Towards a Conceptual Understanding of an Effective Rural-Based Entrepreneurial University in South Africa

Abstract

There is a considerable discussion about the entrepreneurial university concept in academia, likewise, debates on its different facets and overarching socio-economic benefits globally. However, the transformation pathways from traditional to entrepreneurial higher learning institutions in Africa are still under-researched. Similarly, while the concept contributes significantly to innovation and growth of developed countries, it is less clear how this can create meaningful value to stimulate local economy in developing economies on the African continent. This exploratory qualitative case study seeks to identify conditions that can serve as pathways for determining an effective rural-based entrepreneurial university with the potential to meet societal needs, as well as impact positively on local economy. A sample of 33, specifically, individuals with deep knowledge of entrepreneurial university, was drawn from diverse groups using snowball and purposive sampling techniques to co-interact the phenomenon. The data collection was performed following hybrid (physical and digital) methods. Excerpts drawn primarily from stakeholders based on semi-structured questions were fitted and modelled on Atlas-ti v8 software open coding system, for thematic data analysis. Five conditions emerged as key findings. These include (1) entrepreneurial knowledge and skills building; (2) integration of indigenous entrepreneurship systems; (3) engaged scholarship; (4) value creation and venturing, and (5) embedding resourceful stakeholders in the university value chain network. These conditions set a foundation for the systemic institutional design that follows. Future research may consider examining the conditions on a broader scale to develop an index for measuring a rural-based entrepreneurial university with the potential to foster local economic development agenda in South Africa.

1. Introduction

This empirical case study is one of the few studies on entrepreneurial university concept to provide an understanding of how universities can interact with society to become effective and relevant entrepreneurial institutions of higher learning in rural areas. Generally, entrepreneurial university is a well-discussed concept in the literature, but there is not much known about how it has evolved in rural-based universities, especially in Africa. Studies have attempted to elucidate the concept based on more established urban institutions of higher learning, mainly from developed countries like the Americas and Europe (Kirby 2005; Ceresia and Mendola 2019; Kirby et al. 2011; Klein et al. 2021). Characteristically, an entrepreneurial university operates with a certain level of internal and external resources that are critical to its operation. Kirby et al. (2011), Etzkowitz and Zhou (2017) and Klein et al. (2021) outlines some critical resources that include internal infrastructure for interdisciplinarity, teaching, networks incubation centres to promote entrepreneurial knowledge and innovation to meet current needs of the society, ecosystem actors and context, as well as actions that contribute to the local innovation ecosystem. It is no wonder that there are hardly any rural-based entrepreneurial universities despite the unquestionable need to have them operational in rural areas. This study aimed to conceptualise the conditions that determine an effective rural-based entrepreneurial university. In addition, the study enriched the theoretical support of the entrepreneurial concept, specifically, how it can be strategically approached in the context of rural-based universities in South Africa. Its significance lies in the fact that various stakeholders within university communities and outside with essential knowledge of entrepreneurial university have been engaged in establishing an understanding of the concept in terms of a systemic design and strategy plan.

Next in this paper is the literature review which provides insight into the historical roles of universities, overview of the entrepreneurial university concept, as well as discourse on the concept in South Africa where this study is premised. Subsequently, the study area and research methods followed by discussion of findings based on the result on the empirical study, as well as conclusions are presented. While the focus is on a rural-based university, the findings can be examined across other universities within and beyond the country to determine their efficacy for adoption.

2. The Historical Roles of Universities

Universities are recognised as the engines of knowledge generation and diffusion with an emphasis on the conservation of knowledge transfer right from the medieval period (Altbach 2008; Boulton and Lucas 2011; Etzkowitz 2013; Klein et al. 2021). A place where staff and students enjoyed the freedom to think, speculate and research as a benefit to society (Boulton and Lucas 2011; Audretsch et al. 2012). However, Altbach (2008) views the central responsibility of a modern university as that of teaching and provision of technical skills required to meet the demands of professionals and the current employment. Unlike the other higher learning institutions, the original purpose of establishing universities in Africa were to help decolonised government build their capacities to develop, manage resources and close the poverty gap between them and developed world (Sawyerr 2004). However, most of the institutions established continued with traditional roles inherited from the west (Sawyerr 2004; Altbach 2008; Cantoni and Yuchtman 2014) despite the resident opportunities for transformative research with potential to promote entrepreneurial activities for economic growth and development, ultimately achieving the original goal. While most African universities were and still are located in or near towns, majority of the population dwelt and still dwell in the remote rural areas (Sawyerr 2004) where research opportunities for development activities exist. They promoted freedom and independence and were rarely flexible to adapt to the changing societal needs (Etzkowitz 2013; Audretsch et al. 2012). With evolved modern university’s roles, there were challenges to translate research into intervention through knowledge and technology transfer (Etzkowitz 2013). Such challenge echoed Kuhnen’s (1978) earlier argument that the “ultimate yardstick for measuring the success of a university is the improvement in the life of the people it serves” and that the needs of the society should be at the centre of the university’s activities. In efforts to translate research to development interventions through transfer of knowledge and technology led to the introduction of the ‘Triple Helix Strategy’, a strategy emphasising collaboration between universities, Government and the Industry to improve livelihood (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 1997; Geoghegan and Pontikakis 2008; Etzkowitz and Zhou 2017). However, synergizing the three players proved elusive (Fitriani et al. 2019). Thus, to enable universities, especially in Africa address the triple challenge of underdevelopment, poverty and unemployment which societies grapple with, universities should significantly transform into innovative and entrepreneurial institutions.

3. The Entrepreneurial University

Increasingly, entrepreneurship is being recognised as a crucial national economic driver due to its entrepreneur’s ability to turn ideas into successful enterprises that create employment, improve local household’s incomes and create sustainable wealth. Various studies have confirmed this assertion and demonstrated the entrepreneur’s ability to improve people’s livelihoods and ultimately improve the social and economic fabric of the local and national economy (Aparicio et al. 2016; Ceresia and Mendola 2019; Klein et al. 2021). Although the scholar paints an encouraging picture of entrepreneurial success, it is not clear what factors and mechanisms that foster entrepreneurship development (Estrin et al. 2013; Ceresia and Mendola 2019). The entrepreneurial ability to positively impact the people and the national economy, to a greater extent, influenced the call for universities to become entrepreneurial. As the role of universities continues to evolve from its historical roles in the 19th century, the 21st century saw the emergence of entrepreneurial universities (Boulton and Lucas 2011; Etzkowitz and Clouser 2021; Klein et al. 2021). These have the principle purpose of teaching, research and fostering entrepreneurial activities that aim to contribute to the social development and economic growth of the nations (Guerrero and Urbano 2012). Inzelt (2004), Guerrero and Urbano (2012) and Audretsch et al. (2012) give some additional roles of entrepreneurial universities that include the provision of leadership in the creation of entrepreneurial thinking, actions, involvement with partnership, networks, entrepreneurial capital and other relationships with public and private organizations for interactions and collaboration.

The entrepreneurial university as a concept emerged over two decades ago (Shattock 2009; Sam and Van der Sijde 2014) and has gained momentum in some institutions of higher learning, especially the elite universities in America and Europe where it originated (Jansen van Nieuwenhuizen 2012; Etzkowitz 2013, 2016). In Africa, the concept is still at the infant level, although, researchers have acknowledged its significance for the continent’s growth and subsequently suggest the need for its adoption (Nkamnebe 2008; Lockyer 2015; Baporikar 2019; Lose and Kapondoro 2020; Nkusi et al. 2020; Doh et al. 2021). The entrepreneurial university concept emerged from a call for universities to explore resourceful directions in addressing social and economic issues as well as dynamic pathways for surviving and sustaining without necessarily compromising the traditional mandate of knowledge creation through teaching and research (Petruzzelli 2011; Alfalih and Ragmoun 2019). Clark (1998) added that the idea is how an institution of higher education can be innovative and engage in business, and become a ‘stand–up’ entity that is a significant factor in its objectives while tailoring a substantial shift in organizational character to position it for a more promising future. There is no doubt that the concept can be resourceful to economies such as South Africa where universities are constantly called upon to be at the centre of the countries socio-economic.

4. Introduction of Entrepreneurial Universities in South Africa

Like many other economies in the world, South Africa is currently engaging in discourse for policy measures that will enable the transformation of traditional universities into entrepreneurial universities. Among a few other steps, the establishment of the Entrepreneurship Development in Higher Education (EDHE), a subsidiary of Universities South Africa (USAf) is a milestone. Broadly, EDHE is aimed at the inculcation of a culture of entrepreneurship at universities: to equip every student for economic participation through entrepreneurial activity and address the issues of graduate unemployment; to support academics across disciplines to develop entrepreneurship through teaching, learning and research; and to support the development of universities as entrepreneurial and innovative ecosystems, which includes relevant policy development. At present, the programme champions the country’s entrepreneurial university vision using different initiatives. Firstly, its role in organising academic conferences which draw scholars from South Africa’s twenty-six (26) public universities and abroad to engage and co-interact entrepreneurship development in higher education. Secondly, it has over the years formed community of practice for entrepreneurship promotion, research and training wherein scholars and practitioners engage in small clusters to spearhead the country’s entrepreneurship vision. Lastly, through the EDHE, South Africa hosted an annual inter-varsity student entrepreneurship competition to stimulate entrepreneurial intention and creativity, as well as promote local innovation.

The Executive Leadership Workshop (ELW), held annually and hosted by the EDHE programme continually increases the number of institutions positioned as entrepreneurial universities. ELW provide an opportunity for South Africa’s University deputy vice-chancellors, executive directors and directors in entrepreneurship development, to engage in entrepreneurship at universities, specifically as it relates to university strategy and policy. This level of engagement demonstrates ardent commitments toward creating student entrepreneurship, changing the mindsets of university leaders, and building a future that will enable universities to be viable within and outside their communities. In line with extant literature globally linked to Etzkowitz and Zhou (2017); Centobelli et al. (2019); Klein et al. (2021), the orientation and approach South Africa has adopted constitute the main idea underpinning entrepreneurial university evolution. However, the extent to which this approach reflects the local peculiarities of the country is still unclear, and this has become one of the main issues of intellectual engagements and public discourses in contemporary South Africa.

With the competitive condition and complexities of contemporary society, the push for traditional universities to transform into entrepreneurial universities is even more necessary. Most societies confront a high level of poverty resulting from inequality and lack of job opportunities, yet there is still a category of young people, especially students who think they will be employed after graduating their programs (Mncayi and Dunga 2016; Dzomonda and Fatoki 2019). Ideally, this category of people will need a re-orientation that will enable them to reconsider career pathways, update their skills, and add new skills as their careers demand to thrive in a highly competitive labour market (Kripa et al. 2021). In this, the knowledge and skill entrepreneurial university provides can be resourceful in addressing this societal economic as well as social challenges—making it necessary for universities to readjust their role in the accomplishment of their social function. In addition to fulfilling its basic missions, universities, especially those in the developing economies need to consider one more mission: to collaborate for economic and social development (Klein et al. 2021). Taucean et al. (2018), particularly, believe that there is a high need for universities to transform into entrepreneurial universities as this would enable modern universities to adapt to the changing needs of the society, enhance entrepreneurial thinking and stimulate entrepreneurship activities. This notion conforms with Foss and Gibson’s (2015) viewpoint that entrepreneurial orientation enables universities to become more interactive with their environment to facilitate and enhance social and economic growth.

The entrepreneurial university is a crucial concept for developing economies such as South Africa where universities are increasingly being called upon to contribute more meaningfully toward socio-economic development. However, not much is known about the whole concept of entrepreneurial tertiary institutions in the country. Particularly, there is little or no evidence of any exploratory and empirical research which draws a broad range of stakeholders to contribute to providing a clear picture of what an effective entrepreneurial university entails in a rural-based university in the country. Emerging research linked to South Africa are mostly theoretical (Lose and Kapondoro 2020), while empirical-related studies published in the country relied mainly on ontological arguments of top stakeholders in urban-based universities (Chetty 2021). More worrying is the emphasis to use the European Union (EU) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) HEInnovate—Guiding Framework for Entrepreneurial Universities to inform the concept in South Africa and Africa (Baporikar 2019; Chetty 2021). While these researches contributed significantly to the body of knowledge, it leaves major concerns as to whether the HEInnovate entrepreneurship model which is highly Eurocentric, in terms of content and methods can achieve the desired outcomes for South Africa, bearing in mind entrepreneurial orientation, cultures and priorities differ objectively from one region to another. These are theoretical and methodology gaps to should be interrogated by researchers.

Secondly, the cognitive processes and design thinking involved in entrepreneurial universities in Africa should be holistic, mainly because of (1) the narrative that only through the cooperation of various entities that conditions are co-created and made conducive to the development of knowledge, entrepreneurship and innovation in regions (Lewandowska et al. 2021), and (2) the call for universities to reconfigure into community-driven and people-centred institutions of higher learning (Francis et al. 2016). Multi-stakeholder engagement is critical in driving a people-centred university for inclusive economic growth. This assertion, therefore, makes it imperative for universities to progressively draw stakeholders from different spheres, especially grassroots community members to co-design an institutional framework for development.

According to Francis et al. (2016), university’s inability to engage effectively with grassroots communities has resulted in their unsatisfactory contribution to finding sustainable solutions to problems and issues hampering the realisation of improved quality of life for people. The resultant effects can be consequential as a university’s growth is highly determined by the support it receives from its host communities in terms of research and enrolment. Engaging well-informed stakeholders from different works of life, therefore, can be part of the solution for a relevant entrepreneurial university. In other words, the whole idea of navigating entrepreneurial university concept should be co-interacted by different stakeholders that either directly or indirectly benefit from it. Students and grassroots community members, for instance, are knowledge holders with resourceful information that will enable university actors to design systems that conform to their immediate realities (Francis et al. 2016). Lack of this integration in the design process of the concept in South Africa, coupled with inferences based on theoretical studies created knowledge and population gaps; not until this challenge is well-addressed, the concept, in its entirety is doomed to failure. Solving these challenges motivated the current empirical study which allows for engagements with a wide range of stakeholders from different spheres, positions and entrepreneurial knowledge, using the University of Venda as a case analysis.

5. Materials and Methods

5.1. Study Area

The University of Venda is situated in the Thohoyandou area in the scenic Vhembe District of the Limpopo Province, South Africa. The area is located in the northern part of the country which shares a border with Botswana, Mozambique and Zimbabwe. The University was established in 1982 under the then Republic of Venda during the apartheid regime to serve the inhabitants of the Venda Bantustan which later was re-integrated into South Africa-–this historical undertone classifies the University as an HDI in the country. At present, it accommodates approximately 16,000 students and numerous staff members predominantly from the northern parts of the country, however, there is a considerable number of staff members coming from other parts of the country and overseas in its four faculties-–The faculty of Science, Engineering and Agriculture (FSEA), Faculty of Management, Commerce and Law (FMCL), Faculty of Humanities, Social Science and Education (FHSE), and Faculty of Health Sciences (FHS).

The University is still identified as rural-based given its location in the Vhembe District, surrounded by typical villages where many of the households either depend on social grants and/or engage in subsistence agrarian activities as well as micro and small businesses to survive. Even though this area contributes immensely to the country’s agricultural output and has sufficient natural resources to develop, most of its regions are underdeveloped and deficient in critical basic services. A vast majority of university students hail from middle and low-income backgrounds, and many rely solely on public or private financial aid to service their study bills (Netshandama et al. 2021). This situation, coupled with high unemployment rates, low levels of entrepreneurial acumen and increasing enterprise failure in the area (Nkondo 2017; Kativhu 2019; Iwara et al. 2019), income insecurity and joblessness surges. To position itself as an institution of higher learning that can build a strong entrepreneurial capacity focusing on the area’s socio-economic development, the University started to encourage entrepreneurial activities in 2018/19, such as projects, short training and organizing of events. In 2020, entrepreneurship development was incorporated as one of its four (Strategic Thrust 2) formulated Strategy Plan 2021–2025 such that it becomes an entrepreneurial university that can build essential capacity for South Africa’s growth. However, the precise path to this transformation remains exclusive given the lack of scientific evidence linked to the University’s configuration into an entrepreneurial entity. Ideally, more needs to be done and in the right direction.

5.2. Methodology

An exploratory case study research design was followed. The population and methodology gaps existing in research linked to South Africa’s entrepreneurial university concept motivated the choice for selecting the design. The current allows for the collection and analysis of qualitative data. Also, it was considered convenient and suitable as it enables one-on-one interaction/interviews between the researchers and the research participants drawn from different categories during data collection and other stages of this study (Creswell and Creswell 2017). Essentially, the design provides an opportunity for in-depth interaction in the form of rephrased and follow-up questions to probe and explore participants’ responses deeply on their standpoints about the entrepreneurial university concept peculiar to their local realities. While participants cut across different age groups, qualifications, employment statuses and sectors, only people with direct knowledge of entrepreneurial universities were interviewed. The variation of sample enabled data triangulation across different stakeholders which then ensure both rigour and internal validity. A hybrid data collection method (a combination of physical and online platforms) adopted in this study was most efficient amid the lockdown regulations surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic. Physical in-depth interviews were conducted with some of the participants after they gave their ethical consent to participate in the study. The physical data collection method was complemented with an online survey obtained using a google form, Zoom, telephone, and WhatsApp while using the same semi-structured questions.

Table 1. Participant demographics.

Designation	Age Category		Gender
	Youth	Adult	Male	Female	Sum
Undergraduate students	4	1	2	3	5
Postgraduate students	5	4	4	5	9
Academic staff	2	2	2	2	4
Non-academic staff	1	2	1	2	3
Community members	3	2	2	3	5
Municipal officials	2	2	2	2	4
Entrepreneurship agency representatives	2	1	2	1	3
	19	14	15	18	33

Source: researchers’ elaboration.

summarises the total sample from whom data was collected for the study.

The data adequacy in this study was informed by saturation point, that is, a stage where subsequent information gathered from additional participants contributes little or nothing different from the information being obtained from previous participants (Fusch and Ness 2015). In all, 37 stakeholders agreed to participate in the survey, four of whom were void due to inconsistency in their demographic details and arguments relating to the subject matter. These were tested using a split-half assessment technique for data validity. Out of the total valid surveys (n = 33), the youth accounted for 19 while the remaining are adults. Likewise, there were 15 males and 18 females. The semi-structured interviews were consolidated and transcribed verbatim in typed format—Microsoft word document—and then subjected to an analysis modelled on Atlas-ti v8 software open coding system for thematic data analysis. Atlas-ti is ideal for manipulating large amounts of text (Smit 2002) such as the ones used in this study.

The coding/annotation techniques are ideal for isolating relevant information to enable summarising of large text into a network diagram to visually connect specific information. The technique was also appropriate in generating themes in line with participants’ standpoints about entrepreneurial universities peculiar to their area. Each ‘open network diagram’ summarises the results of one of the conditions for a rural-based entrepreneurial university concept as it relates to the University of Venda. There are three outliers in each diagram. Firstly, the central outlier explains the main idea, and it is considered the main theme (code). Secondly, the outliers with receptive arrows. These are known as ‘quotation neighbours’ and may as well be referred to as sub-themes. Quotation neighbours present participants’ generative ideas that informed the formation and classification of main themes. Depending on the coding and analytical dimension, quotation neighbours capture verbatim (as in the case of this study) from qualitative data that gives a summarised idea about the phenomenon being investigated. In some cases, sub-themes are linked together to explain how they relate and connect to the main theme. The third outliers are ‘common neighbours. This outlier provides a summarised source of information that makes up the quotation neighbours and codes, hence, serving as a reference point. This enables readers to easily picture and connect each narrative from quotation neighbours at a glance and link them to their sources such as participant, document, age category and others. In each common neighbour, “D” represents a document wherein codes and quotations were generated, “P” stands for a participant while the numbers denote frequency. Other observable items in the common neighbours remain as explained earlier.

6. Results and Discussion of Findings

The conditions described in this paper are based on interview excerpts with 33 stakeholders. The factors related to (1) entrepreneurial knowledge and skills building, (2) integration of indigenous entrepreneurship development systems, (3) engaged scholarship, (4) value creation for commercialization and venturing, and (5) embedding resourceful stakeholders in the value chain network. The five conditions together constitute a set of initiatives for an effective rural-based entrepreneurial University that can foster citizen-driven local economic development in rural South Africa.

6.1. Entrepreneurial Knowledge and Skill Building

In this, awareness programmes, training, taught courses, research projects, service-learning and effectively engaging communities emerged as an essential initiative for knowledge and skills building (Figure 1). Centralising these initiatives would enable the university to ram up swiftly in its entrepreneurial drive and contribute meaningfully to society. The university curriculum would have to be revisited and aligned to entrepreneurial knowledge development for sustainable business and industries, change and build the mindset of learners to become entrepreneurial. This is particularly critical because of the need for knowledge and skills to make social innovation happen in society. A respondent puts it that:

“… it should be a university that teaches students the different tools to do business across disciplines, identify unique patterns of applying entrepreneurship in each field of study and/or how to make entrepreneurial value from distinct specializations and degrees”.

(P 25—Adult; Non-academic Staff)

“We envisage an entrepreneurial university that has a cohort of academic-entrepreneurs who have high business knowledge, are innovative in teaching and learning and research to groom students who can turn around their learning and research into a business idea that brings solutions for societal gain”.

(P 24—Adult; Community member)

The restructuring of the system to create a conducive entrepreneurial environment for breeding and grooming students in different areas of specialization, as well as capacity building which allows for staff-student entrepreneurial training were some of the points raised by respondents:

“… have a system that can provide a flexible and dynamic environment such that the orientation for enterprise venturing is not limited to disciplines or Schools …”.

(P 7—Youth; Postgrad; FMCL)

“At present, entrepreneurship is offered as a module in some Departments within the School of Agriculture and School of Management Sciences. Knowledge plays a pivotal role in students’ development in the course. This ‘offering’ should be made accessible to all Departments across Schools. … in fact, entrepreneurship knowledge should be offered as a compulsory base module in the University just like the general modules …”.

(P 22—Youth; Undergrad; FMCL)

The call for transformation in higher learning to provide for entrepreneurial education supports Ndou et al. (2019) and Kripa et al. (2021). These scholars maintained that institutions of higher learning, especially their business schools’ subsidiaries, serving as leaders in many entrepreneurial processes in society, need to find how to leverage their continuing brand strengths and their tangible and intangible assets to retain a central role in extended learning lives. In line with this position, respondents further add that implementing entrepreneurship learning as compulsory ‘basic education’, will lay a solid foundation for promoting entrepreneurial intention and venturing amongst learners at an early age:

“… put in place strategies of knowledge-building which will enable the educating of primary school pupils and the nurturing of high school learners, specifically, on basic entrepreneurship. This can lay the proper foundation such that the youth transition into higher institutions not only being well-embedded academically but also with entrepreneurial intentions and/or already engaged in its practices”.

(P 11—Adult; Postgrad; FMCL)

In recent decades, entrepreneurship education and training programs are increasingly emphasized in all parts of the world. The reason is premised on building profiles of entrepreneurs to stimulate innovation and increase productive ventures (Elert et al. 2015; Ceresia and Mendola 2019; Ratten and Usmanij 2021). The resultant effect will be local and regional economic development through wealth and job creation. While programmes play an essential role in the economy, they are mostly limited to institutions of higher learning and business incubation centres, with little or no attention being given to secondary and primary schools (Elert et al. 2015), where they should lay entrepreneurial foundations for learners. The approach to building profiles of entrepreneurs is imperative to every economy given that skills acquisition at an early stage of life is critical for human development and their career (Huber et al. 2014; Hassi 2016). Entrepreneurship education in high schools can provide learners transitioning into tertiary education with fundamental entrepreneurial knowledge and skillsets that shape behaviour, stimulate intention and drive thoughts of venturing. Elert et al. (2015) particularly believe that it has a long-term positive impact on entrepreneurial entry, performance and quality of firms and that it is crucial in building early-career entrepreneurs required to create job opportunities and impact the local economy. (Johansen and Clausen 2011; Kirkley 2017). It is against these overreaching benefits that South Africa has over the years engaged in debates for reforms to allow for entrepreneurship education in high schools, it is unclear how and when the proposal will materialize. How then can higher education institutions such as the University of Venda stimulate the country’s entrepreneurship agenda in basic schools, and develop a framework in relation to knowledge needs and their social impact? This is an important area of discourse in South Africa’s entrepreneurial university agenda.

Projectization forms part of the key foundations for knowledge and skills development as it enables academics, students and grassroots community members to participate in different entrepreneurial activities, mainly steered by the university. Through this, people form a community of practice and institute stakeholders to co-interact and co-develop both theoretical knowledge and practical skills which together promotes social innovation and the local economy. Respondents have a shared belief that people involved in a project can teach and learn together:

“… it is essential to have a wide range of programs and projects where majority of the student can involve to learn basic entrepreneurial skills, sometimes, attach them to mentor …”.

(P 23—Youth; Undergrad; FHS)

“… entrepreneurship taught is important but that alone cannot suffice and/or guarantee entrepreneurial mindset and intention. … the process should be facilitated in dimensions, complementing practical skills, mentorship, internship programs, and venturing seed funds opportunities …”

(P 7—Youth; Postgrad; FMCL)

Projectization work in tandem with service-learning and skills development. Service learning being an educational approach that combines entrepreneurship learning objectives with community service enables development actors such as universities to follow a pragmatic approach to meeting societal needs and in return, gain in the process of rendering services. The emphasis is that service-learning can be redefined and conceptualised in a way that students benefit through internship placement and other community service programs.

“… intensify service-learning …” “it creates platforms where the university actors and community members co-interrogate and co-design solutions to challenges societies face. In between, the University and grassroots communities where service is rendered are the students who work and benefit from the progressive learning experience …”.

(P 11—Adult; Postgrad; FMCL)

“… you know the local farmers and business owners in the villages have essential entrepreneurial experience the University can tap from. It can strengthen its ties with them, such that students are placed there as an apprentice to acquire knowledge and skills …, this is experimental entrepreneurship one cannot find anywhere in the classroom …”.

(P 32—Adult; Municipal official)

Another line of thinking points to periodic activities such as training events that continually rejuvenate entrepreneurial mindset and intention, as well as competitions and exhibitions where student entrepreneurs demonstrate talent, showcase innovation and engage entrepreneurially with both peers and key stakeholders. To reiterate, South Africa, through the EDHE program organises an annual inter-varsity student entrepreneurship competition which aims at stimulating entrepreneurial intention, creativity, and local innovation. Accordingly, the University of Venda participate actively and this is in line with the responders’ view. However, the EDHE program is hosted once a year and at the national level, thus, limiting many students at the local level the opportunity to showcase their innovation and/or interact with support stakeholders. While the national competition is important, it should as well be disintegrated into the 26 universities in the country and be organised frequently at that level. In this, it can serve as a localised platform for talent hunts monthly or quarterly at the University of Venda. A respondent expressed thus,

“… the university entrepreneurship framework should provide for annual entrepreneurship season—it can be for a week or two to sensitize the masses. In this, there can be series of events ranging from product showcasing, soft skills training, presentations and motivational talks based on lived experiences, competitions and celebration of student entrepreneurship”.

(P 6—Youth; Undergrad; FSEA)

“… it is important to see the University hosting specific entrepreneurship and innovation challenge competition for staff and students in respective faculties and departments”.

(P 11—Adult; Postgrad; FMCL)

“… create more platforms to facilitate entrepreneurship awareness, sensitization and training sessions for students and community members. This has a role to play in creating an effective entrepreneurial atmosphere, awakening, as well as strengthening entrepreneurial culture and spirit”.

(P 1—Adult; Postgrad; FHS)

“… during training or programs, engaging students in small business groups where they can learn as a community of practice is paramount and can enhance mutual skills development”.

(P 2—Youth; Postgrad; FHSE)

Broadly, entrepreneurship knowledge and skills-building as a fundamental ingredient of an entrepreneurial university is a contemporary topic well-discussed in the literature. On one hand, emphasis is placed on curriculum development for baseline studies and short-courses’ training (El-Khasawneh 2008; Bellotti et al. 2012; Hattab 2014), on the other hand, universities tend to harness a wide range of mechanisms such as mentorship, projectization, competitions, awareness programmes, conferences, workshops and research to spearhead the agenda (Fernandez-Alles et al. 2018; Durán-Sánchez et al. 2019). All these initiatives reflect findings obtained from the current study. However, discourse linked to entrepreneurial universities being at the centre for tailoring entrepreneurial education in high schools is still lacking, and this is peculiar to the University of Venda. Similarly, service-learning as an integral entrepreneurial university element that allows for mutual knowledge and skills development lacks research attention. These thoughts are essential and should be explored to inform a rural-based entrepreneurial university that conforms to peculiar grassroots realities.

6.2. Integration of Indigenous Entrepreneurship Systems

Indigenous entrepreneurial knowledge systems should constitute the bedrock of rural-based entrepreneurial universities in Africa. Re-thinking and re-introducing indigenous concepts and systems of enterprising in the university would enable learners to familiarise themselves with traditional approaches to entrepreneurship and broaden their knowledge about practical realities peculiar to their environment (Figure 2). The motivation is derived from the current state of things wherein the university curriculum is biased toward Western ideologies as Sawyerr (2004) argues with regards to the African universities. In view of the fact that entrepreneurial challenges and orientation differ with areas, the Western-driven syllabus may not provide the knowledge and skills needed to navigate peculiar issues in the study area.

Indigenizing entrepreneurship pedagogy is a challenge many institutions of learning in Africa still grapple with (Darley and Luethge 2019), given their reliance on Western ideologies which tend to suppress knowledge systems from Indigenous Peoples (Joy and Poonamallee 2013; Darley and Luethge 2019; Abreu-Pederzini and Suarez-Barraza 2020). In a way, this deprives the youth essential knowledge they would have gotten from Indigenous entrepreneurial knowledge systems and cultural values. According to Woods et al. (2022), reconstructing entrepreneurship education through indigenizing pedagogy and learning will provide space for the learners to connect or reconnect with Indigenous systems, orientation as well as ways of knowing and engaging with the particular business discipline of entrepreneurs. In re-echoing this concern, a respondent maintained that:

“… it should be a university that can successfully identify an essential and unique entrepreneurial path to development. Entrepreneurship knowledge-building, teaching, research and community engagement should be informed by indigenous models that are compatible with the realities of South Africa’s landscape. It must be driven by its contextual intrinsic parameters and not seek to replicate practices existing elsewhere which may not speak to our peculiar issues. Only when this is sorted and implemented, can the University be entrepreneurial enough to understand and relate well with emerging and peculiar issues in this area, thereby, direct targeted support to society …”.

(P 14—Youth; Community member)

Re-introducing indigenous entrepreneurial education is imperative in addressing theory and reality gaps in Africa, perpetrated by Western education. For instance, access to business capital in Africa remains stiff (Asongu and Odhiambo 2019), not because of insufficient finances but complexities linked to Western funding frameworks imposed on Africans, stemming from strenuous and exorbitant security conditions that in most cases, delineate the grassroots entrepreneurs—a constrain limiting many talented African graduates who could succeed in their entrepreneurial endeavours and impact significantly to local economic development. Unfortunately, the curriculum for teaching and learning did not provide knowledge on African social values which allows for capital mobilisation, hence, continued to be marginalised and underdeveloped by Western education and discriminatory funding parents. In a typical African setting, entrepreneurs mobilize finances informally and this goes along with skills acquisition, networking, collaborative business partnerships, as well as marketing (Arko-Achemfuor 2012; Kariuki and Ofusori 2017; Iwara 2020; Amaechi et al. 2021). These orientations are embedded in indigenous entrepreneurship models such as Stokvel and the Igbo Traditional Business School (I-TBS) to mention a few functional orientations thriving in traditional markets in South Africa, Africa and beyond, at various levels. These models, however, have been marginalized and segregated in the education system in favour of Western knowledge systems. The ignorance of these essential models and African business orientation, in general, has deprived young Africans of the opportunity to learn and acquire essential knowledge and skills to thrive in an African entrepreneurial market. In relation to this argument, respondents narrate thus:

“… very often, universities, colleges and entrepreneurship development agencies use foreign models to facilitate entrepreneurship capacity-building in local areas that require a more traditional approach to enterprise venturing. The lack of knowledge mix and linkage is one of the reasons most young entrepreneurs, especially those that have been trained and funded by some entrepreneurship agencies or institutions fail”.

(P 32—Adult; Municipal official)

“… emphatically, a more pragmatic approach to entrepreneurship-knowledge transfer is needed not only in this University but institutions of higher learning across the country because very often what students are being taught in the classroom is far from actual realities in the entrepreneurial field. Our higher institutions are regurgitating and diffusing knowledge to survive and not imparting the form of education required to thrive in our local entrepreneurial landscape …”.

(P 15—Youth; Academic staff)

The lack of a sustainable Afrocentric entrepreneurship framework in higher education is one concern while another relates to the non-placement of knowledgeable individuals in needed areas to enhance knowledge, skills transfer, policy and practice, using relevant models peculiar to grassroots realities. These gaps motivated the thought-provoking questions from a respondent:

“Do teachers at the University have the essential skills to impart core entrepreneurial knowledge relating to what we do every day? Are students being taught about traditional African business patterns? Is the syllabus still being complemented with numerous western theories and methodologies such as … that do not even apply to our systems? Are community members and local entrepreneurs who have practical experience involved in the planning and designing process of the entrepreneurial university? These are probably some of the questions you should answer because they determine the nature of the entrepreneurial university needed here in Vhembe District and South Africa at large”.

(P 18—Youth; Community member)

In responding to respondents’ questions, the necessity to deepen our understanding of grassroots entrepreneurial realities and re-design contextual support initiatives for high impact is critical. In addition, the need to redefine the curriculum such that it provides the opportunity to engage in a variety of Indigenous-centric entrepreneurial training and mentoring, and community grounded practices that feature the co-creation and co-construction of knowledge is even more crucial. A respondent further justifies the standpoint in the following ways,

“… an average student will learn a subject, pass and forget it if the content is presented in a manner where they can envisage it is not relevant to the society in which they find themselves. It is important to use realistic approaches to communicate entrepreneurship to students; they should see it fits and applies to their ecosystem”.

(P 3—Adult; Academic staff)

“… I anticipate the teachers to become entrepreneurial such that they understand the specific methods and approaches that can be harnessed to impart entrepreneurial knowledge to students. They should be able to convert the knowledge they gained in class to a business concept or model …”.

(P 20—Youth; Postgrad; FSEA)

The whole idea embraces building an entrepreneurial university that understands the realities of its immediate environment; that which is able to identify pathways to navigate peculiar issues innovatively. This argument supports Baporikar (2019) who mentioned that “to achieve excellence and ensure substantial contribution to the role expected in an emerging economy, each university needs to carve its path to transform into an entrepreneurial university depending upon geographical location and its unique situation”. Staff-student entrepreneurship development should be centred not only on emerging issues but realities peculiar to their local economy. This is because their ability to respond to emerging needs in their society, to a large extend, depend on their entrepreneurial orientation and innovation (Bell 2016; Bikse et al. 2016). Despite these standpoints, reintegration of African indigenous entrepreneurial models is not anywhere part of the discourse linked to entrepreneurial university drive in South Africa, rather, emerging studies reckoned on Eurocentric models and this leaves concerns.

6.3. Engaged Scholarship

The overall economic impact of an entrepreneurial university may be limited if precise developmental knowledge is not searched for and transferred to a broader society for usage. The University of Venda is well-engaged in terms of research and innovation, competing favourably and rated highly amongst its HDI counterparts. What is not very clear to participants, however, is the extent to which the university has utilised its research capacity to inform entrepreneurial practices in terms of building successful student entrepreneurs, stimulating local enterprise efficacy, promoting grassroots community development as well as helping local institutions to grow. There is a belief that engaged scholarship will enable the University to stay current with local activities, understand emerging societal issues and work with various stakeholders to co-create lasting solutions (Figure 3). Importantly, co-interacting with various stakeholders can assist the University to develop a framework that will guide its research mission, determine the typology of research engagements to prioritise and ensure effective distribution of research findings for implementation. Although engaged scholarship as an integral foundation for social development and one of the integrated functions of higher education—teaching, research and community engagement—is well-emphasized (Zuber-Skerritt et al. 2015; Miszczak and Patel 2018), however, the concepts as it concerns entrepreneurial university stimulating knowledge creation that responds effectively to present needs and growing societal expectations have not yet been fully matched.

Shifting from a traditional to a more robust entrepreneurial-based university that constantly interacts with communities, in terms of research and innovation, is a critical step to consider. This is so because the interaction enhances understanding of the nature and dimension of issues grappling with societies which then enables the creation of content with socio-economic standing to effectively impact both the University community and the broader society. Some participants maintain that:

“… enterprise failure in South Africa is alarming, contributing to job losses, increasing rate of unemployment, poverty and even crime. What is the problem? Where is it coming from? How can it be solved? Our universities should serve as knowledge producers and perform relevant research projects not only to provide answers to these questions but they must also identify more proactive and dynamic ways of engaging with policymakers, entrepreneurship agencies and grassroots entrepreneurs for a sustained solution…”

(P 32—Adult Municipal official)

“… a university that researches to provide knowledge and goes back to societies with the outcome, specifically, on how to manage a successful business, becomes resilient, competitive and sustainable.” This is lacking in many traditional universities; Univen, as a rural-based institution of higher learning located in an area where these problems are outrageous should be concerned about solving them …”.

(P 10—Youth; Community member)

Empirical evidence shows that co-interacting with stakeholders in grassroots communities is critical holding to their sufficient knowledge of the challenges confronting their societies and precise circumstances to be able to suggest more accurate cause-effect relationships (Karasi 2018; Iwara 2020). In order words, proper intervention measures towards mounting an effective entrepreneurial university with needed resources to leverage local economic challenges can be directed when these challenges are understood from a specific point of view. Thus, in the transformation process, there is a need for the university actors to engage and interact rigorously with grassroots communities and their stakeholders to co-create systems that are compatible with realities, as well as sustainable. In addressing the concerns about types of research and knowledge distribution to society, participants believe that:

“The University can shift from basic research to fundamental and applied research that is useful to the community … and should work closely with community members to understand the nature of problems they face to determine the dimension of research undertakings”.

(P 21—Adult; Academic staff)

“… it should use its research and experiential learning to develop insightful student and local entrepreneurs who are locally relevant and globally competitive in developing innovative solutions to complex societal problems”.

(P 1—Adult; Postgrad; FHS)

The entrepreneurial university framework fits into a wider conceptualisation of the role of higher education institutions in society (Lockyer 2015), especially, local economic development (Francis et al. 2016) and is not simply a case of helping students and staff in higher learning to develop a more entrepreneurial mindset. Empirical evidence reveals that “there is a pressure on South African universities to be part of the transformation and development agenda, and in so doing to contribute to economic growth and the upliftment of the country’s citizens” (van Schalkwyk and Bailey 2013). The collective understanding of how this change can be pursued is paramount, and one of the dimensions is through effective community-driven research. Universities must recognise and acknowledge knowledge holders from different societal clusters and partner with grassroots community members to carry out meaningful research. A sound research foundation built on university-based and community-based dialogues is critical for building bridges between theory and practice, ideally, the outcome can be more effective for policy reforms and implementation because of the knowledge mix. Respondents had this to say:

“… It is time the university develops a framework that encompasses key areas of research that can create societal value. There should be an active strategy for funding to attract researchers’ interest in the niche and plans to commercialise the end products. Postgraduates and academics should focus their research initiatives on community issues and it has to be solution-driven”.

(P 21—Adult; Academic staff)

“… being practical comes with massive impact. Firstly, it will enable the generation of diverse ideas and solutions towards solving community problems and secondly, it enhances the production of marketable graduates given that they are directly involved in the knowledge-building process and technology transfer for societal impact”.

(P 11—Adult; Postgrad; FMCL)

Modern universities have obligations to address social and economic needs in society. Responding to this requires some adjustments to the way they function to ensure that they fit into the task (Taucean et al. 2018). Shifting from traditional to entrepreneurial-based university requires a paradigm shift in the typology of research being performed. For instance, participants pointed to adjustments from basic research to applied research, emphasising that the University’s research outcomes should be that which interact with the local economy—leveraging business failure, poverty and ensuring sustainable livelihood. The emphasis on local economic development, specifically, improving the country’s socio-economic conditions conforms with earlier evidence from Rwanda (Nkusi et al. 2020). In this context, entrepreneurial university orientation focuses on rebuilding civil society. Universities in the country are re-configuring such that they engage actively with societies to enhance inclusive local economic development, improve the livelihood of the masses and reduce the possibility of a return to future conflict resulting in genocide (Nkusi et al. 2020). Aside from the fact that there is little attention around engaged scholarship being an important foundation for entrepreneurial university concept, arguably, the social innovation and community development dimension of the foundation emerging in Africa differ from those in the western world. Entrepreneurial universities, especially, those in developed economies focus more on mainstream entrepreneurship, technology advancement and internal wealth creation.

6.4. Value Creation for Commercialisation and Venturing

Value creation for commercialization and venturing concerns the extent to which an entrepreneurial university creates tangible and intangible content for a wider community. Research shows that commercialisation and venturing knowledge and research products form the cradle for entrepreneurial university concept and it is imperative (Etzkowitz 2013, 2016; Alfalih and Ragmoun 2019). This points to various initiatives such as patenting and licensing of research, prototypes and scientific discoveries; creation of spin-offs and technology parks, publishing of academic research, grantsmanship, or the production of highly-qualified graduates, among other factors (Cerver Romero et al. 2021). In this study, however, the conceptual definition of commercialisation and venturing goes beyond research and technology transfer. As summarised in Figure 4, there could be a need to explore available natural resources, focusing more on mainstream entrepreneurship, especially venturing into the Vhembe Reserve Biosphere for both ecotourism and agri-enterprise creation, likewise, building a strong internal agricultural base for agribusiness purposes:

“… Vhembe District is the capital of natural wealth in Limpopo province with untapped resources, such as the Vhembe Biosphere, Phiphidi Waterfall, Nandoni Dam and several other surrounding sites which have potential for industrial eco-tourism. It is also known for indigenous products in medicine and local craft. These resources are underutilised at the moment even though they have strong business potential. There is a need for the university to interact with grassroots communities, government, entrepreneurship agencies as well as entrepreneurs on the ground to harness them broadly and pave way for more businesses with a greater impact on economic development. The curriculum should be that which provides students with practical and innovative skills to venture in all these opportunities that are readily available and not graduating with mere traditional degrees that are not in demand …”.

(P 5—Youth; Academic staff)

“… the University is strategically situated where it can access vast and fertile land. The Faculty of Agriculture, Environmental Sciences and Management Science must know how to make essential use of it for business impact. Firstly, the expansion of some of the farms, for example commercialising eggs, chickens and cattle will have a great impact on revenue and local employment. Secondly, cassava grows perfectly well on the soil and has great potential for sugar production which is one of the largest selling products in Southern Africa. How about building a factory?”.

(P 13—Youth; Postgrad; FSEA)

The emphasis on mainstream entrepreneurship emanates from the fact that the University still struggles with research productivity mainly resulting from insufficient knowledge capital and lack of institutional research culture. Research commercialisation such as sales of product licenses and patents, consultancy, and top-tier publications to scale up subsidy intake may have been mentioned. There are however, disbelieve and misconceptions that the university in its current state has the capacity and comparative advantage in such. Therefore, emphasis should be made on the University’s areas of strength to prosper while building its internal research capacity. This narrative agrees with Etzkowitz (2013) who maintains that “Universities with fewer research resources to commercialize, not surprisingly, take a longer time to ramp up. However, some universities with modest resources, … that have made tech transfer and firm formation an equal priority with education and research have achieved higher rates of valorisation than many of their resource-rich competitors”. To further buttress this point, another respondent continues thus,

“… step up research awareness to motivate institutional culture as well as interests and intention; these are lacking in the University. Capacity development in terms of research training, staff and postgraduate research funding initiatives should be revisited and enhanced accordingly. At present, I feel that knowledge and research commercialisation is unattainable because we cannot sell what we do not have! Both the quality and quantity commercial are lacking; with the ongoing institutional reforms and political undertone which compromises merit and productivity as well as exploit and discriminate against some scholars, especially black migrants whose contribution to the University’s research enterprise are unprecedented, I doubt that the transformation in question is viable. I am not in any doubting the capabilities of the locals, it is already gearing that putting harsh conditions on the ground to tactically remove resource foreign scholars in the system has resulted to low productivity. This is a serious concern to visit if one is talking about transformation …”.

(P 15—Youth; Academic staff)

It should be emphasised that as USA and UK to the world in terms of research output, so is South Africa to Africa. For more than a decade, the country’s academic higher institutions have been leaders in research productivity on the continent and the University of Venda is not exempted. Among other factors, the ability to draw a wealth of knowledge across borders post-apartheid played a significant role. The country welcomed talented people from different parts of the world, especially African academics and professionals who contributed immensely to building both research enterprises and local capacities (Tella 2018; Jansen 2019). However, the paradigm is shifting as some scholars from other African countries have been forced to leave for their home countries or relocate to countries in America, Asia and Europe, where their intellectual resources are valued. To Oloruntoba (2022), the migration mainly resulted from a deliberate policy to turn African diaspora academics into causal labourers through exclusion from permanent positions and administrative posts. Against this premise, many are untenured and unpromoted, while some have been subjected to servitude and continued exploitation. In many cases, some host scholars coerce them into putting their names in papers which they did not write or contributed. Coupled with the ever-ending xenophobic tendencies and attacks that constantly remind the foreign academic resource (Tella 2018; Patra 2019), especially the black migrants of their statuses in the country. Accordingly, African diaspora academics are bound to migrate. Like many other institutions of higher learning in South Africa, the tides also rest within the walls of the University of Venda and need to be addressed to maintain the required status quo for commercialisation of research.

In relation to African diaspora academics and South Africa’s research productivity, as well as transformation in higher education Oloruntoba (2022) opine that push to marginalise foreigners may “serve the immediate desire of nationalists championing the slogan of ‘South African first’ which in the university system should not apply as diversity ought to be the defining feature. Consequently, the long-term implication of such actions is the loss of quality, global rating and recognition that have been the defining features of the country’s university system since 1994. Diversity is an instrument of transformation and has contributed significantly to the growth and development of giant entrepreneurial universities that emerged earlier globally in terms of collaboration, research and technology development. Ideally, embracing diversity by retaining talented academics and professionals across the globe will enable UNIVEN to stimulate its research productivity and innovation to meet respondents’ demands:

“… with so much already being researched and archived in the university library, we expect valuable products out of it. The University should be generating income directly from its research to augment the government subsidy that is being received annually. This is necessary for its self-sustenance …”.

(P 2—Youth; Postgrad; FHSE)

“… it should be a university that runs its operations as a business. For instance, when it comes to research and innovation, an entrepreneurial university strives towards the practice of marketable research outputs, publication contents and other forms of innovative products”.

(P 8—Adult; Non-academic staff)

“… ‘no two ways’ about that; it’s simply redirecting focus to research areas in high demand within the local and/or regional economy and ensures that each innovation is patent such that it becomes a property for the university—this is an income stream”.

(P 15—Youth; Academic staff)

“… as far as I know, entrepreneurial universities are fertile ground for knowledge generation, idea nurturing, branding and marketing. Having the right people and relevant technology in place can stimulate transformation, build entrepreneurial capacity and enable students and staff members to commercialise their innovation”.

(P 23—Youth; Undergrad; FHS)

The emphasis on skills development, local innovation and venturing corroborate Audretsch et al.’s (2012) view that “the emergence of the entrepreneurial university was the need to create new interdisciplinary fields and research areas devoted to providing solutions to specific societal problems and challenges, along with a series of mechanisms and institutions dedicated to facilitating the spill over of knowledge from the university to firms and non-profit organizations”. Knowledge generation alone which is primarily the mission of traditional universities cannot ensure that knowledge would spill over for commercialization driving innovative activity and economic growth. This narrative explains the emergence of the entrepreneurial university concept which has the mandate to generate new knowledge and alter its activities to allow for technology transfer and knowledge spill overs which then stimulate innovation and venturing (Audretsch et al. 2012; Cerver Romero et al. 2021). Ideally, an entrepreneurial university should be a fertile ground through which entrepreneurial initiatives are cascaded not only for knowledge building but nurturing of ideas and skills development which then spills over into ventures. To the respondents, the feasibility of this third mission lies in the ability to design systems for entrepreneurial skills training, mentorship and financing:

“… the typology and nature of entrepreneurial support the university offer to students, as well as staff and community members counts. There should be initiatives on the ground that stimulates entrepreneurial venturing. I am aware of ENACTUS, the STEP programme and various entrepreneurial institutional projects running at the University. However, one is tempted to as the number of students and/or staff entrepreneurs the university has produced and supported through these structures to establish a sustainable business? If there are any, are their businesses thriving? There should be an impact assessment to determine the dimension of entrepreneurial support systems we need here. It is not all about the programmes but the resultant impact. I think it is time for the University to engage in entrepreneurial activities for their actual impact and not just for the sake of report. It should map out modalities to strategically support students who are innovative to put their ideas into play, and support them through all strategies to grow large enterprises in the country”.

(P 12—Youth; Undergrad; FHSE)

Flowing from the argument, setting up incubation system would be resourceful in the transformation agenda. This is mainly so because the system is characterized by experts and broad activities that serve multiple functions; ranging from training for soft and physical capacity, internal/external networking, business marketing, and resource mobilization for successful enterprise venturing (Bøllingtoft 2012; Ebbers 2014). A respondent puts this notion this way:

“… it can as well set up a standard business incubation system in the region that has the needed support structures to initiate new ventures. This is essential for its internal revenue given as short courses can be offered and paid for…”.

(P 9—Adult; Community member)

6.5. Embedding Resourceful Stakeholders in the Value-Chain Network

Having a framework of resourceful stakeholders from the foundation phase to maturity is necessary for delivering transformation. This entails building strong ties with institutions, industries, companies, agencies, government, traditional authorities and grassroots community members, as well as successful entrepreneurs in the area (Figure 5). The implication is that sustained collaborative partnership can open windows of opportunity for the University to distil both tangible and intangible resources for its transformation. For instance, partnering with entrepreneurial agencies and financial institutions may provide access to professional entrepreneurs for staff/student training, likewise, access to capital for planning and implantation. This argument reflects the narrative of respondents:

“… implementing ideas is one big challenge many University students confront when they come across an opportunity. Many students have great ideas but lack access to guidance and resources for their implementation … Strengthening ties with agencies such as NYDA can be of great help. Through, students can access various supports from the agencies”.

(P 17—Youth; Agency representative)

“… we [SEDA] can co-create a better entrepreneurial environment for young entrepreneurs to thrive by strengthening our relations and scaling up context-specific investments in needed areas. … we work with other agencies to mentor and provide funding for innovative young entrepreneurs. It would be a great deal for the University to come up with a structure that can help identify entrepreneurial-minded individuals in its locality for this endeavour …”.

(P 19—Adult; Agency representative)

University–stakeholder collaborative partnership contributes significantly to innovation through knowledge mix (Osorno-Hinojosa et al. 2022). In other words, institutional strong linkages and collaborations with other universities, as well as organizations are added advantages for the university’s transformation. This creates links to help scholars develop their research skills to stimulate productivity, likewise, links students to channels for entrepreneurial career development. To Yi (2018), it is essential in co-creating an environment for student placement for internship—a resource for stimulating students’ entrepreneurial ability. The line of thinking reflected the respondent’s thoughts:

“… collaborating with successful enterprises, especially big firms will pave way for placements of graduates in companies; this is essential for practical experience. It also enables networking with individuals in the real business environment who can be resourceful for start-ups …”.

(P 8—Adult; Non-academic staff)

Like other stakeholders, successful grassroots entrepreneurs have a role in the university’s transformation drive. The justification being that they understand peculiar issues within the local entrepreneurial landscape. In other words, they can provide essential knowledge based on local realities to inform the designing of institutional framework for entrepreneurship. In support of this, a respondent notes that:

“… It should be a kind of University that teaches and at the same time learns from others, I mean, that which recognizes and is willing to work with and learn from successful entrepreneurs in its locality… these people already know how the ecosystem operates and what is needed to operate successfully in the system …”.

(P 10—Youth; Community member)

“… there are traditional model entrepreneurs in Thohoyandou and South Africa at large are using that can be useful to the University. Even that of foreign entrepreneurs, especially the Indians, Pakistanis, Ethiopians, Somalians and Nigerians. These people are highly successful and have occupied South Africa’s market with their business patens. What is the secret behind their success? What are the concepts driving their businesses? And how can we learn from them? I think they understood the entrepreneurship landscape better, hence, become more resilient and competitive than most of our local entrepreneurs here. … we can work with them to distil knowledge points as this will enrich our entrepreneurial pedagogy. I think also that through an MoU, students and local entrepreneurs may be placed in some of these enterprises for internship and mentorship …”.

(P 16—Youth; Academic Staff)

Embedding external stakeholders in the value-chain institutional network for an effective entrepreneurial university is not a new concept. Preconditions such as alliances with industries, large firms, governments and agencies have been identified in copious literature globally (Guerrero and Urbano 2012; Pinheiro and Stensaker 2014; Etzkowitz 2016; Doh et al. 2021) and seen as being positively correlated with entrepreneurial enhancement (Bikse et al. 2016). From this lens, emerging scholars on the subject in Africa re-emphasised collaborative partnership for the continent’s entrepreneurial university advancements and transformation in higher learning (Nkusi et al. 2020; Doh et al. 2021). However, the role of grassroots entrepreneurs in this mission which is among concerns raised by respondents who participated in the current study is still under-researched.

7. Conclusions and Recommendations

This case study provides basic conditions for understanding effective rural-based entrepreneurial universities in South Africa. The five perceived conditions, which together constitute a set of initiations for an entrepreneurial university peculiar to the University of Venda include (1) entrepreneurial knowledge and skills building; (2) integration of indigenous entrepreneurship systems; (3) engaged scholarship; (4) value creation for commercialization/venturing and (5) the embeddedness of resourceful stakeholders in the value-chain network.

Knowledge and skills-building characterised a wide range of initiatives. This stems from compulsory taught courses across disciplines, entrepreneurial competition and training events, as well as entrepreneurship projectization, and these are consistent with literature on entrepreneurial university concept. Being at the centre for championing South Africa’s agenda on basic level entrepreneurship, as well as service-learning which are also fundamental resources for knowledge and skills development, tends to be peculiar to the study area. The integration of indigenous entrepreneurship systems in the university curriculum is less-discussed globally and in emerging research linked to South Africa’s entrepreneurial university agenda even though it is paramount in providing learners with essential knowledge relating to their cultural values and peculiar entrepreneurial realities. Rather, discourse around entrepreneurial universities in South Africa is biased toward western ideologies of which some are incompatible with Africa’s realities.

Commercialisation of research, technology transfer and venturing forms the cradle for entrepreneurial university concepts, especially in developed economies. While these are fundamental for wealth generation and institutional growth, there are misconceptions. Firstly, the University of Venda and indeed a few other universities in South Africa, in their current state lacks both material and knowledge capital to stimulate research productivity for commercialization, and poor institutional research culture. Thus, a rethink on mainstream entrepreneurship, specifically venturing into the Vhembe Reserve Biosphere for both ecotourism and agri-enterprise creation, and amplifying internal agricultural resources can serve the purpose while improving research capacity. Like other studies, especially those conducted in Africa, the current study points to the embedment of resourceful stakeholders in the university’s value chain network, stressing the need for a collaborative partnership with industries, companies and firms; strong ties with grassroots communities; alliance with local government; partnership with entrepreneurship agencies, as well as a working relationship with both entrepreneurs.

Broadly, the rural-based entrepreneurial university dimension would be community-driven, embracing ubuntu and focusing more on building skilled and innovative self-sufficient individuals (students, staff, and grassroots community members) that are responsive to society. In addition, it will be at the centre for championing social innovation and inclusive local economic growth while delivering its core teaching and learning, community engagement and research mandates. This path tends to differ swiftly from the general entrepreneurial university orientation premised on profit-making and self-development.

In this study, a qualitative method was followed to profile conditions that determine an effective rural-based university, relying on perceptions of 33 stakeholders within and outside the University of Venda community. This was mainly due to limited resources and Covid-19 related challenges which do not allow for subsequent analysis to examine the conceived conditions on a broader scale for validity and generalization. Thus, further examination to quantify the indicators is required as this will explain the efficacy of the identified conditions and their respective initiatives in the context of the study area. Similarly, there is a need for a study that will cross-examine the re-occurring conditions with other rural-based institutions of higher learning in South Africa and beyond to understand the receptiveness, conformity and level of efficacy. This is particularly important for the adoption and application of the conditions. Lastly, there is a need for policy reforms to integrate the profiled conditions in the university’s entrepreneurial strategic plan.