Universities as Hubs for MSME Capacity Building: Lessons from a Kenyan Bank-Higher Education Institution Training Initiative

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study assessed the effectiveness of the training, participant demographics, confidence in applying skills, networking results and satisfaction levels. The results obtained demonstrate high participant confidence (over 95% in all regions), strong adoption of financial management (85%), adoption of mobile banking (70%) and significant regional differences in gender balance, refugee inclusion and networking results.

In the methodological and cognitive perspective outlined above, it can be assumed that the research conducted by the authors of the article is not methodologically new in itself and is not a new approach in social research. However, it has cognitive potential and is a successful research intention due to the rich area of ​​utilitarian conclusions and recommendations.

Please find more details in the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Attached are responses for reviewer 1

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for submitting your manuscript. It is well presented. Your study, "Universities as Hubs for MSME Capacity Building: Lessons from a Kenyan Bank-Higher Education Institution (HEI) Training Initiative", is both timely and original, offering meaningful contributions to the literature on entrepreneurship development, financial inclusion, and the evolving role of HEIs in Africa. The paper has a robust methodology, attention to inclusion, and clear policy relevance. Below are some suggestions to further strengthen your work before publication:

1. Clarify and Streamline the Theoretical Section

While the theoretical underpinnings are comprehensive and well-sourced, this section currently introduces multiple frameworks (Human Capital Theory, Social Network Theory, Experiential Learning, Capability Theory, etc.) in quick succession. Consider summarising the overlaps and differences more succinctly, possibly using a table to show how each theory informs specific training components.

Emphasise which theories played the most central explanatory role in shaping outcomes.

2. Explicit Research Questions

Although your objectives and rationale are clear, the research questions are not explicitly listed. Adding clearly stated questions (either as a list or numbered format) at the end of the introduction or beginning of the methods section would improve transparency and guide the reader more directly.

3. Improve Visual Presentation of Results

The tabulated results are clear and informative; however, adding charts or bar graphs to visually compare key regional differences (e.g., gender balance, refugee participation, satisfaction levels) would improve engagement and help illustrate patterns more intuitively. This is a suggestion as you might have some readers like me that like charts or bar graphs to visually compare results.

4. Contribution to Literature

Your discussion on inclusive pedagogy and structural barriers to participation is very strong. Consider highlighting even more clearly how your findings challenge prevailing assumptions (e.g., that low participation from women or refugees is due to “lack of interest”) and provide a replicable model for equity in MSME training.

Overall, this is a valuable, well-structured, and policy-relevant manuscript. With improvements suggested above, it will make a strong contribution to the field of entrepreneurship education and development studies, particularly in African and emerging market contexts.

 

Author Response

Attached are responses for reviewer 2

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article deals with universities as HUBs for MSMEs capacity building.  This study assesses the potential of universities as strategic hubs for MSME capacity building through a collaborative initiative between Egerton University and the KCB Foundation. The study evaluates training effectiveness, participant demographics, confidence in skill application, networking outcomes, and satisfaction levels. 

I suggest to improve the arguments and discussion of findings, they must be more coherent, balanced and compelling. Also I suggest to modify the conclusion, it must be thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article.

Overall the contribution of the article to scholarship is high and the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods are clearly formulated. The results of the research are clearly presented.

 

Author Response

Attached are responses to reviewer 3

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper aims to assess the potential of universities to function as strategic hubs for developing the capacity of micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) by analysing an entrepreneurial boot camp organised in partnership by Egerton University and the KCB Foundation, held in three locations (Egerton, Njoro, and Gilgil). Specifically, the study aims to analyse the effectiveness of the program in terms of satisfaction, skills acquisition, inclusion (including gender, refugees, and disabilities), networking, and financial uptake, and to extract public policy lessons regarding the role of universities in the entrepreneurial ecosystem.

Please consider the following additions/clarifications/reviews:

• The paper does not formulate hypotheses or research questions. The Instructions for Authors (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/higheredu/instructions) specifies “It should define the purpose of the work and its significance, including specific hypotheses being tested.”
• The SIYB model is not exactly new; it would be helpful to clarify the innovation compared to previous SIYB studies.
• Regarding the contribution to the field, rigorous comparisons with non-university programs are lacking; future RCTs are recommended, but no counter-sample is provided.
• I recommend attaching the questionnaire to the annexes and some centralisation of the database related to the applied questionnaire.
• We could not identify details about the validation of the questionnaire, the margin of error, or pre-post analysis with a control group. Specifically, the internal reliability (e.g., Cronbach's α) of the questionnaires is not reported; the exact structure of the pre- and post-tests is not presented, nor is item mapping on modules.
• Participants are invited to participate in the research through the database; thus, self-selection bias is possible. Weighting coefficients or comparisons with the target population are missing to demonstrate representativeness.
• For rare categories (e.g. refugees 2-2-9; people with disabilities 3-7-3) many expected frequencies < 5. This violates the basic assumption, and the χ² results may be invalid; Fisher’s Exact or category combination should be used.
• The variables “confidence” and “networking success” have >90% positive response (e.g. 95.7%–96.9%). Thus, slight differences cannot be reliably detected. Effects (Cramer's V) should be reported, and the ceiling effect discussed.
• The authors declare a pre-/post-knowledge test in Methods, but comparative results are missing in Results. Thus, real knowledge gain cannot be verified. A paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank effect size (r / d) analysis should be performed.
• Several χ² tests are reported without Bonferroni/Benjamini-Hochberg adjustment. This increases the risk of false positives (e.g. p = 0.044 for gender).
• Some statements are without bibliographic sources (e.g. female entrepreneurship statistics) and some non-academic web references. It would be beneficial to standardise the style and eliminate grey sources.
• Add a section on the limitations of the research.

Good luck in the future!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is generally readable and employs appropriate academic vocabulary; however, several very long sentences and a handful of minor typographical errors reduce clarity. A light professional language edit is recommended to tighten the prose and correct residual errors.

Author Response

Attached are responses to reviewer 4

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf