You are on page 1of 52

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

ENTREPRENEURSHIP
ECOSYSTEM
BASELINE REPORT
Acknowledgements
In a first attempt at establishing a baseline of the Director-General: University Education, Dr Diane
nature and scope of entrepreneurship in South Parker, and the Chief Director: Teaching and
African higher education, we learnt that a project Learning Development, Dr Whitfield Green, for
of this nature, in the absence of any prior work and financial support through the University Capacity
amid the complex and uncertain higher education Development Programme of the Department of
landscape, is no simple task. This report is the result Higher Education and Training.
of the valued contributions of a large number of
The EDHE Community of Practice for
individuals and entities. We acknowledge some key
Entrepreneurial Universities enthusiastically
stakeholders here, but are sincerely grateful to every
shaped and guided the study. The input of its two
person who contributed in one way or another.
conveners, Dr Poppet Pillay of Durban University
The British Council South Africa has been of Technology and Ms Charleen Duncan of the
commendable in bringing this project to fruition University of the Western Cape, was of particular
through its financial contribution and active support value. Prof. Susan Steinman played a constructive
in execution and brokering linkages with the UK
role in the background work, which we greatly
Higher Eduction sector. Specific acknowledgement
appreciate.
is deserved by its former and current Science and
Higher Education Programme Managers, Ms Anisa Ms Joyce Achampong of Pivot Global exhibited
Khan and Ms Meekness Lunga, respectively. We are remarkable adaptability, patience and perseverance
also grateful for the support and insight provided in conducting the study. Joyce, we salute you!
by the British Council Deputy Country Director, Ms We have tremendous appreciation for the
Jean September throughout the research process. leadership of the CEO of Universities South Africa
We thank the EDHE Steering Committee for its (USAf), Prof. Ahmed Bawa, for his encouragement
support and endorsement, in particular the Deputy and unwavering backing of the EDHE team.

Copyright and Disclaimer


Information contained herein should not, in whole or part, be published,
reproduced or referred to without prior approval by Universities South
Africa (USAf) and the Entrepreneurship Development in Higher Education
Programme as the commissioning body. Any such reproduction should
also credit the report’s authors; Joyce Achampong, Dr Christopher Hill
and Elli Yannakaris of Pivot Global Education Consulting Group Ltd., as
well as credit any and all research that Pivot Global Education Consulting
Group Ltd undertook in the writing of this report.
K-15691 [www.kashan.co.za]
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY
ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM
BASELINE REPORT

A research study conducted by Pivot Global Education for the


Entrepreneurship Development in Higher Education (EDHE) Programme
of the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) and
Universities South Africa (USAf), in partnership with the British Council

FEBRUARY 2020
Foreword: An Essential
Baseline Study to Shape
EDHE’s Engagement
The complex relationship of to facilitate this engagement, to
universities with society has constantly ensure that there is learning taking
to be worked at. These institutions place at the theory-praxis nexus and
are global in scope because of the to provide students with appropriate
nature of knowledge as an entity that learning experiences. Thirdly, it works
spans borders and cultures, but they with the universities themselves to
are also deeply rooted in the social, understand how best to facilitate
economic and political geographies the development of entrepreneurial
in which they are located. They
ecosystems within which students are
are simultaneously intensely local
immersed. And finally, the research-
and intensely global. This forces
innovation chasm is deep in South
universities to focus heavily on how
they relate to their local contexts and, Africa. One of the challenges we
as Professor Chris Brink posits (and I face as a sector is to understand
paraphrase): “it is not enough to ask how both undergraduate and
what universities are good at – we postgraduate students engage the
Prof. Ahmed Bawa must also ask what universities are ideas of entrepreneurism as they work
Chief Executive Officer, good for!” on projects, so that the innovation
Universities South Africa (USAf) imperative is built into the research
At the heart of South Africa’s
simultaneous crises of poverty and enterprise rather than seen as
inequality is its unbelievably high being retrofitted.
unemployment rate. At close to EDHE, will have to work with the
30%, South Africa has a shockingly objective conditions at each of the
high unemployment rate which for institutions, to understand what the
young South Africans rises to close international best practice tells us
on 50%. This is clearly a mirror of and to understand what the nature of
the state of South Africa’s economy.
South Africa’s entrepreneurial terrain
It is stagnant. And any hope of
is like. This baseline study is meant
addressing these crises will depend
to provide EDHE with these kinds of
on understanding how to grow the
details and data as a basis upon which
economy so that there are higher
levels of employment. How should the to design interventions.
universities respond to these crises? At the end of the day, it is paramount
It is paramount that One response of universities would that each institution, on the basis
of the evidence before it and in
each institution be to contribute to the generation
of a new, vibrant culture of partnership with EDHE, deliberately
deliberately designs entrepreneurship. This imagination is designs the ecosystem that best suits
the ecosystem that what gave rise to the DHET’s initiative its needs and its conditions so as
best suits its needs in establishing the Entrepreneurship to maximise its impact on building
Development in Higher Education an entrepreneurial culture amongst
and its conditions. (EDHE) Programme, which is now its graduates.
based at and run out of USAf. The
idea of the programme is four‑fold. This is an exciting intellectual
Firstly, it is aimed at providing adventure that has the potential to
students with the opportunity make important social and economic
of engaging with the world of impacts on students and the economy
entrepreneurship while they are busy more generally. This baseline study
with degree and diploma studies. will provide important information
Secondly, it focuses attention on and data to allow EDHE to maximise
building the capacity of academics its impact.

ii NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM BASELINE REPORT


Foreword: Towards a National Policy to
Guide Entrepreneurship Development
in South African Universities
It gives me great pleasure to share a South Africa, a core set of principles,
few thoughts on the first research study criteria or values could form the basis
to be jointly commissioned by the of a framework that all universities
British Council and Universities South could adopt as they see fit.
Africa, as part of our collaborative
What is clear is that instilling a culture
partnership on expanding the capacity
of entrepreneurship across universities,
of South African universities in the
in whatever shape or form, is key to
area of entrepreneurship. The notion
the advancement of social welfare
of an entrepreneurial university is
and economic development in the
gaining momentum globally. In South
region and this Ecosystem Baseline
Africa, the UK and other parts of
Study is a progressive step in the
Europe, universities are increasingly
right direction. Programmes that seek
becoming more entrepreneurial as they
to advance entrepreneurship in the
move away from the more traditional
higher education sector, such as the
management and academically-
Department of Higher Education and
focussed structures and ways of
Training (DHET’s) Entrepreneurship
operating, towards more inclusive,
Development in Higher Education
flexible, student-led curricula that reflect
the realities of industry and the world of (EDHE) Programme, are very important
work today and ahead into the future. to the UK as they align with the ideals of
our Overseas Development Assistance
The nature and magnitude of (ODA) which ultimately aims to benefit
entrepreneurial initiatives, however, low income, historically disadvantaged
vary from one university to another. In and vulnerable populations.
the UK, universities tend to be diverse, Susana Galvan
with some being research intensive This Entrepreneurship Ecosystem
Baseline Study fills a crucial knowledge Country Director,
and others being more teaching British Council South Africa
focussed. Likewise, this National gap in the South African university
University Entrepreneurship Ecosystem entrepreneurship ecosystem. This
Baseline Study reveals the rich diversity study has succeeded in analysing
and uniqueness of each university South Africa’s reality and providing
in South Africa. From this study, it is key information that will be used to
evident that the degree and form of further support entrepreneurship. More
entrepreneurship at universities vary importantly, it will feed into the design
greatly across the country, depending of a National Policy Framework that will
on the type of university and its history. seek to address the policy regulatory
vacuum and stimulate entrepreneurship
Considering the above, this activities in South African universities.
research maps and analyses
This will be facilitated through
the state of affairs in relation to
interventions such as the EDHE
entrepreneurship at universities,
Programme and others in the sector.
guided by an acknowledgement and
an understanding of the diversity British Council South Africa would
within the university sector in South like to thank all those individuals who
Africa. As the higher education sector contributed to making this publication Instilling a culture of
proceeds to engage with, and make possible. Without the participation
meaning of the findings of this study, I of the university representatives, entrepreneurship across
would strongly encourage universities we would not have been able to universities is key to the
to embrace their unique identity and collect the information that makes advancement of social
diversity, and continue to discover this study so valuable and so useful.
their own pathways to becoming Very special thanks also go to our welfare and economic
entrepreneurial, because in the world project implementation partner, USAf, development in the
of education, there is no one-size-fits- and Pivot Global Education (UK) for
all model. With further research and conducting the research and compiling
region.
engagement with the universities in this crucial report.

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM BASELINE REPORT iii


Contents
Foreword: An Essential Baseline Study to Shape EDHE’s Engagement .............................................................. ii
Foreword: Towards a National Policy to Guide Entrepreneurship Development in South African Universities ...... iii
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 2
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 4
Literature Survey .................................................................................................................................................. 6
Research Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 9
Interpretation of Data and Research Outcomes ................................................................................................ 12
What is Entrepreneurship and what is an Entrepreneur? .................................................................................. 16
Entrepreneurship Activity and Delivery ............................................................................................................. 18
Processes and Approaches ................................................................................................................................ 26
Systems and Processes ...................................................................................................................................... 30
Findings ............................................................................................................................................................. 32
Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................. 39
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................ 42
References/Bibliography ................................................................................................................................... 43
Annexures .......................................................................................................................................................... 44

List of tables and figures


Table 1: Summary of South Africa’s youth development policies ........................................................................ 5
Table 2: Survey responses by institution ........................................................................................................... 10
Table 3: Innovation delivery of entrepreneurship development ....................................................................... 35
Graph 1: Word occurrence for ‘What is entrepreneurship?’ (Academic) ........................................................... 16
Graph 2: Word occurrence for ‘What is entrepreneurship?’ (Professional Services) .......................................... 16
Graph 3: Word occurrence for ‘What is an entrepreneur?’ (Academic) ............................................................. 17
Graph 4: Word occurrence for ‘What is an entrepreneur?’ (Professional Services) ........................................... 17

Glossary
ANDE Aspen Network of Development Entrepreneurs MCF MasterCard Foundation
DHET Department of Higher Education and Training, NYDA National Youth Development Agency
South Africa
SEDA Small Enterprise Development Agency
ENACTUS Formerly Entrepreneurship Action US (now known
formally as ENACTUS) SEFA Small Enterprise Finance Agency

Entrepreneurship Formal academic programme STEP Student Training for Entrepreneurial Promotion,
education a programme supported by UNESCO SA and
Leuphana University of Lüneburg
Entrepreneurship Formal or informal, accredited or non-accredited
training training TEF Tony Elumelu Foundation

EDHE Entrepreneurship Development in Higher USAf Universities South Africa


Education: a programme of the Department of Wadhwani An international programme to accelerate
Higher Education and Training, South Africa and Foundation economic development in emerging economies
Universities South Africa (USAf) Entrepreneur through entrepreneurship, innovation and skills
Programme

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM BASELINE REPORT 1


Executive Summary
Overview communication lines that can be delivery of entrepreneurship activity
improved upon. on campus. This would support
This baseline study provides insight
Activity stems from understanding: the breaking of entrenched silos,
into the enabling entrepreneurship
both of an idea itself and of where, which are evident in universities
ecosystem within the 26 South African
how and why it should be delivered. across the world, and promote
public higher education institutions
In the context of this study, the issue greater levels of communication and
and existing practices and activities
is compounded by one of definition. awareness. Academics need to be
currently underway. Its purpose is to
When terms like ‘entrepreneurship’, involved in the design and delivery
enable, using the recommendations
‘innovation’ and ‘entrepreneurial’ of entrepreneurship activity, but
gathered, the creation of a framework
are used almost interchangeably, training and development need to be
to inform the development of a
there is naturally scope for confusion embedded at an institutional level,
National Policy Framework on
and a need for further clarity. There and in so doing, support the building
Entrepreneurship Development in
is a need to more clearly define of a culture and system that promotes
South African Higher Education. The
entrepreneurship in the South African entrepreneurship at all levels.
report deals with complex issues of
definition, delivery, design and impact. context, with a particular view to Findings in this study indicate that
Through an approach of review improving impact and outcomes. institutions are convinced of their
and analysis, this report provides There is a tendency, currently, to talk value and relevance in providing
a mapping of existing activity; an more about the process and activity entrepreneurship training to the
analysis of trends and expectations; of developing entrepreneurs in youth of South Africa, but the data
and a series of recommendations relation to the definition as this is how also reveals that the current model
regarding future practice. people see entrepreneurship and how and approach is not fulfilling this
it is implemented. Entrepreneurship obligation. The need is great for
The study illustrates several key
is a loaded term, often associated Universities South Africa (USAf),
factors that must be addressed for
with Business Schools and more through EDHE, to work with external
future strategy and development of
readily connected to academic partners such as the British Council,
Entrepreneurship Development in
delivery which is problematic in its to provide the support and guidance
Higher Education (EDHE) in the higher
own right, as highlighted by the data needed to enable universities to
education institutions and among
presented. This study highlights the deliver on their objectives around
their partners. There is much scope
need to improve the socialisation entrepreneurship development. In
for increased clarity within the field
of entrepreneurship in the world; addition, there is a need for an in-
of entrepreneurship in South Africa
normalising the idea that the validity depth review of what is delivered,
in terms of institutional expectations;
of being a job creator is equal to that who is delivering it and the manner
measurement and impact; hosting
of being a job seeker. Traditionally, of delivery. In order to assess and
and activity; and indeed, the
jobs have been seen as the focus adapt this accordingly, the needs
definition and terminology itself.
and impact factors surrounding of students must be taken into
The EDHE Programme must
entrepreneurship, rather than the account in this ever-evolving sector.
position itself as the support unit for
encouragement of engagement. Herein lies the paradox. Universities
entrepreneurship in higher education,
A key finding of this research is the rely on tradition and history;
providing policy frameworks to build
positioning of entrepreneurship entrepreneurship needs disruption
successful university entrepreneurship
activity within an institution, as this and flux. Universities should be
engagement. EDHE should continue
has a direct impact on the level of incubators, however, and provide
looking for partners, such as the
visibility, credibility, support and both opportunity and access, with a
British Council, who align with
funding. There is considerable more practical approach than in the
their vision of championing the
evidence indicating that academic past. Traditionally, academia within
development of entrepreneurship in
entrepreneurship (bringing academia higher education is rooted in a strong
tertiary education. A key issue that
and private sector research and research tradition. To strengthen
arose in this project was the presence
development closer together through the entrepreneurial ecosystem,
of discrepancies in the interpretation
knowledge transfer) is doing well; universities need to increase their
of the findings which were often
however, as a function of degree focus on developing and supporting
unclear. Responses by individuals
delivery, particularly at undergraduate entrepreneurship action.
within the same institutions varied
within, and between the identified level and within the Business School As is evident in this report,
job types. This was highlighted in structure, there is more work to be entrepreneurship is a complex
the disparity between what was done to broaden the appeal and and evolving subject. It is also
reported externally by an institution, access of entrepreneurship across largely subjective, depending
and what was reported in the focus a university. This report highlights on where, and by whom, it is
groups and interviews. The study the value of having a central entity, delivered. The complexity of how
highlighted a lack of clarity and with accompanying senior champion entrepreneurship is delivered and
awareness throughout, pointing to to support the coordination and the learning that is being conveyed

2 NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM BASELINE REPORT


ensures that there is no simple Recommendations at a glance
solution; there is no silver bullet to
Audit of entrepreneurship entrepreneurship thinking
solve this issue.
development into curriculum design outside
This study highlights examples of traditional business faculties and
good practice that can be factored 1. Using an established and agreed
departments.
into subsequent strategic decision upon EDHE framework, universities
making. The aim of the benchmarking should commission an internal 8. EDHE should use its position
exercise undertaken was not to rank audit of their entrepreneurship in USAf as the representative
systems, but to build a picture of development activities. This organisation of universities in South
entrepreneurship policy and delivery should include outline staffing Africa to establish partnerships
in addition to identifying priority and funding received. It should with foundations (Tony Elumelu
areas that the Department of Higher evaluate effectiveness in order to Foundation, MasterCard
Education and Training (DHET) and increase communication within Foundation) and delivery partners
USAf can support institutions in the silos and present areas for (LinkedIn Learning, Get Smarter) to
addressing. A framework for future collaboration between academic strengthen the entrepreneurship
activity is recommended, but it staff and support professionals activities within the universities.
must take context and capacity into within the institution. 9. Through the Communities of
account. This is of particular relevance Practice, EDHE should encourage
in the South African case, given Creating an enabling environment
institutions to assess and explore
historic and economic disparity; and for an entrepreneurial university
their entrepreneurial culture
the fact that the perception of value 2. EDHE, in collaboration with abilities through the use of
and the location of each institution the EDHE Communities of the HE Innovate tool
plays a very specific role in its Practice, should work with (https://heinnovate.eu/en).
capacity and function. universities to appoint a ‘senior
management’ level champion Teaching and learning provision
for entrepreneurship to
10. USAf should design a skills
consolidate responsibility for
audit to assess the institutional
entrepreneurship development
development needs for
within their portfolio.
developing and implementing
3. The role of the EDHE the entrepreneurship agenda.
Communities of Practice within This can be an additional pillar for
institutions should be bolstered performance management through
to provide an internal support key performance indicators and
structure, as well a direct line to productivity units.
the ‘senior management’ level
11.The British Council should consider
champion.
expanding its support towards the
4. Universities should work with EDHE Programme by partnering
EDHE to create clear and widely with DHET and USAf to design
distributed strategies that specify and implement activities that seek
their institutional objectives in to build the capacity of emerging
entrepreneurship development. student entrepreneurs at South
5. Institutions should aim to have a African universities, thus making
dedicated, well-resourced team a meaningful contribution in the
with strategic oversight for graduate outcomes space.
entrepreneurship development 12. USAf should seek funds designed
activities. This means an allocation to support institutions to allow
of funds, job descriptions, titles staff to engage in non-conflicting
and objectives that align with entrepreneurial pursuits.
the universities’ positions on
entrepreneurship development. Funding specifically for
6. EDHE policy should look to entrepreneurship development
work with universities to create 13. DHET should work with
opportunities for students to government funding agencies
engage in entrepreneurship on like SEDA, SEFA and the
campus. NYDA to set aside funding for
entrepreneurship development
Curriculum design tied to an institution’s ability to
7. EDHE should work with the Council meet key performance indicators
on Higher Education to create as set out in the EDHE framework.
pedagogically suited Training This should be based on a
of Trainers programmes (by scale of engagement to avoid
general subject area) to integrate disadvantaging smaller institutions.

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM BASELINE REPORT 3


Introduction
This research project was This baseline study provides insight youth unemployment which has
co‑commissioned and co-funded by into the enabling entrepreneurship been attributed to unpredictability,
Universities South Africa (USAf) and ecosystem within the South uncertainty and instability
the British Council. African public higher education surrounding the country’s economy.
The two partners share sector and the existing practices Self-initiated job creation is thus
mutual objectives to support and activities currently under seen as key to alleviating youth
Entrepreneurship Development in way. Using the recommendations unemployment and improving the
Higher Education (EDHE) in South gathered, it creates a framework economy.
Africa. EDHE was established at that allows for the development
With the global emphasis on
the end of 2016 from within the of a National Policy Framework on
entrepreneurship, entrepreneurs are
University Education Branch of the Entrepreneurship Development in
increasingly becoming role models
Department of Higher Education South African Higher Education.
in society, and entrepreneurship as a
and Training (DHET) and has been All 26 public universities in the career choice has risen in popularity.
funded through the University country have been included in the The term has become part of
Capacity Development Programme study, albeit, with various levels of everyday language and is often
since 2018. EDHE is a movement engagement. These institutions, associated with economic growth
aimed at driving and supporting all of which are to be considered and, in socio-economic terms, the
entrepreneurship development in unique and functioning in diverse well-being of societies (Achampong,
universities and has continued to institutional, geographic, socio- Harber, Falk and Lee-Wolf, 2017;
grow in output and impact year-on- economic and political contexts, Kew, Herrington, Litovsky and Gale,
year. Entrepreneurship in its different are working in a landscape that 2013).
forms is now increasingly recognised is complex and at times volatile.
as a priority area by the public Data presented in this report are If entrepreneurship contributes to
universities, and most universities aggregated so as not to unfairly economic growth and employment,
are making good progress in rank institutions based on their then more youth should be
supporting student entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship provisions. The encouraged and trained to become
increasing the audience exposed aim of the study was to understand entrepreneurs. The studies that
to entrepreneurship through what entrepreneurship activity underpin this belief indicate that
teaching, learning and research, was taking place, where it sat entrepreneurship is generally
while repositioning themselves as within an institution, who had considered a positive opportunity
entrepreneurial institutions. strategic responsibility for it, how for youth, rather than simply a
entrepreneurship development means of escaping unemployment.
As the driver of this collaborative
activity was delivered and what Entrepreneurship can help alleviate
partnership, EDHE sought a baseline
challenges were being faced by socio-economic challenges through
study to assess the level, scope
those within the institution who were the promotion of business formation
and scale of entrepreneurship
engaging with it, in order to provide and self-employment as a viable
development in the 26 public
USAf and EDHE with data to build career option. It helps youth build
universities in South Africa. Set
policy to support entrepreneurship interpersonal skills, and non-cognitive
against a national backdrop which
development. skills such as perseverance and it
sees entrepreneurship development
motivates and empowers youth in
as being paramount to the growth
and development of the nation and Why entrepreneurship? other life circumstances, including
coping with poverty and adapting to
its youth population, this work and The growth and development of
adversity.
the activities surrounding it, are entrepreneurship ecosystems around
underpinned by EDHE’s objective the world is a well-researched The implementation of entrepreneurship
of developing the entrepreneurial topic. The drive behind its timely programmes has been recommended
capacity of universities, students, and imperative narrative, especially in national plans and strategies, as
academics and support professionals. in South Africa, is the increase in depicted in Table 1.

4 NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM BASELINE REPORT


Table1: Summary of South Africa’s youth development policies (Yiannakaris, 2019)

The Department of Trade and


The National Development Plan
Policy Industry Youth Enterprise
2030 (NDP)
Development Strategy 2013–2023

2012 2013
Year

A strategy instrument intended to


The NDP is a detailed blueprint for how foster youth economic participation
South Africa can eliminate poverty and by deliberately enhancing youth
reduce inequality by the year 2030. entrepreneurship and accelerating the
It proposes that fertile conditions for growth of youth-owned and managed
Description entrepreneurship and career mobility enterprises. It aims to increase the number
will contribute significantly to uniting of self-employed youth from approximately
South Africa’s people and supports 6% to 20% by 2023, as well as increase
entrepreneurship as a youth development entrepreneurial culture, business managerial
strategy. capacities, technical skills and talents among
young people.

Introducing young people to a curriculum


on entrepreneurship at an earlier stage,
Introducing community-based programmes
particularly at the basic level of education.
Recommendations to offer young people life-skills and
A programme to raise awareness of
include entrepreneurship training.
entrepreneurship as the first option for
economic participation endeavours.

(National Planning Commission, 2012) (Department of Trade and Industry, 2013)


Source

Analysis and recommendations around current and future activity are best seen in light of the policy implications in
Table 1. There is a connection between driving forces, expectations and intended outcomes that should be given
attention and factored into future strategy discussions. While the data does not advocate a top-down approach that
controls all activity, there is certainly scope for a more cohesive and structured approach that would better support and
measure engagement and impact – with a further view to review and adaptation.

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM BASELINE REPORT 5


Literature Survey
Background Nature of entrepreneurship spirit, and culture; 27% associated
activity entrepreneurship education with new
In recent decades, scholars,
venture creation; and 24% associated
policy makers, and educators Existing literature suggests there is it with social contribution by helping
have shown increased interest great variation in entrepreneurship entrepreneurs to form and grow,
in the field of entrepreneurship. education programmes around the developing their capabilities and
Entrepreneurship is viewed as a world (Mwasalwiba 2010; Henry improving the tangible and practical
critical source of economic growth 2013; Fayolle and Gailly 2012; Maritz links between these capabilities and
in most countries, and its effects and Brown 2013), some of which social need.
are evident in terms of increased is naturally attributable to context.
innovation, competitiveness, wealth While most entrepreneurship Scholars generally agree there are
creation, productivity, job creation, programmes are offered by higher three types of entrepreneurship
and new-industry development education institutions (Maritz courses (Pittaway and Edwards
(Kuratko, Morris and Schindehutte and Brown 2013), various other 2012; Mwasalwiba 2010; Robinson,
2015; Kuratko 2005). Today, programmes are offered in training Neergaard, Tanggaard and Krueger
promoting entrepreneurship is a and development fields for non- 2016; Sirelkhatim and Gangi
key theme in government policies business and non-academic 2015). ‘About’ courses typically
and strategies around the world, audiences, and often for specific teach theories of entrepreneurship
aiming to stimulate economic groups such as women and and aim to increase awareness of
activity, increase employment immigrants. Mwasalwiba (2010) entrepreneurship and encourage
rates, and promote international argued that such variation was students to consider it as a career
competitiveness (Arshed, Carter mainly attributable to a lack of choice. ‘For’ courses aim to support
and Mason 2014; O’Connor 2013). consensus on key issues as well as students’ intentions to become
Along with policy makers’ efforts the conceptually fragmented state of entrepreneurs (Sirelkhatim and
to promote entrepreneurship, the field. Fayolle (2008) (as cited in Gangi 2015) by providing them
there has been significant growth Maritz and Brown, 2013), suggested with tools and skills (Mwasalwiba
in entrepreneurship education there was no common framework or 2010). Lastly, ‘through’ courses aim
programmes and courses in to help students acquire a range of
agreed-upon best practice regarding
universities (Fayolle and Gailly skills, competencies, and business
entrepreneurship education.
2012). This growth is fuelled by a understanding as they create new
belief that entrepreneurship, or Entrepreneurship education can help
ventures (Mwasalwiba 2010). While
at least some aspects of it, can realise a range of socio-economic
‘for’ and ‘through’ courses are
be learned via formal education goals. Therefore, its objectives
considered more effective than
and training (Valerio, Parton and are often expressed as broad
‘about’ courses, the latter is the
Robb 2014). economic, social, or pedagogical
most dominant in higher education
aims. Economic goals can include
Despite the worldwide proliferation institutions (Robinson et al. 2016).
creating new ventures and jobs;
of entrepreneurship education These classifications, based on course
social goals can include developing
programmes, there has been little objectives, affect the types of learning
an entrepreneurial ‘culture’; and
agreement on their objectives, outcomes educators seek (Pittaway
pedagogical goals can include
target audience, content, teaching and Edwards 2012). Here, a learning
educating potential entrepreneurs
methods, and assessment practices outcome is ‘a very specific statement
about entrepreneurship (Maritz
(Mwasalwiba 2010). This lack that describes exactly what a student
and Brown 2013). Reviewing
of consensus has been partially will be able to do in some measurable
50 entrepreneurship education
attributed to the multi-definitional way’ while an ‘objective’ is ‘a very
programmes, Hytti and O’Gorman
nature of entrepreneurship general statement about the larger
(2004) (as cited in Jones, Matlay,
(O’Connor 2013), which may give goals of the course or program’
and Maritz 2012) found that the
rise to differences in the quality (Hartel and Foegeding 2006).
majority of these programmes
and effectiveness of different
programmes. It has been suggested, were designed to help individuals
become entrepreneurs, followed
Nature of delivery
therefore, that the abovementioned
components need to be aligned. by programmes intended to help The literature on entrepreneurship
people understand entrepreneurs education generally emphasises
and become entrepreneurial in ‘learning by doing’ (Fayolle 2013)
their lives. In a similar review, over traditional teaching methods
Mwasalwiba (2010) estimated (Maritz and Brown 2013). While
that 34% of scholars believed that traditional approaches might be
entrepreneurship education aims to effective for presenting information
increase entrepreneurial attitudes, (Bennett 2006, as cited in Mwasalwiba

6 NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM BASELINE REPORT


2010), experiential methods more South African context entrepreneurial ecosystem was
closely mirror the unpredictable weighed down by red tape, low
South Africa is the economic
nature of entrepreneurship and transfer research and development,
powerhouse of Africa, accounting for
expose students to broader lack of entrepreneurship education at
approximately 21% of the continent’s
possibilities (Maritz and Brown 2013), schools and poor cultural and social
$2.19 trillion GDP. In spite of its
thus teaching them how to deal with norms towards entrepreneurship.
developed economic infrastructure,
real-world problems (Pittaway and In its 2019 survey of global social
South Africa continues to experience
Cope 2007). entrepreneurship, the Thompson
severe income inequality. According
Many studies have suggested that to the national data agency, Statistics Reuters Foundation contacted
a research gap persists regarding South Africa, in 2015, 55.5% of the academics, social entrepreneurs,
assessment in entrepreneurship population lived below the poverty investors and policy-makers in
development programmes (Fayolle line with limited prospects of finding the 44 countries with the largest
2013; Duval-Couetil 2013; Maritz and employment (Statistics South Africa economies in the world, to assess
Brown 2013). Duval-Couetil (2013) website). At 63, South Africa’s GINI the level of social entrepreneurship
differentiated between ‘summative’ coefficient (a World Bank measure in each country. Using six key
assessment (measuring what students of statistical dispersion, representing indicators (government support;
know at a given point in time) and the income or wealth distribution ability to attract skilled staff;
‘formative’ assessment (giving of a nation’s residents, and used to public understanding of social
real-time feedback on students’ measure inequality), is the highest in entrepreneurship; the ability to make
performance to help adjust teaching the world. a living through entrepreneurship;
and learning). Summative methods In addition, the country is plagued the ability to grow momentum
include quizzes, tests, projects, and by high unemployment due to the of social entrepreneurship; and
course evaluations, while formative misalignment of the skills required by access to investment), the report
methods include observation, the economy and those possessed highlighted how accepting
questioning, peer and self- by the populace. The government these countries are to social
assessment, and early or mid-course has committed to fostering entrepreneurship. Canada topped
evaluations. Duval-Couetil (2013) also entrepreneurship to advance its the list, followed by Australia,
differentiated between ‘direct’ (tests, economic development and, in France and Belgium, while South
assignments, activities) and ‘indirect’ particular, job creation priorities. Africa came in 34th, advancing three
(surveys, interviews, focus groups) This is in recognition of the fact that places from the 2016 survey. The
methods. investment in the development of country summary emphasised that
Pittaway and Edwards (2012) found small businesses has been among it had become easier for social
that business plans and business the key ingredients of success for entrepreneurs to access grants,
reports followed by presentations many successful economies (Omidyar attract staff with the required skills
(i.e. skill-based ‘for’ courses) were Network, 2013). and make a living from their work in
the most common assessment types South Africa has a low rate of the last three years. The strongest
in entrepreneurship development entrepreneurial activity when point, and most telling of all, was
programmes. They also found that compared to the average for that social entrepreneurship was
traditional methods (tests, exams, efficiency-driven economies. Just reportedly gaining momentum in
essays) were less prevalent than 9.2% of adults were involved in the country, which bodes well for
expected given the dominance starting up a business in 2015, the aims and objectives of EDHE
of ‘about’ courses. This might compared to the average of 15% in and entrepreneurship activities
point to potential alignment issues efficiency-driven economies, while within universities.
between a course’s objectives/ 3.4% of adults were involved in In addition to the policies
learning outcomes and assessment running existing firms, against an aimed at youth development,
practices. Methods such as reflective average of 8% for efficiency-driven the South African Government
assessment, peer assessment, economies (GEM Report a). established the Department of
and interviews were the least Things are not completely Small Business Development in
prevalent. Pittaway and Edwards bleak in the country. The Global 2014. This department focuses
(2012) observed that ‘about’ Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) on enhanced support for small
entrepreneurship courses were reported that a high percentage of businesses and cooperatives, with
more likely to use tests, exams, and adults viewed entrepreneurship in an emphasis on programmes to
case studies, while business plans, a positive light – with 73.8% seeing advance entrepreneurship amongst
business reports, and presentations it as a good career choice and women, the youth, and people with
were more likely to be used in ‘for’ 76.1% as high status. The survey disabilities, in order to contribute to
and ‘through’ courses. In addition, data also highlighted that over a job creation and economic growth.
reflective assessment practices were quarter of entrepreneurs expected The department houses two major
more likely to be used in ‘through’ to create six or more jobs over the funding and support bodies, namely
courses since they are considered next five years. However, when the Small Enterprise Development
essential for experiential learning GEM compared South Africa to Agency (SEDA) and the Small
(Pittaway and Cope 2007). other countries, it noted that the Enterprise Finance Agency (SEFA).

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM BASELINE REPORT 7


The Aspen Network of Development
Entrepreneurs (2019) mapped out
the entrepreneurial ecosystem in
South Africa illustrating a relatively
high number of direct funders
and capacity building agencies
in the country. Funders identified
include government agencies, fund
management firms, venture capitalist
and angel investors, as well as private
equity funds and crowd sourcing
organisations. Entrepreneurs also
have access to a plethora of training
and capacity building providers
from government and corporate
programmes through to ‘not for profit’
and ‘for profit’ trainers including
academia, foundations and formal
and informal networks. South Africa
experiences a common problem here,
however, namely that of access and
location. There is, perhaps, a natural
emphasis on activity within the urban
environment and this could be to
the disadvantage of the more rural
population. While there are clearly
initiatives in place to counterbalance
this reality, it must be acknowledged
that location and access play a key
role in uptake, and therefore in
impact. Indeed, this is a broader issue
and one that is raised in the Findings
section of this report on pages 32 to
38.

8 NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM BASELINE REPORT


Research Methodology
Approach activity takes place within the Surveys
national landscape, rather than at
With a view to supporting the The survey was created with the
an institution-specific level. The
development of a national policy help of the team at EDHE; the
data received, while valuable, was
framework, it was essential to British Council; Ms Charleen
inevitably incomplete and therefore
understand existing activity, Duncan (Director: UWC Centre for
a direct case-by-case based analysis
institutional capacity and appetite Entrepreneurship and Innovation,
would yield inconsistencies, driven by
for engagement, and was important University of the Western Cape);
data, rather than by actual practice.
to capture activity within institutions and Dr Poppet Pillay (Director,
and perception around the delivery of This research fully acknowledges the Centre for Social Entrepreneurship,
entrepreneurship development. diversity and unique nature of higher Durban University of Technology)
education in South Africa and has who serve as the Conveners of the
A mixed methods approach
adapted its approach accordingly. EDHE Community of Practice for
(quantitative and qualitative)
With an array of different types of Entrepreneurial Universities. The
assessed the scale and scope of
institutions, including research- survey was distributed to a list of over
entrepreneurship activities within the
public higher education institutions. intensive organisations, universities 700 people, compiled by Professor
This resulted in a map, on a of technology, as well as recently Susan Steinman in her initial research,
widespread scale, of types of activity, established universities, the South incorporating additional details from
levels of engagement and strategic African higher education landscape the EDHE database. Participants were
importance of entrepreneurship provides learning opportunities given the option of completing the
education at each university. The to cater for its diverse population. surveys electronically or on paper.
use of mixed methods allowed Entrepreneurship development
The survey email requests were
information to be analysed in multiple is diverse in its objectives and
staggered, starting in mid-July
ways. This approach allowed the methodology. This means that it
2019 with follow-up emails sent
ability to support the data collected could be very different in different
throughout August 2019 and into
through interviews, desktop research universities, because practical work
September 2019. The survey initially
and focus groups in order to generate methods may vary considerably
closed in early September 2019 with
a foundation for layered analysis and depending on the aims of the
136 respondents from all 26 public
critical recommendations. programme, course or support
universities. Low initial response
measures (Zaring, Gifford and
numbers meant there was a need for
Data collection McKelvey, 2019). Given each of the
a further push and extension of the
universities’ respective approaches,
The combination of the multiple data response deadline. Acknowledging
mandate and impact, often measured
points (quantitative and qualitative) both the nature of online data
by history, reputation and location
enabled triangulation of results collection and the decentralised
(institutions operate within their local
and depth of explanatory meaning. nature of the stakeholder base, data
context primarily, while being driven
Data collected was provided in a was cleaned to remove duplicate or
by an overarching sector agenda),
visual summary of key findings from defunct email addresses, reducing
this method was the most effective
across the country. The research the initial list from 700 to 547. The
way of looking at the data presented
team conducted a thorough analysis survey was then reopened, yielding
to meet the overall aims of the
of the varying data components an additional 64 responses before
baseline research project, which, in
and used this analysis to inform the finally closing at the start of October
turn, naturally ensures a diversity of
recommendations in this report. 2019. With a total of 200 completed
response and approach to issues and
responses out of a potential 547, this
The decision to use aggregated data agendas such as entrepreneurship.
reflects a 36% response rate, which
and report and analyse more broadly This report reflects this; it accounts
is within the expected boundaries of
was chosen over the case study for the varied approaches and
research of this nature.
approach in order to demonstrate encapsulates them within the series of
the extent to which entrepreneurship recommendations.

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM BASELINE REPORT 9


Table 2: Survey responses by institution

3 3 6 9

11 10 7 3

24 3 1 7

6 5 10 3

8 3 15 5

14 5 17

5 11 6

Number of Completed Responses by Institution

10 NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM BASELINE REPORT


Sample size and respondents 22 institutions being engaged in
Respondents were directed in one qualitative data collection. The focus
of two ways to the survey. Of the groups were invaluable in providing
total respondents, 99 identified as further and more in-depth detail to
academics (professor, lecturer, training accompany the survey data. The
delivery, dean) while 73 respondents qualitative data gathered highlighted
identified as support professionals issues that were shared across a
(administrator, manager, director). number of institutions and added
The remaining 28 respondents self- context to the survey responses, also
identified in various ways and were allowing participants to learn more
directed to respond to the questions about what was going on in their
set for support professionals. There regions and in some cases within their
were some respondents who (by own university environment.
virtue of their job titles) misidentified
their job type, which led them to Challenges of the approach
respond to the questions designed There are inherent challenges in
for support professionals. Some using a mixed methods approach.
respondents were both in academic One such issue was the presence of
and support professional roles. discrepancies in the interpretation of
the findings, which were often unclear.
Interviews and focus groups Responses by individuals within the
Initially, it was suggested that focus same institution varied within and
groups be held concurrently with between identified job types. This
the regional rounds of the National was highlighted in disparities between
Entrepreneurship Intervarsity what was reported externally by some
Competition. The first attempt at this institutions and what was reported in
at the Eastern Cape regional round the focus groups and interviews.
proved ineffective, as participants As the responsibility for
were often required elsewhere during entrepreneurship development in
the event, making it difficult to fully most universities is shared across
complete the focus group in the time a number of individuals (some of
allotted. The remaining questions whom deliver content and others
were asked by email, phone and who support entrepreneurship
interview. While only a small and development), there were
manageable number of people ambiguities, conflicts, discrepancies
attended each of the focus groups, and overlaps in the self-recorded
it was a highly effective method responses and qualitative data
of collecting qualitative data and gathered in focus groups, interviews
building the connections between and from desktop research. This
participants and their fundamental was highly indicative of (and heavily
understanding of key issues. Much of reflected in) the siloed model of
what was said in the group meetings entrepreneurship development within
corresponds with the responses seen these higher education institutions.
in the initial review of the survey data. This underlined two major findings,
The evaluation team conducted firstly a lack of coordination regarding
focus groups in the Eastern Cape (7 entrepreneurship development
participants), Pretoria (3 participants), within universities and secondly
Johannesburg (3 participants), that individuals delivering these
KwaZulu-Natal (5 participants) and programmes or activities were siloed
Western Cape (7 participants). These and not privy to the full picture within
focus groups represented 14 of the their institutions. There was, however,
26 institutions. Where focus groups one institution where this was not the
were not able to take place, phone case, owing perhaps to the fact that it
interviews were conducted with 10 is a new university and was still in the
participants, leading to a total of process of coordinating its offering.

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM BASELINE REPORT 11


Interpretation of Data
and Research Outcomes
As previously mentioned, data was The project team reviewed and
collected using both quantitative critically analysed the qualitative and
and qualitative approaches. The quantitative data against the initial
quantitative data was used to form project aims, with a view to providing
the baseline and foundation for a explanations for the development
mapping exercise which identified of recommendations. The purpose
activity, processes and the relevance of this research was not only to map
and implementation of strategies current levels of entrepreneurship
within the institutions. Where activity, but to ground these within
questions solicited a personal context, expectations and capacity. In
response, these were reported based this regard, the project was guided by
on self-selected job types, namely the following key questions and areas
academic staff (professor, dean, of interest:
lecturer, trainer/service provider) or
professional services (administrator
or manager) within the survey. This
data was presented in aggregate, Types of activity already in place
both to protect the anonymity of (what is taking place; where does it
the individual institutions, at their sit within the institutional structure?)
request in some cases, and to provide
sufficient data to develop patterns
and understanding. The raw data was
provided in the form of appendices The mechanisms/processes by which entrepreneurship
for full transparency and more is delivered at institutions (illustrating instances of good
detailed reference and was made practice and providing information around opportunities
available to the contracting entities. and challenges; role of stakeholders and their level of
engagement with higher education institutions)

The extent to which entrepreneurship activity features


in institutional strategic plans, policies and regulations
(thereby highlighting levels of commitment;
transparency; communication)

How entrepreneurship activity is coordinated


internally across institutions (indicating a locus of
control with potential implications for strategy)

Effectiveness of entrepreneurship activities (education


and training) delivery (understanding of measurement
tools in place to record and determine impact and
success; exploration of the challenges/barriers in place)

Institutional culture of support (how are students


encouraged to engage, what internal processes
are in place and are they student focused?)

12 NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM BASELINE REPORT


The data collection process was
therefore designed around these
areas of interest as they relate to
the aims and objectives of the
project. The initial part of the Of the 26 institutional websites reviewed:
survey method was to establish
an understanding of activity and
enable a mapping exercise relating
had entrepreneurship degree programmes
to context and output. This was 20% on offer
a necessary step and, while the
findings were extrapolated from
imperfect data, they were grounded 28% had courses on offer
in context, providing an insight into
understanding and awareness within
the institutions. Understanding and had explicit student activities (clubs, groups or
awareness represent a key barrier to 28% competitions) listed
implementation and are discussed in
more detail in the Findings section of
this report on pages 32 to 38.
The online survey was supplemented
had evidence of institutional or departmental
by qualitative collection methods,
discussed in more detail in the 56% activity (entrepreneurship activity within the
department)
sections below. In addition, a
review of institutional websites was
undertaken to better understand the
public profile of entrepreneurship had no evidence of activity (courses, curriculum,
12% student activities, clubs, etc.) on their websites
activity and the ease with which
information can be readily obtained.

As the report looks at the data Matters regarding sampling


in the aggregate, the coding and data (disclaimers)
processes included identifying
concepts embedded within the data, Throughout the course of this
organising discrete concepts into research, there were aspects of
categories, and linking them into data collection and reporting that
broad, explanatory themes (Strauss, required adaptation and response
1987). Content analysis allowed the from the project team. The proposed
researcher to identify patterns or methodology was internally consistent
themes that emerged from the data and appropriate for the case, but was
(Patton, 2002) which are reported nonetheless subject to the standard
here. Emerging categories served as constraints of data collection. As
the filtering lenses through which the mentioned previously, the initial
interview and focus group transcripts, data collection process and period
filed notes, and documents were yielded low response numbers,
examined. Over time, the number of requiring that the collection period be
coding categories was reduced by extended and the survey re-opened.
eliminating and merging categories The low response rate was partly
Understanding and and by clustering yet other categories to be expected given the common
awareness represent based on perceived connections. challenges of obtaining data from
This repetitive process eventually led online surveys from a recognition and
a key barrier to to the construction of qualitatively access perspective. There is always
implementation. distinct themes. reticence in engaging in research

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM BASELINE REPORT 13


projects of this nature and this was As the delivery of entrepreneurship development varied by institution, there
one of the issues the project team was no way to ensure that everyone at an institution was aware of the survey
worked to overcome. In regard to (although participants were asked to share with colleagues) or to estimate how
focus groups and interviews, every many potential responses there were which would denote a reasonable sample
institution was invited to participate, size which was statistically significant.
however, four of the twenty-six
Themes
institutions did not engage any further
than the survey itself, leaving some As a direct result of individual input, and driven by the data gathered, the
of the narratives incomplete. As a project team employed aggregate data reporting by institution for several of
direct result of this reality, which is not the key thematic areas, as outlined below. This allowed the research findings
unique to this work, the project team to be examined more broadly in order to avoid reducing the study to a ranking
designed a mixed-methods approach system of achievement.
that would provide the opportunity for The thematic design of data reporting connected directly to the stated aims of
more direct access and engagement the research project and focussed around understanding:
through phone interviews and face-
to-face focus groups. While these
research elements are naturally more
labour intensive and time consuming,
they can (and did) yield greater in-
depth understanding and uncover the
1
often hidden narrative of experience.
An added advantage of the face- Entrepreneurial activity
to-face approach was one of and delivery
increased understanding, both on
a. What is entrepreneurship and
the part of the interviewer and of the what is an entrepreneur?
interviewee. Through the process
of coding and analysing the survey b. Entrepreneurial activity
data, it became evident that the c. Delivery (Academic Staff and
responses were slightly convoluted Support Professionals)
and therefore confusing. Indeed,
d. Institutional goals
there were occasions where it was
apparent that the respondent was
not certain of their status as an
academic or support professional.
In exceptional cases, they could be
both. This made the reporting process 3 2
much harder and led to issues of
ambiguity, discrepancies and overlaps
in information received. The project Systems and Processes and
team noted a lack of complete data processes approach
due to decentralisation and the
a. Internal support and a. Policies and strategies
often personal nature of work that
processes b. Institutional approach
occurs in this space. Where there was
evidence of activity under way, it was and philosophy
often relatively isolated and lacked
central institutional coordination.
This has implications for awareness
and engagement, on the part of
both staff and students. This reality
provides an undercurrent to the data
collected and forms one of the key For the first two themes (Entrepreneurship activity and delivery, and Process and
recommendations provided. approach) the report and findings used predominately aggregated qualitative
The baseline for research of this and some quantitative data to highlight and map levels of activity.
nature is incomplete data and when
responses are obscure or unusable,
there is a further need for adaptation.
The project team was fully prepared
for this eventuality and tailored the
approach accordingly. Consequently,
additional time was spent on desktop
research.

14 NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM BASELINE REPORT


What is Entrepreneurship and
what is an Entrepreneur?
Defining entrepreneurship and the Graph 1: Word occurrence for ‘What is entrepreneurship?’ (Academic)
entrepreneur were key to gaining
a better understanding of how
respondents saw entrepreneurship business/es 63
within their context. Coding the
responses on key words and phrases opportunities/y 37
gave greater insight into how both
process 27
academics and support professionals
describe entrepreneurship, however, innovation/s/tive/tively 26
there were marginal differences in the
responses of the groups. with 25
Unsurprisingly, the single most used
entrepreneur/ially/ship 23
word that appeared most often in
describing both entrepreneurship create/ting/tion 20
and entrepreneurs was business(es).
In describing what an entrepreneur profit/s/able 18
is, both groups used terms such
as ‘person, someone/body and risk/s 16
individual’ more than any other word,
highlighting the emphasis on the economic/economy/ies 15
personal nature of endeavour. Both
groups of respondents used the word 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
‘process’ (a set of activities) more
often than the word ‘activity’ (a set
of procedures) in their description
Graph 2: Word occurrence for ‘What is entrepreneurship?’ (Professional Services)
of entrepreneurship. Other words
that rated highly in the academic
staff description of entrepreneurship businesses 76
were: ‘innovation/innovative’,
‘create/creating/creation’, ‘profit/ entrepreneur/ial/ship 40
profitable’, ‘risk’ and ‘economic’.
Support professionals used terms like create/d/ting/tion 36
‘create/created/creation/creating’,
‘profit’, ‘make/making’, ‘idea’ and process/es 36
‘develop/developing/development’,
profit/s 28
‘innovate/innovative/innovation’ and
‘opportunity/opportunities’ when for 27
defining entrepreneurship.
make/s/ing 24

idea/s 23

develop/ed/ing/ment 21

innovate/tive/tion 21

opportunities/y 21

identification/tified/tify/ing 18

risk/s 18

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

16 NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM BASELINE REPORT


When looking at the definition of Graph 3: Word occurrence for ‘What is an entrepreneur?’ (Academic)
an entrepreneur, academic staff
highlighted words such as ‘risk’, ‘take/
taker/taking’ (but only in one case businesses/es 58
are the terms ‘risk’ and ‘taker’ used
together), ‘opportunity/opportunities’, person 44
‘start/starting/starter’, ‘innovative/
entrepreneur/ial/s/ship 40
innovation/innovated’ and ‘create/
creating’. Support professionals also risk/s 38
frequently used the word ‘risk’ but
unlike their academic counterparts, take/taker/takes/taking 35
the term ‘risk taker’ was recorded
twice. In addition, they used the opportunities/y 29
words ‘opportunity/opportunities’,
‘create/creating’, ‘idea’, ‘make/ someone/somebody 26
making’ as well as ‘profit/profitable/
individual/s 25
profitability’.
start/starter/starting/starts 19

innovative/innovation/ted 18

create/ting 17

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Graph 4: Word occurrence for ‘What is an entrepreneur?’ (Professional Services)

business/es 66

individual/s 63

person/al 38

risk/s 34

entrepreneur/s/ship 33

somebody/someone 32

take/s/ing/taker 27

opportunities/y 24

create/s/ing 25

idea/s 23

has/have/having 22

make/s/ing 20

profit/s/ability/able 20

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM BASELINE REPORT 17


Entrepreneurship
Activity and Delivery
Entrepreneurship activity
Each of the 26 universities recorded Activity Areas
some level of entrepreneurship
activity within the survey, which was
assessed both qualitatively and 1 Full undergraduate degree programme (entrepreneurship)
quantitatively. While there was strong
progress in these entrepreneurship 2 Full postgraduate degree programme (entrepreneurship)
activities at many universities, the
development remained uneven, with 3 Course(s) within one or more undergraduate programmes
some universities constituting the
more ‘strategic’ actors (holding more 4 Course(s) within one or more postgraduate programmes
influence across the institution) in
the process, and others contributing 5 Short learning programmes
decidedly less (Zaring, Gifford and
McKelvey, 2019). 6 Business school; core curricular
The diverse nature of the public
institutions in South Africa means 7 Business school; elective
that entrepreneurship development
delivery varies from full degree 8 Short learning programmes - business school
programmes within disciplines,
short-courses delivered through 9 Business school with entrepreneurship focus
specialist units (such as centres for
entrepreneurship) and third-party 10 Community engagement programmes
delivery partners, to single modules
or student clubs and societies around 11 Entrepreneurship competitions
the theme of entrepreneurship. As the
surveys were done on an individual 12 Student Entrepreneurship week
basis, positive responses from the
same institution were collated to give 13 Entrepreneurship conferences
an overall picture of entrepreneurship
activity at each university. 14 Technological Transfer Unit
Largely, the responses were fairly
positive and reflect a level of interest 15 Commercialisation Unit
and commitment to the idea of
entrepreneurship delivery in higher 16 Centre for Entrepreneurship and Innovation
education. However, the study only
surveyed people who were already 17 Centre for Social Entrepreneurship
engaged with entrepreneurship, so
overall adoption of an understanding 18 Defunct (closed) centres for entrepreneurship
of entrepreneurship development
across the institutions cannot be 19 Enactus society
derived from this study.
20 Science Park

21 Maker spaces/ Creative labs

22 Specialised equipment/labs

23 Business incubator

Other (please elaborate):

18 NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM BASELINE REPORT


Eight universities recorded activity in in the classroom, but 92% of because while business schools
20 or more of the 23 activity areas, them recorded that they had provide both a firm identity and
13 recorded activity in 10 to 19 areas, some level of entrepreneurship structure for delivery, this also creates
while five recorded activity in fewer within their community through the perception that entrepreneurship
than 10 areas. Those who recorded externally facing engagement is the domain of the business schools
low levels of overall activity were programmes such as maker spaces, and faculties, and therefore does
predominately recently established entrepreneurship centres and not fit into the wider university
institutions. business incubators. Respondents community. Twenty-one of the 26
Overall, universities showed that highlighted that extracurricular institutions indicated that they
they placed a higher emphasis student entrepreneurship had business schools or faculties
on entrepreneurship as a degree activities ranked highly across that delivered entrepreneurship
at the postgraduate level than at the universities, with 96% of activities and 65% of them offered
the undergraduate level, but that institutions recording participation short courses, delivered through
they did provide entrepreneurship in engagement initiatives such as the business school/faculty.
in an integrated way at the Student Entrepreneurship Week (an Entrepreneurship activities were
undergraduate level. Even where a full EDHE initiative), entrepreneurship offered as part of their core business
entrepreneurship degree programme competitions (96%), conferences curriculum by 69% of universities,
was not in place, there were multiple (84%) and ENACTUS societies (88%). with 65% offering it as an elective.
options for delivery and access The role of centres in The same 65% claimed that the
within existing modules, providing entrepreneurship development main focus of their business school/
options for students. The presence is mixed. In terms of dedicated faculty focus was entrepreneurship.
of entrepreneurship courses at both entrepreneurship centres, 18 One institution recorded an outlier
undergraduate and postgraduate institutions stated that they had response stating that its business
level shows that progression and a centre for entrepreneurship school/faculty provided no core
sustained engagement with the and innovation, while only nine curricular, elective or short learning
subject matter is possible within reported having a centre for social course in entrepreneurship, but
institutions. entrepreneurship; eight institutions did have an entrepreneurship
reported they had both. Seven focus; however, they did not have
Most recorded activity happened
institutions did not report having a business school (only a faculty
within universities at the
undergraduate level where an either type of centre. Those that of management science with no
overwhelming 24 out of the reported not having a centre were business course provision and no
26 institutions (92%) surveyed not limited to newly established entrepreneurship programmes).
responded that they had one or universities (as one would assume) In terms of practical activities, 23
more courses in entrepreneurship but also included some of the institutions reported that they
as part of any undergraduate more established universities and had technology transfer offices
degree programme. In contrast, universities of technology. Further (responsible for the applied
only 19 out of the 26 (73%) to this, the data shows that two translation of university research and
reported that they had one or more universities had closed their centres the increased impact of university
courses in entrepreneurship as for entrepreneurship and in both research), whereas only 15 had
part of any postgraduate degree cases had replaced them in some commercialisation units (moving
programme. A glance at the shape or form. One institution that research and ideas to commercially
data on full degree programmes closed its centre for entrepreneurship viable products and services) to
in entrepreneurship shows that was currently assessing the role of a move their student entrepreneurs
only 61% of institutions had a full new centre and what it would offer to the next level of development.
undergraduate degree programme students and the community that was Although such units exist, in many
in entrepreneurship, while 73% had a different from its previously failed cases the scale of these so-called
full postgraduate degree programme offering. The debate on the role of facilities is very small and often
in entrepreneurship. Six institutions these centres of entrepreneurship negligible, comprising very basic
offered a full postgraduate degree development within higher education support in a space with a few pieces
programme without the option is examined in more depth later in of equipment and some brightly
of a full undergraduate degree this report. coloured décor. Even fewer were the
programme and three institutions Unsurprisingly, the responses number of institutions which reported
offered an undergraduate degree around the questions relating to the provision of hands-on technology
programme in entrepreneurship, business school/faculty activity for entrepreneurship, such as science
but no full postgraduate degrees highlight that business schools parks (23%), maker spaces and
in the subject area. Of these three represent a natural theoretical creative labs (50%) and specialised
universities, all but one offered ‘home’ for entrepreneurship activity equipment (42%). Nevertheless,
courses in entrepreneurship within on campuses due to their general 61% of institutions reported having
postgraduate programmes. business undertones. This has both a business incubator to provide
Not only are universities engaging positive and negative connotations practical, hands-on support to
their students in entrepreneurship (explored in more detail in this report) student entrepreneurs.

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM BASELINE REPORT 19


Delivery In terms of delivery, of the 61 academic staff who responded to the question
on the number of courses taught, it was reported that on average, the majority
The method of delivery of
taught only one course relating to entrepreneurship per semester (49% of
entrepreneurship activity differed
respondents), while 32% of academic staff taught two entrepreneurship courses
greatly between those who
per semester. Less than 3% of staff taught more than three entrepreneurship-
identified as academics and
related courses per semester.
those who identified as support
professionals. The focus of Newer institutions looking for a starting point into entrepreneurship education
academic staff (unsurprisingly) was made use of international third-party programmes such as ENACTUS or Student
on entrepreneurship education. Training for Entrepreneurial Promotion (STEP) – entrepreneurship training for
Entrepreneurship education, it youths and young adults – to design their entrepreneurship offerings. In the
can be argued, differs from the case of one institution, staff members were in the process of using the learning
wider umbrella of entrepreneurship and tenets of the STEP programme as a basis for their entrepreneurship
development, since it focuses on education offering. In institutions with a longer and more varied history of
developing an entrepreneurial mind- entrepreneurship development programmes, staff are able to engage with
set and understanding the tenets of senior management (deputy vice-chancellors, heads of department) to set
entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship the wider curriculum. In addition to this, larger institutions with more activities
education has broader outcomes are able to use their centres for entrepreneurship to provide support in the
than simply producing entrepreneurs design and delivery. In rare cases, there are entire departments dedicated to
with business plans. Support entrepreneurship:
professionals (the majority of
whom work within centres for
entrepreneurship, career and student
services, incubators and technology
transfer offices) are working to The design and development of the
develop and support self-identified entrepreneurship education curriculum
entrepreneurs beyond the basic is informed by annual evaluations and
understanding of the field and into discussions with our advisory board which consists
the next level of entrepreneurship. of other academic experts, entrepreneurs, government
Unfortunately, much of their work is
focussed on the community and not
organisations as well as students.
on the students. (Academic – Survey)

Academic Staff
Unsurprisingly, the entrepreneurship
education curriculum is designed
and delivered in large part by As indicated through the qualitative enterprises for sustainability and
individual academic staff within survey data from academics, they growth; and
their subject areas, with the large were predominately delivering • AppFactory – application
majority being from areas such as entrepreneurship modules within development of student projects.
the business department or faculty of undergraduate courses, engaging
with third-party providers such Examples of skills-based training
management sciences. The delivery included:
of entrepreneurship activities in as ENACTUS and the Wadhwani
universities by academic staff is largely Foundation Entrepreneur Programme, • Infusion of 4IR into curricula;
personal. While the narrative around providing practical teaching,
• Community engagement and
the importance of entrepreneurship convening Student Entrepreneur
training for development;
is a motivating factor, academic staff Week programmes and providing
skills-based training in their • Information on business
reported overall that the primary
classrooms. environment (planning, organising,
driver for delivering entrepreneurship
leading and controlling, and
education was personal interest (39%). Practical teaching examples reported
business functions such as
This was followed closely by 25% of included:
production, form of ownership,
respondents who were motivated by • Applying real world scenarios to operation, human resource
internal, institutionally led demands problem solving; management, marketing and
within the university, with only 22%
• Technopreneurship; financing), generation of business
of respondents reporting that the
ideas and screening of those ideas
motivation for delivery was due • Assisting with development of by testing their feasibility, viability
to external demand (government novel ideas (design and delivery); and marketability; and
policies and directives). Very few
• Corporate entrepreneurship; • Design thinking and participation
academics (15%) saw their motivation
for involvement in entrepreneurship • Entrepreneurial Value-Chain module in which students offer
development as being derived from Programme: assisting, mentoring support and design to existing
response to student feedback. and incubating small and medium entrepreneurs in the creative sector.

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM BASELINE REPORT 21


When asked how they are were They noted that ‘the curriculum must keep abreast with latest research, but must
providing this training to students, also focus on practical initiatives to skill students’. Respondents echoed that ‘the
academics reported the main methods curriculum is not keeping pace with what is required of future entrepreneurs.
of delivery were case studies, lectures, Design thinking, business model innovation, emotional intelligence, project
textbook learning, assignments and management, analytical skills (e.g. data analytics and artificial intelligence),
workshops, while blended and practical cognitive ability, networking ability’ are all required to support the
learning were some of the least used entrepreneurship development process.
methods of delivery. These were
incongruent with what academics said
were more highly effective teaching
methods to deliver better quality
entrepreneurship education. Providing Entrepreneurship is a dynamic process and
interactive approaches, mixing theory the field is within an applied scientific arena.
with practicality, mentorship, online Technology, for instance, asks for more advanced
learning and allowing students to
get into the real-life experience of
content and support (in curricula); also extreme pressure
entrepreneurship and innovation by on scholars to stay up to date to enable themselves to
encouraging them to start their own continuously understand the ever-changing business model.
businesses or become involved in
(Head of the Department of Business Management – Survey response)
working with another entrepreneur,
were key findings, in addition to the
use of incubators and hubs to support
their development.
When questioned about any specific For some academics, it was not only about reforming how entrepreneurship is
areas of improvement to curriculum taught, but also looking at what is taught in regard to the individual. What was
delivery, many academic staff paramount for them was ‘an inclusion of an entrepreneurial mind-set in courses
respondents expressed the need within the curriculum’. Staff also indicated that the ‘curriculum should put more
for the curriculum to be better fit emphasis on effectuation and self-understanding’ and ‘should put emphasis on
for purpose by providing practical ethical leadership’ in addition to entrepreneurial skills.
or experiential entrepreneurship
Further insights on how the curriculum included the need for incubation, suggested
education through the integration
the missing link to community outreach because current programmes are purely
of entrepreneurship into a cross
and mainly academic in nature; the need for more resources to create entities such
disciplinary curriculum at every
as ‘innovation labs, mini-incubators, 3D printers, app developers; as well as the
university, as well as bridging the gap
need to make universities more flexible as ‘today’s textbooks are already outdated.
between theory and practice, stating
Lecturers need to update students with the latest information and developments’.
that ‘entrepreneurship should not
Respondents also saw the need to expand engagement of stakeholders to provide
just become a stand-alone module/
‘continuous improvement aligned with industry demands and bring theory closer
course, but should be inculcated in all
to practice’. Not only do students need more innovative solutions to support their
modules in the institution’. Another
development as entrepreneurs, they also need to be given the opportunity ‘to work
academic stated that the ‘curriculum
in multi-disciplinary and trans-disciplinary contexts with science, law and commerce
should focus less on teaching
students working together’ to widen their exposure.
entrepreneurship and more on doing
entrepreneurship. Also, the curriculum However, there was one response that went against the dominant thinking of
should be university-wide and not just bringing entrepreneurship into the wider curriculum:
faculty-wide’ and provide practical
application; ‘from idea generation
to implementation, problem solving,
it must also allow for a mentoring
process’. Most importantly, the The curriculum is not something into
curriculum ‘needs to focus on tangible which endless topics/drivers can be inserted
things that students can do. Theory without it losing its structure (following Bernstein,
has been taught for many years,
2000). There is a real danger of that. The call (see for
without yielding positive results’.
example, Wheelahan, 2010) is to ‘bring knowledge back
Linking research outputs to create
in’ as it is this that will equip graduates for a future world.
practical opportunities, as well as
the use of technology, were also Constantly inserting skills and topics into a curriculum risks
highlighted by participants during this not being done.
the focus groups as a way to link
(Emeritus Professor – Survey response)
the goals and drivers of universities
to entrepreneurship development.

22 NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM BASELINE REPORT


There is clearly scope here for a more formal response to the inclusion and short learning programmes, ‘training
development of entrepreneurship in higher education. What is evident is the interested students across faculties,
recognition, on the part of the practitioners, of the need for reform and support. on business proposal writing to
This report has highlighted evidence of good practice and key areas for further provide them with skills to develop
development and review. What has become increasingly apparent over the their own businesses’. Support staff
course of this research is that there is no single or quick fix to the issue at hand, also work within their context to
and to attempt one is problematic in the extreme. provide spaces for entrepreneurs to
identify opportunities and let them
Support professionals pitch these proposals for a small
When asked who drives the process of design and delivery of entrepreneurship amount of start-up capital in addition
development within their institutions, support professionals acknowledged the to exposing them to mentorship by
fragmented nature of the responsibility. Many were quick to make the distinction experienced business mentors.
between the design and delivery of the general curriculum (which they reported Some incubation centres facilitate
was driven by academic staff; mostly in business and commerce) and wider training sessions and workshops, and
activity not confined to the classroom, with drivers such as senior administration pre-incubation learning programmes
in conjunction with dedicated centres for entrepreneurship, technology transfer for students with interest in innovation
offices, student and career services and incubators. and entrepreneurship. Once students
and staff participate in challenges, they
are channelled into taking part in this
entrepreneurial education pipeline.
Alongside this, there are a number
The Division Research Innovation and of specialised programmes delivered
Engagement drives Entrepreneurship and through the centres and units,
established a specialised unit which links activities including accelerated entrepreneurship
to the TTO office plus academic departments. Each programmes, management of the
EDHE-driven entrepreneurship
faculty has a dedicated Deputy Dean assigned to enhance intervarsity competitions, women’s
entrepreneurship exposure plus academic staff to train as empowerment programmes, as
Innovation Champions from all faculties. well as internal entrepreneurship
competitions. There are development
(Incubator Manager – Survey response).
support hubs where students, staff
and the public (with the assistance of
experts and lecturers) can develop
their innovative ideas, projects and
While the issue of silos was still apparent, a solid number of support products into products that can be
professionals identified academic colleagues whom they named as responsible commercialised. Often these form
for the design and delivery of entrepreneurship development within their the pipeline to technology transfer,
institutions. Participants also acknowledged that there was a problem with incubators or commercialisation
design and delivery of entrepreneurship development being done in an ad hoc offices that move the entrepreneur
way, but increasingly, institutions are looking into plans to bring together all from ideation to prototyping, then
the different entrepreneurship programmes under one umbrella body. Three through business development to
institutions indicated that they had brought in outside consultants to evaluate spin-out. Here support professionals
how they were delivering entrepreneurship development and how they could act as business advisors, mentors and
best remove the silos that currently exist. specialists who assist entrepreneurs
to access markets; provide business
Involvement of support professionals in entrepreneurship development within networking opportunities; and direct
higher education provides an opportunity for them to interact with students entrepreneurs to funds that might
in a curricular and co-curricular space. In addition to working within their own support their endeavours.
spaces, they work with academia to design and develop short courses which
are offered through various departments within an institution. This not only Many support professionals work
supports the aims of the institution by providing avenues for relevant learning within centres for entrepreneurship,
opportunities for participants, but also allows practitioners the chance to gain incubators and technology transfer
additional skills to support entrepreneurship delivery in their classrooms. offices, as well as career and
student services. This gives support
Support professionals’ work is not limited to engagement with the students within professionals the ability to engage
their institutions. As many of their entrepreneurship activities include work geared with entrepreneurs in a way that
towards the community through centres for entrepreneurship, commercialisation goes beyond teaching the basics of
units or technology transfer offices, most of their involvement goes beyond entrepreneurship and supporting
teaching about entrepreneurship to teaching for entrepreneurship. their development, and brings them
A large majority of support professionals work within a physical space that from ideation to delivery. In addition
serves as a development hub on the main campus. Their engagement comes to this, professionals within these
through the promotion of entrepreneurship by assisting departments to develop support mechanisms are not limited in

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM BASELINE REPORT 23


who they are able to engage with, since much of their work is externally facing,
allowing engagement from within the wider community. The flexibility of being
a part but separate from the institutions, allows for a move away from the basics
of entrepreneurship education towards the ability to provide hands-on support
to self-identified entrepreneurs who are looking to take the next step in their
development to becoming an entrepreneur.

We have an integrated business


development model for student entrepreneurs
and general entrepreneurs, which includes
entrepreneurship training, structured mentorship, access
to finance, commercialisation of IP, and access to markets.
(Acting Director: Centre for Entrepreneurship – Survey response)

These functional units provide 23 universities reported this as a goal


a number of programmes such for entrepreneurship development
as the coordination of the EDHE at their institutions. Ninety-eight
Entrepreneurship Intervarsity percent of universities reported
Competition, women empowerment both the importance of delivering
programmes, internal competitions entrepreneurship teaching through the
and accelerated entrepreneurship use of principles and characteristics
programmes. Entrepreneurship to grow the entrepreneurial mind-set,
development delivered by as well as providing skills, knowledge
professional support staff leans and tools to entrepreneurs to start and
towards supporting entrepreneurs grow their business. Two interesting
through coaching, mentoring, elements came to light as a result of
short learning programmes and this question. Firstly, all respondents
skills development workshops to from one newly established university
encourage and support them in were in absolute agreement that the
bringing their ideas to fruition. They goal of entrepreneurship development
too, like their academic counterparts, at their institution was about delivering
work with third party-providers such the principles and characteristics of
as the Wadhwani Foundation, the entrepreneurship to develop student
STEP Programme and the ENACTUS mind-sets (risk-taker, problem seeker,
Society on their campuses to problem solver, and innovator, amongst
enhance the student experience of other things). However, they stated
entrepreneurship development. (during a focus group) that they did not
currently have any formal structures
Institutional goals in place around entrepreneurship
Using Pittaway and Edwards 2012; delivery. Secondly, another newly
Mwasalwiba 2010; Robinson et al. established institution reported that
2016; Sirelkhatim and Gangi’s 2015 its goal was not to provide a baseline
definition of entrepreneurship understanding or even to develop the
education, the survey asked entrepreneurial mind-set, but went
participants what, as they saw it, was/ straight to actively supporting the
98% of universities were the goal(s) of entrepreneurship development of entrepreneurs and
reported both the development at their institution. spin-out of businesses. In this regard,
The basic and most primary goal it only provided two activities to its
importance of delivering of institutional entrepreneurship students (ENACTUS and a course
entrepreneurship teaching development is educating students within an undergraduate programme)
as well as providing skills, on the theory of entrepreneurship, and no additional support activities
delivering modules that provide a such as incubators, technology transfer
knowledge and tools to basic knowledge and understanding offices or commercialisation to make
entrepreneurs. of entrepreneurship. However, only this possible.

24 NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM BASELINE REPORT


Processes and Approaches
Well-defined and well-crafted that there were university‑wide Of the 20 strategic documents
policies and strategies around policies on entrepreneurship, retrieved, 16 made reference to
entrepreneurship demonstrate an while 53% stated that there were the word ‘entrepreneurship’ or
institution’s commitment towards department-wide policies governing ‘entrepreneurial’, one was more of a
entrepreneurial endeavours and also entrepreneurship. Only 9% identified report than a strategy, one referred
provide guidance for those engaging faculty-wide policies regarding solely to commercialisation rather
with entrepreneurship within those entrepreneurship. than entrepreneurship (others did
institutions. Respondents from all 26 In contrast, 73% of institutional mention commercialisation, but also
institutions reported some knowledge respondents recorded that there entrepreneurship itself) and only one
of entrepreneurship policies and were no definite policies or made a deliberate and dedicated
strategies within their institutions. strategies on entrepreneurship at statement outlining the university’s
their universities, while 62% said commitment to innovation and
entrepreneurship.
Policies and strategies they did not know if their institutions
had either a policy or strategic During each focus group, the
More respondents reported that
document on entrepreneurship. participants were asked the question
their institutions had strategies rather ‘What entrepreneurship strategies and
One respondent did acknowledge
than policies on entrepreneurship; that entrepreneurship, while not policies does your institution have?’
69% reported that their institutions specifically included in the teaching to support the same survey question
had university-wide strategic and learning policy or the institutional asked, and tying that into the
documents; and 80% reported development plan, was dealt with question ‘Where does the strategic
that their universities had strategic predominately by individuals. responsibility for entrepreneurship
documents which were department- development sit within your
The actual number of policies
wide. Sixty-two percent reported that institution?’
and strategies received from the
their institutions had a faculty-wide
institutions does not match the Participants surveyed stated that there
strategic document.
number reported in the survey. Of the was an overall lack of awareness of any
Reporting on entrepreneurship 26 institutions, only one came forth strategic documentation/policies at
policies within their institutions, 46% with policy documents specifically institutional level, but many recognised
of institutional respondents reported aimed at student entrepreneurship. this as an important matter. In many
institutions there is no official strategy
or none identified within the institution.
Others have more policies than
strategies and these govern things like
The objective of the Student third stream income, commercialisation
Entrepreneurship Policy is to boost job and intellectual property. The siloed
creation and economic prosperity in South nature of the work extends to the policy
sphere where a technology transfer
Africa through the development of entrepreneurial
manager stated in a focus group that
skills and the promotion of commercially viable start- ‘we have so many policies that it is
ups and social enterprises at the institution. The Policy daunting, but the policies don’t fit
is intended to facilitate the creation of an enabling and together well’. In another case, it was
practical environment whereby students present business stated in a focus group that they ‘want
to introduce a campus-wide policy/
proposals, receive structured mentorship, establish start-
approach where entrepreneurship is
up companies and learn and apply basic entrepreneurial in all modules across all faculties, but
skills to facilitate enterprise development across all at the moment, what is there now is
disciplines, including humanities, law and management, mostly linked to the business faculty’.
the sciences and engineering-related enterprises. Where institutions have centres
(Institutional Student – Entrepreneurship Policy) for entrepreneurship or strong
departmental or faculty-led
entrepreneurship development
activities, they create their own plans,
policies and strategies to guide
their work, but this does not apply
or translate at an organisational or
institutional level.

26 NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM BASELINE REPORT


We don’t have any really fixed policies
on the higher level; on the faculty and
department level. If you think about policies,
the Centres and the TTO will have their own way of
working.
(Support professional – Focus group)

In many cases, participants reported that policies exist, but stated that:
• They are not enforced but we do support them, but we don’t understand them;
• There are so many that it is daunting, have lots of written things on it, but
not cohesive;
• Policies happen organically and work for the area of work (department,
centre, etc.);
• There are no explicit policies or strategies, but in one of the goals of the
university as third stream income, it is implied in that but not clear, for faculty
to be entrepreneurial but nothing regarding students; and
• Not entirely aware of this or what the policies are but understand that there
is a policy in place but don’t have too much detail on it.

Institutional approach and philosophy


Focus group participants were asked how they, or their organisations, defined
success in entrepreneurship development delivery to see if their goals were in
line with what they were delivering; and the extent to which monitoring and
evaluation existed around entrepreneurship development. As expected, the
responses where split between support professionals and academic staff as to
how they saw this element within entrepreneurship development.
Academic staff reported that the most common success indicators for
entrepreneurship development were not linked to any indicator other than how
many of their students completed their degree. The difficulty here is that not
only do the indicators in place not accurately measure what they should, but
there is no unified definition of what entrepreneurship development success
actually is. Assessing the learning outcomes of modules and programmes for
success in entrepreneurship activity delivery is harder to do, as many academics
see the creation of an entrepreneurial mind-set as an achievement which
is tangibly difficult to measure because no baseline studies are conducted
with students before they engage in any interventions. Additionally, it would
be too difficult to fully attribute impact to the intervention of any one single
entrepreneurial activity unless it was stated explicitly by the entrepreneur.

If a student arrives at a university


entrepreneurial by nature and if that same
student leaves the university entrepreneurial by
nature, then in terms of training and development, the
university has done nothing for that student? We can only
take credit for students that arrive non-entrepreneurial
and leave entrepreneurial; but I don’t think universities are
doing that.
(Academic – Focus group)

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM BASELINE REPORT 27


The issue of monitoring and evaluation of entrepreneurship from the
perspective of a support professional ‘is not so much about the number of jobs/
companies that have been created; it is more about how did we encourage a
culture of entrepreneurship and allow students the ability to fail in a safe space
and build and develop them accordingly. We (as centre managers) are driven by
the question “did we manage to convince students who had never engaged in
this that it is a viable option?”’
The incongruence around success indicators also comes from the polarising
nature of measuring output in research versus practical learning. This dichotomy
is illustrated when an institution is looking at results of how many people have
started businesses, but also bases success on the number of research papers
published. This highlights the push and pull between academia and the practical
nature of entrepreneurship as ‘academics measure their worth on publications’.

What universities don’t understand is that


it is a long game situation when monitoring
and evaluating entrepreneurship development.
Our role (as academics) is to change the mind-set,
the fact that they started should be seen as a one of the
KPIs for measuring success before we start looking at
profitability and how many people are employed.
(Academic – Focus group)

This disconnect is highly visible when looking at how support professionals


denote the success indicators and monitoring and evaluation for entrepreneurship
development within their institutions. Where support professionals are
responsible for work within centres, incubators or technology transfer offices,
there are clear monitoring and evaluation frameworks which mostly consist of the
number of patents and spin-out companies as well as growth and profitability.

For universities, it is how much money they


(centres, entrepreneurs, sponsors) bring to the
institution, there isn’t any other measure. But now
they are gravitating at commercialisation and IP that is
developed by students through research. [I] don’t know if
this would be seen as the university’s success or a measure
of success for entrepreneurship, because commercialisation
is a component in the entrepreneurship development –
whether the institution is looking at the money they are
going to get or looking at the entrepreneur being drawn
into it and develop the business – the definition is not clear.
(Centre Manager – Focus group)

Success in this context centres on value for money as these units are seen as
cost centres rather than contributors because they do not attract research grants
which typically support academic provision. Whereas academics can translate
publications and knowledge into funds, support professionals (depending
on the structure of their units) might not see returns on investment with
entrepreneurs for a number of years.

28 NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM BASELINE REPORT


Systems and Processes
Internal support and which encourages and supports entrepreneurship activities, lack of
processes entrepreneurship’. Responsibility trained staff (with entrepreneurship
in this instance is shared with the experience), lack of funding and most
Respondents were asked where the student affairs department which importantly, a lack of understanding
locus of control regarding strategic ‘supports those students who work in of the value of entrepreneurship to
responsibility for entrepreneurship traditional businesses. Even though the curriculum.
development sat within their this is currently in its infancy, there is
organisation. The majority of the As noted previously, the responsibility
commitment from the university to
responses (31%) indicated that for design and delivery falls
enable the support provided under this
strategic responsibility rested with predominantly to academic staff
programme and to grow it over time’.
senior administration (deputy vice- members, and in both small and large
Other respondents indicated that institutions this is often reported to be
chancellors), followed closely by
their institutions provided effective one person or one small unit within
departmental heads (27%) and
support for entrepreneurship the institution. As one academic
vice-chancellors and faculty members
development through things like staff member stated, ‘individuals are
at 18% and 19% respectively.
the establishment of centres which constantly working to make things
The remaining 5% of responses
channel all entrepreneurial activities go’ and as it comes from more of a
were either unsure of where the
together to provide external capacity personal angle, institutions are not
responsibility lay or found there was
for training and development in as supportive, meaning knowledge
no clear articulation around whose
addition to providing internal capacity exchanges occur outside of the
responsibility it was.
development through international institution as they are not given
Support professionals indicated and government funds. In one case, adequate training or development.
their internal processes as respondents saw their centre ‘as A support professional participant
quite favourable in supporting places to bridge the gap between remarked that while they feel there
entrepreneurship development, business and education’. is support, it is ‘not being done well
but this was not reflected further Academic staff also felt supported in enough or consistently’ a sentiment
in the survey comments. While how they delivered entrepreneurship that was echoed by another who
responsibility reportedly resided development, stating that they ‘have stated ‘there is a kind of support; the
with senior management, the level a lot of freedom on how they deliver idea of entrepreneurship is supported,
of support varied from very good and, with the new curriculum, it will but that is where it stops, everything
to very little. Respondents from be more practical’. Other practitioners else we create ourselves’. Staff also
one institution reported that within agreed that their institutions offered recognised that ‘internal processes
their institution there are ‘innovation lots of support and buy-in by top are not supportive of entrepreneurial
champions in every faculty, and management as they understand this activities because there is a lot of
curriculum development incorporates to be a priority because of where bureaucracy and this causes delays in
entrepreneurship’. Participants they are based in the country. They achieving targets for entrepreneurship
from that same institution echoed see it as part of their responsibility delivery and development’. Another
that sentiment, saying that ‘the to their learners because ‘when participant added that ‘although
institutional vision strongly supports students finish, they don’t get jobs, there is institutional support, the
innovation and entrepreneurship by so entrepreneurship is seen as an internal policies are too rigid for
focusing on producing quality social avenue for them to create jobs’. One entrepreneurship’. The director
and technological innovations on interviewee praised their institution of a technology transfer and
socio-economic development. The for the support given to practitioners commercialisation unit stated that
university has policies, such as the IP to develop their skills both locally and there ‘is still a lot of red tape and
strategy, which clearly advocate the internationally through conference tendency towards over-centralisation.
generation of third-stream income, attendance. They felt that their There is a tendency to focus on the
also as part of staff key performance institution’s senior management structure and not on the strategy,
areas’. This approach clearly helps to ‘embedded entrepreneurship activity and on creating structure and not
inculcate entrepreneurial thinking into in their daily work and modules’ with programmes and processes. The
the mainstream. a high level of engagement. process itself does not allow for
Another respondent acknowledged, the creativity as it tends toward a
Other respondents were equally vocal
‘although there is room from Jacobean approach, which is certainly
about what they felt was a lack of
improvement, the university has an not viable for a large institution’.
support in regard to the delivery of
established Innovation Office for entrepreneurship development within One support professional
invention-based entrepreneurial their institutions. Key amongst these respondent added that in their
ventures and also has an established was the over-reliance on a single institution, ‘there is no strategic
technology business incubator person to deliver and coordinate objective around entrepreneurial

30 NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM BASELINE REPORT


development/‌activities. There is no unit or division assigned to bolster student
entrepreneurship like in other institutions. Academics are not encouraged to be
entrepreneurial and the institution doesn’t have an entrepreneurial mind-set or
resolve to become one’.
The lack of coherence on what entrepreneurship is and how it fits into wider
academia was also an issue for respondents. This matter was echoed in a focus
group session where a participant stated, to much agreement:

One of the reasons for so many stumbling


blocks is that we are just a small group. There
is not enough critical mass of people to influence
[anything around entrepreneurship]. People outside
this sphere are here saying that this [entrepreneurship]
is useless; [we] had an operations manager who didn’t
understand what was going on and wanted it shut
down. We don’t have support. For us who have entered
at the beginning, we are like the freedom fighters for
entrepreneurship; constantly fighting and always trying to
convince someone.
(Lecturer – Focus group)

The participant continued that most Of the 71 responses, over half the
colleagues do not ‘understand respondents agreed that their work
entrepreneurship in itself very in entrepreneurship was recognised,
well, this is why there needs to be with the majority stating that this was
some money invested in getting all done through annual performance
departments having people trained to measurements. Some were allowed
understand how entrepreneurship fits to pilot projects on campus or modify
into their space; how to socialise it or the curriculum to better suit the needs
better yet institutionalise it into their of teaching entrepreneurship, while
space so that everyone learns that it others received funding to attend
fits into all our spaces’. conferences and seminars or had
their fees for journal publications paid
In terms of support, academic staff for. However, when asked about staff
survey participants were asked training opportunities, 40 of the 68
if their work in entrepreneurship respondents said their institutions
development was recognised by their provided little to no staff training in
universities and how this was done. this regard.

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM BASELINE REPORT 31


Findings
The qualitative responses to the survey,
focus group and interview questions
underpin the findings of this report for As universities, we have a critical role to play
the universities, EDHE, USAf and DHET. in the socio-economic set-up in our country; we
What is evident from the research should be the drivers in making sure that we look at
gathered is that there is considerable the long-term prospects of the socio‑economic situation;
entrepreneurship development we need to be the ones making the changes; [we] should be
activity under way in most institutions;
upfront, because we are the thinking institutions.
however, it is largely un-coordinated;
lacks dedicated resources and (Centre Manager – Focus group)
overall support; and is at odds with
the traditional role of the research/
publication rewards-based culture of
universities. What has been revealed
is not a completely negative view of Higher Education is crucial in developing
what is currently being delivered, but this. If we aren’t going to do this at student
highlights what has been done in the level, how will it happen once people graduate?
face of challenges and constraints Economic growth in South Africa is not coming from
that, while significantly limiting the
big business but from entrepreneurs.
potential output, has led to noteworthy
strides in the area of entrepreneurship (Centre Manager – Interview)
development in higher education.
In a sector where evidence-based
decision making is celebrated, there is
little measurement and proof in place
to deal with entrepreneurship, and Yes, these youth are mature enough, you
greater awareness and appropriate can’t teach young ones because they will
measurement tools are required. see it as playing, you need university students to
Responses were curated from groups understand the financial management side of it as it is
of engaged scholars and support highly conceptual.
professionals who were engaged
in entrepreneurship development, (Academic – Interview)
therefore the appetite for and
understanding of the area of work was
apparent. The timing allocated to the
project and the scope of it did not
That is a contentious question, but yes, it
allow for data to be gathered from
those who were not directly involved is. Higher education is supposed to lead the
in delivering entrepreneurship way in skills development. Teaching is exposure
activities within universities. Had to the processes, it may not make them go into it, but
this been possible, the opportunity even someone who has that entrepreneurial spirit will still
to find those who (reportedly) were need support. If higher education can get this right, they will
resistant to the development of
[make] a lot of impact; the challenge is how to get it right.
entrepreneurship in higher education
would have been greater. (Academic – Interview)

Role of universities
A fundamental question that surrounds
this work is whether ‘higher education Higher education is the right space.
is the best place for delivering
entrepreneurship development?’
Universities are in a better space to connect
given that their inherent structures and individuals with industry and opportunities that
funding models put entrepreneurship are out there.
education and training in a constrained
(Academic – Focus group)
position. Unsurprisingly, the majority of
the responses were positive:

32 NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM BASELINE REPORT


Not only is higher education best placed for this, participants reported, but
it should be happening at every level of education. As voiced by a centre
manager, there is a need for ‘training within early childhood education curricula
through sponsoring teacher development as well as creating a pipeline of
entrepreneurial development, from junior school to high school all the way
through to universities’. An academic respondent acknowledged that while ‘other
institutions should have done it (exposed students to entrepreneurship) before
students get to university, they have not done this’. More broadly they added, ‘we
cannot expect parents and communities to socialise their children in this space’
because ‘parents themselves are not familiar with the concept, so universities
often become the first point where they can do this’. Another respondent echoed
that sentiment saying ‘until it is done in basic education, and communities, and
councillors and chiefs understand it and can socialise it, then universities are the
most important places’ for entrepreneurship development to happen.
The biggest challenge for entrepreneurship development within the university
sector is the primacy of academic research and research output over the
acknowledgement of practical application, which is at odds with the applied
nature of entrepreneurship. The emphasis of the reward system in higher
education is incongruent with how entrepreneurship development is measured.

The PhD has not changed since 1910;


it is still in the same format. We haven’t
evolved around developing the PhD; we use
the same methodology to deliver and assess it – we
haven’t adjusted. However, we still say that a lecturer’s
relevance is based on presenting and research. What we
need to be more focussed on are our learners as the basis
for promotion.
(Academic – Interview)

The conflict for the ‘academic entrepreneur’ is that they feel they are perceived
by staff as entrepreneurs who are trying to be academics and are frowned
upon as this takes away from what the university prioritises – research. Because
research is what brings in the majority of the funds, it serves to show where
institutional priorities lie. As one academic put it:

You will find that the priority is not for


me to be running around and delivering
entrepreneurship initiatives when at the end
of the day ‘people’ are going to ask ‘what is your
research output?’. It is a tricky one to deal with. There is an
inherent clash with traditional university structure and the
need for practical delivery of entrepreneurship.
(Senior Lecturer – Interview)

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM BASELINE REPORT 33


As funding and grants are tied to academic outputs of universities, moving
entrepreneurship to the forefront is difficult, if not impossible. The pressure for
academics to conduct research is an obstacle, as they are required to spend a
lot of time on research as well as ‘balance a teaching load. It is often difficult to
get someone who is just teaching and not distracted by publishing’.

Entrepreneurship was mainstreamed


around five years ago and we work in
150-year-old bureaucracies; it takes time for it to
change direction. What is driving it is this new world of
work and the role model that Silicon Valley has become.
(Lecturer and Course Convener – Focus group)

There is a clash between the traditional role of a university and the need
to support entrepreneurship on a more fundamental level, thereby linking
research to practice. Responses from interviews and focus groups highlighted
the opinion that universities were critical to the development of the
entrepreneurship agenda in South Africa but this, in turn, revealed a disconnect
between a traditional teaching model and the need for disruptive approaches
to innovation. As one Acting Director outlined in an interview, ‘there are two
challenges to entrepreneurship development in the university context. One,
faculties and schools have a set curriculum. When they are asked to bring in
entrepreneurship they don’t know where it is going to fit? Is it credit bearing or
not? And who is going to teach it if people see it as extra work? Two, students
want to know where it sits within their degree. Is it added work? What is the
purpose of it? How will it help me? There is still a long way to go to normalise
entrepreneurship development in the institutions’.
Further challenging is how entrepreneurship fits into newly established
institutions that are trying to deal with surviving the day-to-day while providing
quality research, teaching and learning. How important entrepreneurship
development is to their institution, how they engage with it and where it will
be housed within the institution are difficult questions when many of these
institutions have more pressing issues around finding staff, recruiting students
and building infrastructure.

We had to look at what we are doing and


say, ‘where does entrepreneurship fit into our
university? Where can it make the most impact – as
we are a specialist university? Then from my side, I had
to think, well how do we support these students? So, we
used a third-party provider with online learning platform, so
that those who are interested in entrepreneurship can have
some sort of training. We are a fairly new institution and
There is a clash between need to also establish other structures and policies.’
the traditional role of a
(Academic – Focus group)
university and the need to
support entrepreneurship
on a more fundamental
In newly established universities, entrepreneurship development is not seen as
level, thereby linking paramount to their advancement when they are still surviving off governmental
research to practice. grants.

34 NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM BASELINE REPORT


Innovative delivery
Although respondents highlighted the structural impediments to effective entrepreneurship development within
universities, there is also much to laude about the delivery of entrepreneurship development in higher education.
Table 3 provides a selection (not exhaustive) of innovative entrepreneurship delivery activities.

Table 3: Innovative delivery of entrepreneurship development

Type of intervention Descriptor


Honours Level Course (full year) Focuses on developing outstanding business leadership and management skills in a
highly entrepreneurial context. Candidates are required to set up and run their own
business. They are expected to apply the leadership and management theory in an
intensive action-learning environment.
Open Online Course (10 weeks) Free course available to all students as an introduction to entrepreneurship
awareness. This helps students decided whether entrepreneurship is really for them
or not.
Bootcamp Using ‘lean start-up’ methodology for developing businesses and products which
aims to shorten product development cycles and rapidly discover if a proposed
business model is viable. This is achieved by adopting a combination of business-
hypothesis-driven experimentation, iterative product releases, and validated learning.
Undergraduate Module Technology and Innovation Course with module on the use of innovation and
technology within entrepreneurship (1st of its kind in South Africa)
Graduate Module Nanoscience Course with module focussed on moving lab-based findings to
commercially marketable projects/businesses.
Business School Will focus on the growth phase of business (MBA for transitioning SMMEs; 50 M ZAR
and above).
Digital Incubation HUB Where the incubation of digital entrepreneurs, commercialisation of research and
the development of high-level digital skills for students, working professionals and
unemployed youth takes place.
PTY Ltd Separate arms of the universities who provide training programmes and short courses
as well as research and advisory services for the community within and outside of the
university. They facilitate connection between start-up, industry and funders.
Centres for Entrepreneurship Centres that help coordinate activity and provide additional resources outside of
(social entrepreneurship and/or the academic sphere. They provided more hands-on, more in-depth training and
innovation) development, taking the ‘learning about entrepreneurship’ and moving it to ‘learning
for entrepreneurship’. More often than not, they are also externally focused (but
not exclusively).
Technology Transfer And Offer workshops, incubation, business seminars, seed funding, competitions and
Commercialisation Offices many initiatives to support students in business.
Career Service Centres Support and grow campus base-level entrepreneurship through incubation and
acceleration of start-ups, and direct support to new and existing base-level
entrepreneurs [alumni, students, academics/staff, post-docs]. The objective is to
support the establishment and growth of an entrepreneurship eco-system including,
but not limited to, an entrepreneurship village, funding and strategic events within
the university and contribute to a positive culture of entrepreneurship, and through
these objectives to support the long-term strategy of advancing entrepreneurship
careers as alternatives.
Post-Graduate Diploma Year-long programme that links student to the insights, ideas, networks and
people who can help turn a passion for innovation into reality. It is an innovative
entrepreneurship-focussed curriculum aimed to equip young graduates with the skills
requisite for a changing and challenging business environment. It is an intensive,
true-to-life simulation (complete with funding calls) driven primarily by a group-based
action-learning philosophy.

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM BASELINE REPORT 35


What challenges innovative delivery (and the development of entrepreneurship Strategic implementation
in higher education) is the siloed delivery, lack of coordination, poor structures
Universities need a vision of how
(including clear and relevant policies and strategies) and insufficient trained staff.
entrepreneurship will be implemented
The bureaucracy of ‘misaligned’ silos, has created a ‘fragmented at an institutional level and how this
entrepreneurship effort’ causing ‘faculties … to be too siloed to form cohesive will be supported and communicated.
initiatives across the board. There is too much monument building by There is the tendency for a heavy
individuals and not enough value creation’. Participants point to comatose reliance on centres and incubators
senior management ‘who are unwilling to take risks. There is an academic mind- to provide the solution to the non-
set with entrepreneurship crippled by institutional bureaucracy’. academic delivery model. This is
As the responsibility for entrepreneurship is spread across a number of functions flawed when the centres operate
and departments, what it leads to is a number of disparate activities happening as silos without clear central
across the same institution (and sometime the same department or faculty) engagement or support. There are
where one hand does not know what the other hand is doing. This leads to clear capacity issues at play here too
duplicate efforts, all of which ultimately contribute to the siloed approaches – when people have to be pulled in
seen within and across institutions in South Africa. The structures that support from other departments this causes
the academic aims of the institutions are not necessarily the ones that support delivery issues and constraints. Where
the growth and development of entrepreneurship. From outdated technology, there are multiple campuses without
rigid curriculum structures and lack of institutional direction, universities now full presence or coordinated activity,
need to demonstrate that they are dynamic enough to lead the charge for this can be even more challenging for
entrepreneurship development. students and staff.

Funding
Funding is a considerable challenge.
Institutions rely on external
Our systems and processes are so old, funding sources through grants,
when we do introduce these programmes, it foundations and private donors to
has to go up and down for approval. By the time supplement their work. Funding
it comes back, the people who were pushing have from local, national and international
moved on or given up. governments is used to expand
internal capacity as well as provide
(Lecturer – Focus group) business incubation centres and
outreach programmes. As one
participant highlighted in the survey
‘few intuitional resources are pointed
to our centre and thus we rely mostly
on external funding’. More established
Decision making is too long, especially universities have banded together
with leadership; there is a need for checks to create a wider fund that supports
and balances, but if we are looking to become an entrepreneurs within their region.
entrepreneurial university we need to change how we Many institutions provide small,
think altogether. Some people need to be brave and take tiered grant support, or limited
risks and go out there and do what needs to be done. starting funds for students but this
funding is largely externally driven.
(Centre Manager – Focus group) However, the large majority of
universities link students looking for
funds with external funders such as
SEFA (through the Department of
Small Business Development), the
Fundamentally, the biggest challenge to innovative delivery is the human
Technology Innovation Agency and
resource element. A significant percentage of institutional activity is driven by
other foundations. What institutions
individuals; a risk-heavy and high-variable dependent. The quality and level of
find difficult is understanding who is
staff who are not only trained in entrepreneurship delivery, but are themselves
responsible for funding what in terms
entrepreneurs within the universities, are rare. As noted by one lecturer, ‘not
of government agencies and how
many academics are in the entrepreneurship space. The people who are truly
best to access these funds.
entrepreneurial are few and far between; across the country, there are enough
staff’. In some cases, there are staff members who run their own businesses, but
with little or no incentive from the university to engage in or share with students,
they refuse to engage.

36 NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM BASELINE REPORT


Other training providers out of poverty (MCF website a). MCF and skills development’. Charging
works with partners to address issues no fees for their programme,
The emphasis on entrepreneurship
such as the lack of relevant curricula the Wadhwani Foundation has
development by national government
leading to a skills mismatch for the job the advantage of working within
means that there are an increasing
market, the lack of formal jobs and institutions that are looking for a
number of training providers who
the difficulty of starting and growing cost-effective solution, rather than
offer programmes for the full range
a business. It also provides access a labour-intensive way of scaling
of entrepreneurs. Many of these
to appropriate financial services, up entrepreneurship development
providers offer specialist training
including capital and support for provision (Wadhwani website).
and funds, in addition to practical
young entrepreneurs (MCF website b). Working with institutions to craft
and theoretical applications that
most universities lack due to their While universities have the advantage their entrepreneurship development
rigid structures and over-emphasis of a captive audience, entrepreneurs activity, the advantage this has over
on theoretical knowledge. These who do not find the support, other third-party providers is that
training providers also offer guidance, learning and opportunities the university contributes very little
structured development programmes; through higher education will in the way of funding, but must be
opportunities for local, national find a way to succeed without the committed to make the programme
and international exposure; as well university. An excellent example of work at their institutions. Where some
as the all-important social capital this is Sandras Phiri of the Africa Trust institutions see this as a threat to what
needed for entrepreneurs to connect Academy. Phiri saw the opportunity they are looking to deliver internally
and succeed. The Aspen Network to engage youth around leadership, in the entrepreneurship development
of Development Entrepreneurs financial literacy and entrepreneurship space, others see it as complementary
(ANDE) list for the South African while he was still a student. He to what is being provided within the
Entrepreneurship Ecosystem found that the process of creating university to add value to the students
lists hundreds of providers for his venture within the university themselves. As the Wadhwani
entrepreneurs (ANDE website). structure was just too slow, so struck Foundation programme is practical in
out on his own. The Africa Trust nature, it is more useful than some of
A number of large foundational
Academy provides entrepreneurship the basic activities delivered in higher
entrepreneurship development
development training which includes education currently. Three universities
organisations, such as the Tony
access to the Start-Up Grind, helping reported using this third-party
Elumelu Foundation (TEF), have
aspiring and early stage entrepreneurs provider.
streamlined programmes which
all focus on developing the next to launch and grow their start-ups Two institutions reported using the
generation of African leaders and through training and investment Student Training for Entrepreneurial
entrepreneurs. These providers are opportunities (Africa Trust Academy Promotion (STEP) Programme,
backed by large capital investors, website). supported by UNESCO SA and
and have sector-specific mentors and In addition to the face-to-face support Leuphana University of Lüneburg,
advanced technological tools and available in the country, there are a as a third-party delivery partner.
equipment, in addition to providing number of online providers that offer STEP develops young people’s
broad learning environments. basic courses in entrepreneurship skills, knowledge, and confidence
The TEF’s overarching aim is such as LinkedIn Learning, Future to pursue an entrepreneurial career.
to promote entrepreneurship Learn, Udemy and Cisco NetAcad. In the training, students learn
throughout the African continent, While there is a charge to most of step-by-step to start their own
with a special focus on young and these programmes, Cisco NetAcad businesses. This provides them with
emerging entrepreneurs. Its mission (used by a newly established an effective means of creating jobs
is to ‘catalyse economic and social university in South Africa) is free for themselves and other people in
development in Africa’. (TEF website) to users who subscribe to the self- the community. Through the training,
The programme is committed to guided learning programme. the students become more proactive
identify, train, mentor, and empower and independent, which supports
10,000 African entrepreneurs over a Third-party providers them in overcoming the extreme
ten-year period. TEF’s programme unemployment rates among the youth
Third-party providers occupy a
includes a start-up tool kit, online in many developing countries (STEP
slightly different space as they
mentoring, online resource library, website).
work with universities to deliver
meet-ups, entrepreneurship forum, their content to students. From this ENACTUS is a global student
access to seed capital and most research, it appears there are three experiential learning platform
importantly an active alumni network. major providers operating in this dedicated to developing the next
While not a fully fledge programme space in South Africa; the Wadhwani generation of entrepreneurial leaders
like the TEF, the MasterCard Foundation, STEP, and ENACTUS. and social innovators (ENACTUS
Foundation (MCF) has set out an The Wadhwani Foundation’s primary website). From the survey, ENACTUS
ambitious goal that by 2030, it will mission is ‘to accelerate economic is present on all 26 university
have worked to enable 30 million development in emerging economies campuses in South Africa. More
young people in Africa to create and by driving large-scale job creation of a student association than a
find secure employment as a pathway through entrepreneurship, innovation delivery partner at most institutions,

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM BASELINE REPORT 37


ENACTUS serves as the primary
driver of entrepreneurship delivery
in at least two newly established The measurement of impact is still very much
universities. As an internationally in the early stages of providing access and
recognised programme, ENACTUS exposing students to activity in this area. Less attention
provides students with a ready-made is paid to the number of jobs/companies that have been
training plan, a series of regional and
created and more to how did an institution encourage a
national competitions, as well as an
international competition. Within culture of entrepreneurship and let students fail in a safe space
institutions, an ENACTUS team (made and build and develop accordingly. [It is] driven by questions:
up of students and a faculty advisor) did we manage to convince students who had never engaged
works with students to develop in this that entrepreneurship is a viable option?
socially driven projects within their
local communities. One of the main (Taken from a phone interview)
criticisms of ENACTUS is that it is
project based – more about ideation
and developing presentation skills
than creating sustainable businesses,
as it does not follow the true growth Knowing this, and being able to show that
path of entrepreneurship. Because it is they (academics) actually contributed to the
an established programme, interview development of the learners, what is the added
participants stated that there is little
value of what you are teaching the students? We
room for collaboration with ENACTUS
and the wider entrepreneurship need to add value to the curriculum – if you have a fixed
development activities within the curriculum then nothing will change.
university.
(Academic – Interview)
Impact
There is no conclusive standard
for measuring the impact of As previously indicated, many institutions define success of the
entrepreneurship development in entrepreneurship activity based on through-put of learners. While some
higher education. Where changing universities use indicative measures to assess practitioner outcomes through
mind-sets is the goal, no baseline has key performance indicators and productivity units, support professionals within
been established and no data have specialised units (such as centres for entrepreneurship, technology transfer
been gathered to reflect the actual offices and incubators) are measured on how much money they bring into the
change in mind-set or behaviour of institution, not on the number of student entrepreneurs that are created.
students receiving the training and
support, nor of the people delivering
these activities.
What is apparent is that it is very Why is it that we are just ticking boxes and
hard to measure impact beyond counting the number of students who come in
the numbers of course attendants and out? There are so many strategies out there, but
or companies created (and how no follow up. Can we really justify spending resources on
long they have survived) from within
measuring students who are no longer there? We need to
centres and incubators. Phone
interview and focus group evidence ensure that we aren’t just creating knowledge but something
suggests that there is activity in that can be re-invested for some time, renovate them and
this regard, with processes in place learn from failure, then develop new strategies and try and
in some cases to keep track of merge it with what the university wants.
participants and to see how many
create and develop businesses (Tutor – Focus group)
post engagement. It was fully
acknowledged that this is a labour-
intensive process and one that does
not yield comprehensive responses by Overall, beyond participation, institutions lack a formal reporting mechanism for
any means. measuring success or impact as many do not know what denotes success. There
are instances where monitoring and evaluation have recently been embedded
in new programmes and this includes the transition from ideation to completion.
There is also evidence (drawn from interviews and focus groups) that incubators
and centres for entrepreneurship employ their own monitoring and evaluation
processes with post-intervention engagement. While this represents an example
of good practice, it is a largely isolated response according to the data collected.

38 NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM BASELINE REPORT


Recommendations

Entrepreneurship in higher education landscape. This would require a more Audit of entrepreneurship
has gained increasing prominence longitudinal study to outline the goals development
in South Africa and around the and effectiveness of entrepreneurship
world as institutions look to add development within South African First and foremost, EDHE must
value not only to their academic universities. As those engaged are encourage an internal audit of
offerings, but as a way to encourage scattered throughout their institutions, entrepreneurship activities within
economic participation in their young not everyone who is engaged in each of its member institutions.
people. With an increase in youth entrepreneurship development and What has been apparent from
unemployment and the rising number the outset of this project is that
delivery has contributed to the survey,
of young people entering the higher entrepreneurship activities are siloed
focus groups and interviews.
education system, universities are and isolated from one another,
finding that the traditional narrative – In light of the findings of this report, making a full and comprehensive
that having a degree means that you DHET and USAf (through EDHE) picture of entrepreneurship
are instantly employable – is losing its should look to support institutions development unattainable. Three
validity. through the development of specific institutions are currently evaluating
policies and strategies, aligned to their entrepreneurship activities
Entrepreneurship is seen as an engine international best practice, in order and programmes with the intention
of economic growth and a source
for universities to engage students of streamlining and centralising
of employment to alleviate socio-
in entrepreneurship activities. responsibilities. In this regard, EDHE
economic challenges through the
Continued collaborations with should work to create an in-depth
promotion of business formation.
international partners such as the internal audit of activities. This
Education is seen as an important
British Council should facilitate would not only support the lack of
factor in stimulating entrepreneurial
exchanges of knowledge, know- communication aspect, but also
activity. Self-employment is now
how, and best-practice between provide centralisation for a more
promoted (and seen) as a viable
career option for those with the right universities in South Africa, the coordinated and measured approach
mind-set, opportunities and abilities. UK and other parts of the world. to establish how well programmes
Development of future institutional and activities are delivering on their
This report provides a baseline study strategies should highlight how objectives.
of entrepreneurship development an institution will, or has, grown to
within the 26 public universities One of the inherent weaknesses
develop their current provisions along highlighted in the study is that many
in South Africa. While not a the spectrum of teaching ‘about’,
benchmarking exercise, it showcases of the entrepreneurial activities are
‘for’ and ‘through’ entrepreneurship. led and managed by individuals
actual activities as well as perceptions
Future strategies should also reward and undertaken within faculties,
of what is happening within this
and showcase innovative delivery of departments and specialist units
space. South African universities vary
entrepreneurship activity and reflect which do not interact with each other.
greatly in size, funding structures
where an institution is on its journey The success of entrepreneurship
and communities served. It would
to becoming an entrepreneurial development in higher education
therefore not do any justice to
university. will need to be achieved through a
categorise institutions or compare
them on the basis of what is or is The set of recommendations following concerted effort, with USAf (through
not happening at each institution. is based on the data gathered and EDHE), DHET and the Department of
Rather, this report has looked at represents learning that can be used Small Business Development, working
responses in the aggregate, stressing as the basis for the development of together. The design and delivery
the importance of the growth of the a national policy framework, not only of an EDHE-owned framework for
sector and EDHE’s role in being the for higher education institutions in entrepreneurship development must
‘tide that lifts all boats’. South Africa, but also for those who take into account the varying level of
are looking to grow entrepreneurship engagement on the topic across the
What the recommendations of
development wherever they are. universities.
this report cannot do is discern
good practice in entrepreneurship What is needed is a benchmarking 1. Using an established and
development where there is little tool which allows for the assessment agreed upon EDHE framework,
to no overarching proof of its of the characteristics and challenges universities should commission
effectiveness in creating the kind of of an entrepreneurship development an internal audit of their
widespread, long-term change the system against a set of key criteria (as entrepreneurship development
literature seeks around the creation indicated below) and will then enable activities. This should include
of more entrepreneurs and how comparison of approaches between outline staffing and funding
they are shaping the economic other, similar universities. received. It should evaluate

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM BASELINE REPORT 39


effectiveness in order to increase for entrepreneurship to strengthen the entrepreneurship
communication within the silos consolidate responsibility for activities within the universities.
and present areas for collaboration entrepreneurship development 9. Through the Communities of
between academic staff and within their portfolio. Practice, EDHE should encourage
support professionals within the 3. The role of the EDHE institutions to assess and
institution. Communities of Practice within explore their entrepreneurial
institutions should be bolstered culture abilities through the
Creating an enabling to provide an internal support use of the HE Innovate tool
environment for an structure, as well a direct line to (https://‌heinnovate.eu/en).
entrepreneurial university the ‘senior management’ level
Strong entrepreneurial universities
champion. Teaching and learning
need supporting structures and 4. Universities should work with provision
most importantly strong senior EDHE to create clear and widely It cannot be ignored that the
leadership. Moving towards a more distributed strategies that specify starting place for entrepreneurship
entrepreneurial university requires their institutional objectives in development has to be the provision
leadership with the foresight to see entrepreneurship development. of teaching and learning to support
beyond the traditional methods 5. Institutions should aim to have a its growth and acceptance into
of teaching and learning to create dedicated, well-resourced team the mainstream. Teaching and
an entrepreneurial ecosystem ‘by with strategic oversight for learning entrepreneurship in higher
providing spaces for entrepreneurial entrepreneurship development education embraces the idea that
teams to meet with each other, other activities. This means an allocation entrepreneurship is a teachable skill
entrepreneurial teams, mentors and of funds, job descriptions, titles with the ability to give students (who
other companies’ (Eisenberg, Gann and objectives that align with are unfamiliar with it) a basis from
and Yoon, 2019). the universities’ positions on which to understand what it is, how
Even though each institution has entrepreneurship development. it works and how they can choose
some level of entrepreneurship to engage with it. From the point of
6. EDHE policy should look to
activity, there is little sense of this view of DHET, USAf, EDHE and its
work with universities to create
being embedded in the foundational member universities there are three
opportunities for students to
core of the universities. From the primary perspectives which need
engage in entrepreneurship on
limited number of institutions that to be understood and acted upon:
campus.
have meaningfully incorporated policy, practice, and mind-set (Branch,
entrepreneurship into their strategies, Horsted, Nygaard and Paalzow, 2017).
Curriculum design In an environment where assessments
it is clear that EDHE and stakeholders
must work more closely to help Entrepreneurship development is and marks are paramount, rather
universities communicate the role multifaceted and requires the delivery than skills development and mastery,
each university can play in developing of entrepreneurial mind-set skills universities need to provide spaces
entrepreneurs. integrated into course designs. EDHE and opportunities for their students
should position itself as the broker to to explore, succeed and most
Universities also need distinct policies
enable the provision of diverse informal importantly fail.
around how entrepreneurship
learning opportunities and experiences Engaging front-line delivery staff
development works within their
to stimulate the development of in entrepreneurship will require
institutions as well as coherent
entrepreneurial mind-sets and practical engagement through performance
and measurable strategic outputs
skills delivery at its member institutions. management indicators and
that address how entrepreneurship
activities (in the aggregate) will 7. EDHE should work with the appraisals of staff. Questions can
provide the skills, competences Council on Higher Education be asked relating to the impact
and attitudes needed to develop to create pedagogically suited of particular incentives/funding to
entrepreneurs. In addition, policies Training of Trainers programmes engage in entrepreneurial activities.
should address what support the (by general subject area) to This also provides an opportunity
universities can offer students in integrate entrepreneurship to explore issues relating to the
regard to research, commercialisation, thinking into curriculum design success or failure of delivering on the
ideation, innovation and support from outside traditional business entrepreneurial objectives and why. In
the wider community. By building a faculties and departments. particular, the organisational design
framework, universities can monitor 8. EDHE should use its position and decision-making structures can
their progress which can be used to in USAf as the representative be explored to understand the extent
showcase success beyond the initial organisation of universities to which they impact on the ability
activities. in South Africa to establish of personnel to achieve their set
partnerships with foundations objectives (HE Innovate).
2. EDHE, in collaboration with
the EDHE Communities of (Tony Elumelu Foundation, 10. USAf should design a skills
Practice, should work with MasterCard Foundation) and audit to assess the institutional
universities to appoint a ‘senior delivery partners (LinkedIn development needs for
management’ level champion Learning, Get Smarter) to developing and implementing

40 NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM BASELINE REPORT


the entrepreneurship agenda.
This can be an additional pillar
for performance management
through key performance
indicators and productivity units.
11. The British Council should
consider expanding its support
towards the EDHE Programme
by partnering with DHET and
USAf to design and implement
activities that seek to build the
capacity of emerging student
entrepreneurs at South African
universities, thus making a
meaningful contribution in the
graduate outcomes space.
12. USAf should seek funds
designed to support institutions
to allow staff to engage in
non-conflicting entrepreneurial
pursuits.

Funding specifically
for entrepreneurship
development
Based on the creation of an
entrepreneurship development
framework, funding bodies should
create a subsequent reward system
which gives strategic funds to further
increase the pace and quality of
entrepreneurship development at
universities that ranked highly in their
ability to deliver. The sustainability
and replicability of entrepreneurship
development in higher education
requires financial commitment set
for the long-term, with measurable
indicators to allow for a well-
resourced approach. EHDE should
work with institutions to ensure
that they have the monitoring and
evaluation systems in place to make
them attractive to external funders. In
the same way that universities receive
and document research funding, so
too should any additional funds for
entrepreneurship development be
scrutinised.
13. DHET should work with
government funding agencies
like SEDA, SEFA and the
NYDA to set aside funding for
entrepreneurship development
tied to an institution’s ability
to meet key performance
indicators as set out in the EDHE
framework. This should be based
on a scale of engagement to
avoid disadvantaging smaller
institutions.

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM BASELINE REPORT 41


Conclusion
As evidenced from this report and institution should be allocated a degree of freedom in designing their
its findings, there is considerable budget that can be used to put entrepreneurship activities. With that
activity taking place in South Africa in together a technical assistance or freedom comes the responsibility for
the field of entrepreneurship. What capacity building project to bring its ensuring that the activities fit with the
is also evident is that this activity is activities in line with the framework institutional ethos, organisation and
disjointed and would benefit from standards. allocation of available resources.
increased levels of communication, This report has demonstrated varying South Africa and its public universities
support and direction. This report has levels of activity and engagement have an excellent opportunity to
highlighted areas of good practice across the higher education sector seize control of the narrative and
and areas for improvement for EDHE
and provides an opportunity for ensure coherent and comprehensive
and its funding partners. While the
further growth and collaboration. development in the field of
data returned is representative, rather
A process to establish the practice entrepreneurship. This requires an
than comprehensive, it does show a
of training the trainers would add understanding of current practice
pattern of engagement and activity
support to a pattern of cascaded and fundamental objectives and
that is to be commended. Where
learning. This would involve making expectations. Where EDHE and
there are recommendations for action
full use of all human resources; other stakeholders can provide the
and development, as listed above,
engaging external stakeholders necessary support is in creating an
these are most commonly in the form
but also promoting internal embedded and supported system
of improving upon existing practice;
expertise (particularly through that promotes integration and
developing processes; or supporting
student participants sharing lived collaboration; is regularly monitored
people and positioning. EDHE
experiences). There is much to be and reviewed; and will provide the
has a role to play in delivering and
leveraged from existing experience foundation for sustainable activity
supporting public institutions with the
and much that is largely under- moving forwards. There is an absence
knowledge and frameworks to better
reported and unknown. This research of data, of understanding, and of
their provision of entrepreneurship
found less public evidence of activity communication and these are all
activities and increase awareness and
than internal discussion would easily fixable. A clear path ahead is
acceptance of this in universities.
suggest, so there is clearly an avenue possible and evident from the current
There is a clear role for universities to for developing communication levels of activity and engagement. It
play, but this needs to be coordinated techniques; highlighting existing is also fully supported and desired.
and properly managed internally. good practice; and demonstrating Universities cannot succeed alone,
Given the diversity of South African impact. nor can governmental institutions.
higher education institutions, a single By working together to create a
This report has shown that success
approach makes little sense, but a contextually relevant framework
in this arena is not a binary process.
coherent framework that provides and ongoing system of support and
Development in this space is an
support and possible collaboration review, USAf, through EDHE and its
ongoing endeavour. As experiences
opportunities would be highly funding and delivery partners, will
and opportunities shift, so will
relevant. Universities should be there afford South Africa’s youth more
expectations and activity. In order to
as co-creators in entrepreneurship meaningful opportunities, and impact
remain constant and relevant, and in
development. They are a place will be more readily visible and
order to provide valuable evidence
where there are people who can
supporting impact, regular reviews understood.
be complementary to what is being
should be undertaken and the Changes to bring entrepreneurship
done. Universities should be seen
findings properly disseminated and development into the mainstream
as incubators for entrepreneurship
acted upon. This will ensure that the of the traditional public institutions
and talent development. They need
material and delivery techniques are will not happen overnight. A step-
not have all the answers, nor should
fit for purpose and are providing the by-step process is required that
they seek to fully control every aspect
most relevant skills and opportunities EDHE, and those committed to
of the process; rather, they should
to the youth of South Africa. As using entrepreneurship as means
provide a supportive and transparent
curricula are reviewed, so too should of providing graduates with ways
environment that makes full use of
the delivery of entrepreneurship be of economic participation, should
all available resources in the pursuit
reviewed. agree is worth pursuing. This is
of supporting youth engagement
and output. The objective should The findings and recommendations especially true if they believe that
be to facilitate a process of project of this report acknowledge that entrepreneurship will provide the
design and development, led by there is no one-size-fits-all policy gateway for a generation of youth
entrepreneurship experts, to support that can be created. As shown from that is capable of solving some of the
innovation in a relevant aspect of the self-reported data collected in very real, grand challenges facing our
the entrepreneurship system. Each the surveys, universities have a high society and our planet today.

42 NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM BASELINE REPORT


References/Bibliography
Achampong, J., Harber, T., Falk, E. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Report Pittaway, L. and Edwards, C. (2012).
and Lee‑Woolf, N. (2017). University b. (2016/2017). Available at: https://www. Assessment: Examining practice in
entrepreneurship education for individual and gemconsortium.org/report/gem-2016-2017- entrepreneurship education. Education +
community transformation: Impacts of the global-report [Accessed 2 October 2019]. Training 54(8/9): 778–800.
youth economic participation initiative (YEPI). Hartel, R. and Foegeding E. (2006). Learning: Ramphele, M. (2002). Steering by the stars:
(Final report). Talloires Network, Tufts University, Objectives, Competencies, or Outcomes? Being young in South Africa. Cape Town,
Medford, MA. Available at: https://www. Journal of Food Science Education 3(4): 69–70. South Africa: Tafelberg.
pivotglobaleducation.com/
Henry, C. (2013). Entrepreneurship Education Robinson, S., Neergaard, H., Tanggaard,
Arshed, N., Carter S., and Mason C. (2014). The in HE: Are Policy Makers Expecting Too Much? L. and Krueger, N. (2016). New horizons in
Ineffectiveness of Entrepreneurship Policy: Is Education & Training 55(8/9): 836–848. entrepreneurship education: From teacher-led
Policy Formulation to Blame? Small Business
HE Innovate Tool. Available at: https:// to student-centered learning. Education +
Economics 43(3): 639–659.
heinnovate.eu/en/ [Accessed 12 August 2019]. Training 58(7/8): 661–683.
Aspen Network of Development Entrepreneurs.
Jones, C., Matlay, H. and Maritz, A. (2012). Sirelkhatim, F. and Gangi, Y. (2015).
(2019) South Africa’s Entrepreneurial Ecosystem
Map. Available at: https://cdn.ymaws.com/www. Enterprise education: For all, or just some? Entrepreneurship education: A systematic
andeglobal.org/resource/resmgr/sa_images/sa_ Education and Training, 54(8/9): 813–824. literature review of curricula contents and
images_2019/sa_entrepreneurial_ecosystem.‌pdf teaching methods. Cogent Business &
Kew, J., Herrington, M., Litovsky, Y. and
Management 2(1).
Branch, J., Horsted, A., Nygaard, C. and Gale, H. (2013). Generation Entrepreneur?
Paalzow, A. (2017) Teaching and Learning The state of global youth entrepreneurship. Statistics South Africa. Data Stories /
Entrepreneurship in Higher Education. Available Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM), Youth Expenditure and Income / Poverty on the rise
at: https://lihe.info/portfolio/teaching-and- Business International (YBI). in South Africa. Available at: http://www.statssa.
learning-entrepreneurship-in-higher-education/ gov.za/?p=10334 [Accessed 12 August 2019].
Kuratko, D. (2005). The emergence of
Chigunta, F., Schnurr, J., James-Wilson, D. entrepreneurship education: Development, Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative
and Torres, V. (2005). Being “real” about youth trends, and challenges. Entrepreneurship Theory analysis for social scientists. Cambridge
entrepreneurship in Eastern and Southern and Practice, 29(5): 577–598. University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/
Africa: Implications for adults, institutions Kuratko, D., Morris, M. and Schindehutte, CBO9780511557842 [Accessed
and sector structures. (No. 72) SEED Working M. (2015). Understanding the dynamics November 2019].
Paper, International Labour Office, Geneva, of entrepreneurship through framework Thompson Reuters, (2019). The best countries
Switzerland. Available at: http://www.ilo.org/ approaches. Small Business Economics to be a social entrepreneur. Available at: https://
wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/---emp_ent/ 45(1): 1–13. poll2019.trust.org/ [Accessed 14 August 2019]
documents/publication/wcms_094030.pdf
Malan, C. and Breitenbach, M. (2001). Youth Urban, B. (2006). Entrepreneurship
De Lannoy, A. (2008). Educational decision- participation in the economy. South African education and entrepreneurial intentions: A
making in an era of AIDS. (PHD Thesis). Journal of Economic and Management prospect for higher education? Education
Department of Sociology, Faculty of Humanities, Sciences, 4(1): 172–203. as Change, 10(1): 85–103. https://doi.
University of Cape Town, South Africa. Maritz, A. and Brown, C. (2013). Illuminating org/10.1080/16823200609487131
Duval-Couetil, N. (2013). Assessing the Impact the black box of entrepreneurship education Valerio, A., Parton, B. and Robb, A. (2014).
of Entrepreneurship Education Programs: programs. Education + Training, 55(3): 234–252. Entrepreneurship Education and Training
Challenges and Approaches. Journal of Small MasterCard Foundation a. https:// Programs around the World. 1st ed. Washington,
Business Management, 51(3): 394–409. mastercardfdn.org/our-strategy/young-africa- DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and
Eisenberg. J, Gann, D. and Yoon, S. (2019). How works/ Development/The World Bank.
to build an entrepreneurial university. Available MasterCard Foundation b. https:// White, R.D. and Wyn, J. (1998). Youth
at: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/09/ mastercardfdn.org/work/employability/ agency and social context. Journal of
how-to-build-an-entrepreneurial-university/ Sociology, 34(3): 314–327. https://doi.
[Accessed 2 October 2019]. Mwasalwiba, E. S. (2010). Entrepreneurship
education: A review of its objectives, teaching org/10.1177/144078339803400307
ENACTUS. Available at: https://enactus.org/ methods, and impact indicators. Education + Yiannakaris, E.C. (2019). The impact of
who-we-are/our-story/ Training 52(1): 20–47. the Raymond Ackerman Academy of
Fayolle, A. (2013). Personal Views on the O’Connor, A. (2013). A conceptual framework Entrepreneurial Development (RAA) in creating
Future of Entrepreneurship Education. for entrepreneurship education policy: Meeting improved and sustainable livelihoods amongst
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, government and economic purposes. Journal of academy graduates. Master of Commerce
25(7–8): 692–701. Business Venturing 28(4): 546–563. Dissertation – University of Cape Town.
Fayolle, A. and Gailly, B. (2012). From Craft Omidyar Network, (2013). Accelerating Wadhwani Foundation. Available at:
to Science: Teaching Models and Learning entrepreneurship in Africa; Understanding https://www.wfglobal.org/ [Accessed
Processes in Entrepreneurship Education. Africa’s challenges to creating opportunity- 3 September 2019].
IEEE Engineering Management Review, driven entrepreneurship. Available at: Zaring, O., Gifford, E. and McKelvey, M.
40(2): 95–116. https://www.omidyar.com/insights/accelerating- (2019) Strategic choices in the design of
Fink, A. (2013). Literature review: Higher entrepreneurship-africa-report entrepreneurship education: an explorative
education and entrepreneurship. (Unpublished Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research study of Swedish higher education
research paper). Department of Youth Studies, and Evaluation Methods. 3rd edition. Sage institutions. Studies in Higher Education, doi:
University of Minnesota. Publications, Inc. 10.1080/03075079.2019.1637841
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Report Pittaway, L. and Cope, J. (2007).
a. (2017/2018). Available at: https://www. Entrepreneurship education; A systematic
gemconsortium.org/report/gem-2017-2018- review of the evidence. International Small
global-report [Accessed 2 October 2019]. Business Journal, 25: 479–510.

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM BASELINE REPORT 43


Annexures
The following annexures were provided on delivery of the research report.
Only the Focus Group Questions are included as Annexure 1:
• SA Universities Website Review;
• SA Universities Entrepreneurship Activity;
• Milestones Summary Report; and
• Focus Group Questions.

Annexure 1: Focus Group Questions


1. How is entrepreneurship development delivered at your institution?
2. Do you feel your universities support practitioners in enhancing the delivery
of entrepreneurship development?
3. Do you feel entrepreneurship development is effective within your
institution?
4. Is there any monitoring and evaluation (on the impact of) entrepreneurial
development programme delivery? Do you (or can you find) numbers on
participation/completion?
5. How do you or your institution define success in entrepreneurship
development delivery?
6. Does your institution have policies and strategies on entrepreneurship
development? If so, is it at an institution, department or faculty level?
7. Which institutions, in your opinion, are providing the effective
entrepreneurship development? What is it about their work that stands out?
• What is stopping the successful implementation of entrepreneurship
development at your institution?
8. Does your institution assist entrepreneurs to find funding? Additionally,
does your institution have funds to support entrepreneurs?
9. What are the main (obstacles, challenges or problems) you and your
colleagues face in teaching entrepreneurship in the university context?
• Follow up Question: What do you need in order to overcome those
obstacles?
10. Is higher education best placed to provide entrepreneurship development,
why or why not?
11. Is a national policy on entrepreneurship development necessary? What
would optimise its effectiveness?

44 NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM BASELINE REPORT


Contact details
Tel: 012 030 0675
E-mail: edhe@usaf.ac.za
Web: www.usaf.ac.za

Universities South Africa (USAf)


Ground floor, Block D
Hadefields Office Park
1267 Pretorius Street
Hatfield, Pretoria
South Africa

StudentEntrepreneurship
edhestudententrepreneurship
EDHEStudents

You might also like