager: A Model for Effective Performance; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
- Bird, B. Toward a Theory of Entrepreneurial Competency. In Entrepreneurship Firm Emergence & Growth; JAI: San Jose, CA, USA, 1995; pp. 52–72. [Google Scholar]
- Rasmussen, E.; Mosey, S.; Wright, M. The Evolution of Entrepreneurial Competencies: A Longitudinal Study of University Spin-Off Venture Emergence. J. Manag. Stud. 2011, 48, 1314–1345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chandler, G.N.; Jansen, E. The Founder’s Self-Assessed Competence and Venture Performance. J. Bus. Ventur. 1992, 7, 223–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hood, J.; Young, J. Entrepreneurship’s Requisite Areas of Development: A Survey of Top Executives in Successful Entrepreneurial Firms. J. Bus. Ventur. 1993, 8, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, B.; Morse, E. Entrepreneurial Competencies: Literature Review and Best Practices; Small Business Policy Branch: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Gibb, A. Entrepreneurship and enterprise education in schools and colleges: Insights from UK. Int. J. Entrep. Educ. 2008, 6, 101–144. [Google Scholar]
- Morris, M.H.; Webb, J.W.; Fu, J.; Singhal, S. A Competency-Based Perspective on Entrepreneurship Education: Conceptual and Empirical Insights. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2013, 51, 352–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Consortium for Entrepreneurship Education. The National Content Standards for Entrepreneurship Education; Consortium for Entrepreneurship Education: Oakland, MA, USA, 2004; pp. 12–14. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. EntreComp: The Entrepreneurship Competence Framework; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2016; pp. 1–13. [Google Scholar]
- QAA. Enterprise and Entrepreneurship Education: Guidance for UK Higher Education Providers; QAA: Doha, Qatar, 2018; pp. 20–21. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, H.; Zheng, Y. Philosophical Assumptions and Practical Implications of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education. J. High. Educ. Manag. 2020, 14, 34–40. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, D.; Zhang, J.; Xu, Z. How Can It Be Taught: An Empirical Study on the Generation Mechanism of University Students’ Innovation and Entrepreneurship competence. Res. Educ. Dev. 2024, 44, 75–84. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- McClelland, D.C. Testing for Competence Rather than for “Intelligence”. Am. Psychol. 1973, 28, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peters, B.G.; van Nispen, F.K.M. Public Policy Instruments: Evaluating the Tools of Public Administration; Gu, J., Translator; China Renmin University Press: Beijing, China, 2007; p. 13. [Google Scholar]
- Rothwell, R.; Zegveld, W. Industrial Innovation and Public Policy: Preparing for the 1980s and the 1990s; Frances Pinter: London, UK, 1981. [Google Scholar]
- McDonnell, L.M.; Elmore, R.F. Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 1987, 9, 133–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Howlett, M.; Ramesh, M. Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems; Oxford University Press: Toronto, ON, Canada, 1995; pp. 45–56. [Google Scholar]
- Woolthuis, R.K.; Lankhuizen, M.; Gilsing, V. A System Failure Framework for Innovation Policy Design. Technovation 2005, 25, 609–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cade, L. A propensity to thrive: Understanding individual difference, resilience and entrepreneurship in developing competence and professional identity. Br. J. Occup. Ther. 2023, 86, 839–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, F.; Yang, G.M.; Singhdong, P. A Moderated Mediation Model of Entrepreneurship Education, Competence, and Environmental Dynamics on Entrepreneurial Performance. Sustainability 2024, 16, 8502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seraj, A.H.A.; Fazal, S.A.; Alshebami, A.S. Entrepreneurial Competency, Financial Literacy, and Sustainable Performance-Examining the Mediating Role of Entrepreneurial Resilience among Saudi Entrepreneurs. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steyaert, C.; Landström, H. Enacting entrepreneurship research in a pioneering, provocative and participative way: On the work of Bengt Johannisson. Small Bus. Econ. 2011, 36, 123–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, C.; Hou, H.; Yan, H. Intuitionistic Linguistic EDAS Method with New Score Function: Case Study on Evaluating Universities’ Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education. Systems 2024, 12, 368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rasmussen, E.A.; Sorheim, R. Action-based entrepreneurship education. Technovation 2006, 26, 185–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hytti, U.; O’Gorman, C. What is Enterprise Education? An analysis of the obiectives andmethods of enterprise education programmes in four European countries. Educ. + Train. 2004, 46, 11–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hall, J.; Daneke, G.; Lenox, M. Sustainable Development and Entrepreneurship: Past Contributions and Future, Directions. J. Bus. Ventur. 2010, 25, 439–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, K.; Alexander, A.; Cunningham, J.A.; Albats, E. Entrepreneurial academics and academic entrepreneurs: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 2024, 77, 9–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lundqvist, M.; Williams-Middleton, K. Making the whole university entrepreneurial- decades of legitimacy-building through Chalmers School of Entrepreneurship. Technovation 2024, 132, 102993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gheorghiu, G.; Spatariu, E.C.; Sorici, C.O.; Stefan, M.; Bunghez, C.L. Creating a sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem at higher education institution level. Econ. Comput. Econ. Cybern. Stud. Res. 2021, 55, 265–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
Onion Model of university students’ innovation and entrepreneurship competence.
Figure 2.
Analytical framework: the mapping between policy instruments and the dimensions of innovation and entrepreneurship competence.
Figure 2.
Analytical framework: the mapping between policy instruments and the dimensions of innovation and entrepreneurship competence.
Figure 3.
Schematic diagram of the percentage usage of three types of policy instruments across different stages: (a) percentage distribution of three policy instruments in Phase 1; (b) percentage distribution of three policy instruments in Phase 2; (c) percentage distribution of three policy instruments in Phase 3.
Figure 3.
Schematic diagram of the percentage usage of three types of policy instruments across different stages: (a) percentage distribution of three policy instruments in Phase 1; (b) percentage distribution of three policy instruments in Phase 2; (c) percentage distribution of three policy instruments in Phase 3.
Table 1.
International comparison of innovation and entrepreneurship competency frameworks.
| Country/Region | The Specific Components of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Competency | Analysis and Notes |
|---|---|---|
| United States | (1) Entrepreneurial Skills: Discovery; concept development; resourcing; leadership; etc. (2) Ready Skills: Business foundations; communications and interpersonal skills; digital skills; financial literacy; etc. (3) Business Functions: Financial management; human resource management; information management; marketing management; etc. [12] | The entrepreneurial competency framework within the U.S. National Standards for Entrepreneurship Education comprises three components, fifteen specific criteria, and 403 elements. |
| United Kingdom | Creativity and innovation; opportunity recognition, creation and evaluation; decision-making; implementation through leadership and management; reflection/reflexivity into action; communication and strategy; digital, data and media [13] | UK places emphasis on cultivating entrepreneurial behaviors, skills, values, and attitudes in individuals and organizations across various contexts, including daily life, careers, and venture creation. |
| European Union | (1) Ideas and Opportunities: Spotting opportunities; creativity; vision; valuing ideas; ethical and sustainable thinking (2) Resources: Self-awareness and self-efficacy; motivation and perseverance; mobilizing resources; financial and economic literacy; mobilizing others (3) Action: Taking the initiative; planning and management; coping with uncertainty, ambiguity and risk; working with others; learning through experience [14] | EntreComp Framework has three competence areas and 15 competencies, which unfold into 442 learning outcomes. |
Table 2.
Coding nodes for university students’ innovation and entrepreneurship competence.
| Selective Coding | Axial Coding | Open Coding Nodes | Frequency |
|---|---|---|---|
| Innovation and Entrepreneurship Awareness | Innovative Spirit | Innovative thinking, divergent thinking, inquiry-based teaching | 78 |
| Entrepreneurial Awareness | Entrepreneurial opportunities, entrepreneurial willingness, opportunity identification | 39 | |
| Ethical Norms | Social Responsibility | Patriotic sentiment, serving society | 14 |
| Personal Ethics | Fostering virtue through education, ethics first, professional ethics | 25 | |
| Psychological Resilience | Resilience | Coping with failure, mindset adjustment | 17 |
| Self-efficacy | Daring to be first, confidence-building | 11 | |
| Learning Ability | Learning Ability | Resource sharing, independent learning, online learning | 45 |
| Digital Competence | Digital Technology | Technology development, internet technology, big data | 30 |
| Practical Ability | Taking Action | Practical teaching, practical platforms, practice bases, entrepreneurial competitions, social practice | 69 |
| Problem-Solving | Decision-making Ability | Critical thinking, independent thinking | 13 |
| Knowledge Application | Exam reform, knowledge analysis | 18 | |
| Risk Prevention | Risk control, venture capital funds, risk-taking willingness | 16 | |
| Professional Knowledge | Professional Knowledge and Skills | Professional education, professional courses, vocational skills | 29 |
| Entrepreneurial Knowledge | Entrepreneurial Knowledge | Entrepreneurial courses, entrepreneurial curriculum system, curriculum design | 35 |
| Interdisciplinary Knowledge | Interdisciplinary Knowledge | Interdisciplinary courses, cross-disciplinary courses | 18 |
Table 3.
Structure of university students’ innovation and entrepreneurship competence.
| Layer Structure | Dimension Structure | Core Elements |
|---|---|---|
| Literacy Layer | Attitude and Values | Innovation and Entrepreneurship Awareness |
| Ethical Norms | ||
| Psychological Resilience | ||
| Ability Layer | Behavioral Abilities | Learning Ability |
| Digital Competence | ||
| Practical Ability | ||
| Problem-Solving | ||
| Knowledge Layer | Knowledge | Professional Knowledge |
| Entrepreneurial Knowledge | ||
| Interdisciplinary Knowledge |
Table 4.
Basic types of policy instruments for university innovation and entrepreneurship education.
Table 4.
Basic types of policy instruments for university innovation and entrepreneurship education.
| Policy Instruments | Policy Dimension | Definition |
|---|---|---|
| Supply-side | Curriculum Development | Offering innovation and entrepreneurship courses to all students, incorporating them into credit management. |
| Establishing online open course learning certification and credit recognition systems. | ||
| Organizing the compilation of key innovation and entrepreneurship teaching materials and establishing case libraries. | ||
| Practical Training | Strengthening laboratory construction and promoting the sharing of experimental teaching platforms. | |
| Establishing on- and off-campus practice bases, such as university science parks, business incubators, etc. | ||
| Implementing the National College Student Innovation and Entrepreneurship Training Program to promote project transformation. | ||
| Organizing thematic competitions on innovation and entrepreneurship to guide students’ active participation. | ||
| Supporting students in establishing innovation and entrepreneurship associations and other clubs. | ||
| Teaching Reform | Establishing innovation and entrepreneurship experimental classes. | |
| Offering interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary courses. | ||
| Promoting heuristic, discussion-based, participatory teaching methods and small-class teaching. | ||
| Implementing reforms in assessment content and methods. | ||
| Setting up innovation and entrepreneurship credits, establishing credit transfer systems, and policies for taking leave to pursue entrepreneurship. | ||
| Establishing innovation and entrepreneurship scholarships. | ||
| Faculty Development | Inviting scientists, successful entrepreneurs, and other outstanding talents from various fields to participate in innovation and entrepreneurship education course teaching. | |
| Conducting innovation and entrepreneurship education-related training for teachers. | ||
| Formulating systems for teachers to take temporary positions in industries and enterprises. | ||
| Financial Support | Establishing special funds to support innovation and entrepreneurship education and teaching, funding student innovation and entrepreneurship projects and research. | |
| Collaborating with social organizations for venture capital investment in student innovation and entrepreneurship projects. | ||
| Information Services | Utilizing big data technology to serve student learning. | |
| Improving information service systems to provide students with real-time access to various entrepreneurial information. | ||
| Entrepreneurial Guidance | Improving specialized institutions for student entrepreneurship guidance services, providing assistance and guidance to students pursuing independent entrepreneurship. | |
| Developing entrepreneurship training programs and conducting student entrepreneurship training. | ||
| Environmental | Goal Planning | Revising talent training programs in line with innovation and entrepreneurship education goals. |
| Establishing innovation and entrepreneurship colleges. | ||
| Formulating and reporting innovation and entrepreneurship education implementation plans. | ||
| Standard Setting | Formulating various levels of teaching quality standards for undergraduate majors, clarifying innovation and entrepreneurship education objectives. | |
| Revising professional talent evaluation standards across departments, research institutes, industries, and enterprises, detailing innovation and entrepreneurship quality and capability requirements. | ||
| Assessment and Supervision | Establishing regular assessment and elimination systems for innovation and entrepreneurship education teachers, strengthening the assessment and evaluation of teachers’ innovation and entrepreneurship education. | |
| Incorporating the quality of innovation and entrepreneurship education into leadership assessments and university education and teaching evaluation content. | ||
| Policy Support | Improving mechanisms for the disposal and benefit distribution of university scientific and technological achievements. | |
| Formulating supportive policies conducive to internet entrepreneurship. | ||
| Management Mechanisms | Establishing expert steering committees for innovation and entrepreneurship education in various regions. | |
| Establishing university-level leading groups for innovation and entrepreneurship education work. | ||
| Establishing collaborative working mechanisms for innovation and entrepreneurship education involving various departments. | ||
| Demand-side | Characteristic Demonstration | Formulating institution-specific innovation and entrepreneurship education outcomes, establishing successful student role models. |
| Publicity and Promotion | Utilizing various forms such as lectures and forums to promote innovation and entrepreneurship education. | |
| Social Cooperation | Publishing entrepreneurship project guidelines based on regional needs in collaboration with industry associations in various regions. |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Sheng, X.; Wang, Z. Systems Analysis of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Competence Structure Among Chinese University Students: Evidence from Policy Texts. Systems 2026, 14, 221. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems14020221
AMA Style
Sheng X, Wang Z. Systems Analysis of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Competence Structure Among Chinese University Students: Evidence from Policy Texts. Systems. 2026; 14(2):221. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems14020221
Chicago/Turabian StyleSheng, Xiaojing, and Zhanjun Wang. 2026. "Systems Analysis of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Competence Structure Among Chinese University Students: Evidence from Policy Texts" Systems 14, no. 2: 221. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems14020221
APA StyleSheng, X., & Wang, Z. (2026). Systems Analysis of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Competence Structure Among Chinese University Students: Evidence from Policy Texts. Systems, 14(2), 221. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems14020221
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
