Introduction

Entrepreneurship in Indonesia has been a significant enabler in the economic and social development of the country, highlighted by advances in employment, innovation, economic growth and overall prosperity and transformation (Amalia & von Korflesch, 2021; Boldureanu et al., 2020). This is despite a relatively low rate of total entrepreneurial activity of 3.2% of the Indonesian working population, further characterized by an unemployment rate of 6.5%, representing 9.1 million unemployed people out of a 140.2 million workforce (GEM, 2020). Entrepreneurship education (EE), primarily the responsibility of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), is still in infancy within Indonesia, despite the Indonesian Ministry of Education recognizing the importance and impact of EE over a decade ago (Ardianti, 2009).

Entrepreneurship education programs (EEPs) are significant components of entrepreneurship ecosystems (Audretsch & Belitski, 2021; Wurth et al., 2021), the entrepreneurial university (Klofsten & Jones-Evans, 2000) and more specifically, entrepreneurship education ecosystems (Belitski & Heron, 2017). EE has been identified as an integral component of EEPs and entrepreneurship ecosystems (Maritz et al., 2019), with more nascent research identifying the link between EE and entrepreneurship support services such as university accelerators, student entrepreneurship, enterprise initiatives and student entrepreneurship ecosystems (Maritz et al., 2021; Maritz et al., 2022a, 2022b; Nguyen et al., 2022).

Incorporating the integration of these advances related to EE, there is a distinct gap in the body of knowledge exploring and/or examining such integration of EE enablers within the Indonesian context. More specifically, we identify gaps in the body of knowledge within an Indonesian context related to EEPs, the link between EE and EEPs, and the nexus between entrepreneurship support services and EEPs. We contemplate that this is the first study of the prevalence of EEPs in Indonesia. We provide a replication and extension study of the Maritz et al (2019) Australian EEP paper within the context of Indonesia as a result of previous and ongoing EE scholarly activity between colleagues in these two countries.

These three separate yet related configurations provide inference to related identified research gaps and provide the rationale for this paper. To address these research gaps, our aim is to review recent global best practice in EEPs and their integration with EE and entrepreneurship support services within Indonesia. Associated research questions are derived by introspection in the literature review section.

We provide an overview of entrepreneurship and EE in Indonesia, followed by a review of leading and recent literature integrating EEPs, EE, the entrepreneurial university, and entrepreneurship support services. This is followed by a replication and extension study of the Maritz et al. (2019) and Looi and Maritz (2021) research on the status of entrepreneurship education in Australia and Malaysia. Our research design embeds Indonesian HEIs with an entrepreneurship spirit, identifying 33 HEIs with such strategic intent. We then provide a quantitative approach to the distribution of EEPs in Indonesia. In our discussion, we conduct an emergent inquiry approach to address our three configurations as identified previously, providing inferences on the research questions in the results, discussion, and conclusion sections. The paper concludes with implications for successful EEP transformation and suggestions to further enhance entrepreneurship ecosystems, including suggestions for further research in this dynamic and evolving body of knowledge. We finally include applications to practice.

Literature

To provide a neoteric view of developments within the domain of entrepreneurship and EE in Indonesia, we provide a review of recent and emerging approach to the scholarship of EEPs, EE, entrepreneurial ecosystems, the entrepreneurial university, and other entrepreneurship support services. We commence with a contextual overview of entrepreneurship and EE in Indonesia.

Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship education in Indonesia

Entrepreneurship is an important factor in the economy and prosperity of a country, and it has been identified that small to medium enterprises (SMEs) are major economic and social contributors to the Indonesia’s economy (Noya & Astridya, 2015), so much so that during the 1997–1998 financial crisis, SMEs were able to revive economic prosperity (Amalia & von Korflesch, 2021). Entrepreneurship primarily drives innovation, provides job opportunities (Costa et al., 2016), increases economic growth (Boldureanu et al., 2020; Gorman et al., 1997; Muller & Thomas, 2001) and transforms a country, making it more prosperous (Yeng et al., 2012). Entrepreneurship creates opportunities for people who are willing to start businesses and provide jobs for many people. Entrepreneurship in Indonesia has gained popularity in recent years; however, the number of entrepreneurs in Indonesia is still low at 3% of the country’s total population (Amalia & von Korflesch, 2021). In addition, the nation’s unemployment rate is still high at 9.1 million people out of 140.15 million workforce population.

Entrepreneurship education (EE) in Indonesia is at a relatively early stage, with an increase in educational institutions paying attention to expanding EE (Ardyan & Wijaya, 2018). Even though there are more than 4500 higher education institutions (HEIs) in Indonesia, including universities, colleges, and polytechnics; the number of courses in entrepreneurship is still relatively low (Amalia & von Korflesch, 2021). Previously, HEIs focused on economic faculties; however, EE offers distinctive impact when compared to economic education. EE focuses on increasing students' knowledge in developing businesses, skills, entrepreneurial attributes (Hansemark, 1998), entrepreneurial attitudes and enterprising behavior (Lekoko et al., 2012). The Indonesian Ministry of Education recognized the importance of EE by the increasing the number of programs in entrepreneurship, coupled with significant funding for research grants in the scholarship of EE (Ardianti, 2009).

For almost two decades, Indonesian HEIs have been adopting EE in their curriculum to a various extent, from a stand-alone entrepreneurship subject to an elective subject (Ardianti, 2009) and even to a field of concentration (usually in a business or management degree) (Noya & Astridya, 2015). Only a few HEIs, however, have devoted significant effort to produce more entrepreneurial graduates. For example, Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB) is committed to creating knowledge-based entrepreneurs, whereas Universitas Ciputra has the vision to create world class entrepreneurs and become an entrepreneurship-based university (Amalia & Von Korflesch, 2021). Despite the growing trend in entrepreneurship, to date there is no Bachelor degree award in entrepreneurship in Indonesia. Indeed, in these regards, the Indonesian Ministry of Education only officially recognizes Sarjana Ekonomi, Sarjana Manajemen and Sarjana Bisnis (translated as Bachelor of Economics, Bachelor of Management, and Bachelor of Business, which are all equivalent to Bachelor of Business Administration) as degrees.

The above narrative on EE in Indonesia provides inference to research question 2 (RQ2):

How do EEPs appropriately link or integrate entrepreneurship education into their programs?

Entrepreneurship education

The plethora of EE definitions predominantly concentrate on students, entrepreneurial mindset, co-creation, experiential pedagogy, value creation, engagement, and components of entrepreneurship education programs such as objectives, assessment, content and audience (Fayolle & Gailly, 2008; Looi & Maritz, 2021; Maritz, 2017). Few scholars have concentrated on contextualization, entrepreneurship education spaces, modes of delivery, transformation/disruption, and dynamic entrepreneurial initiatives. For this paper, to include our inferences, we conceptualize EE as:

Contextualised content, experiential methods and initiatives supporting the creation of knowledge, competencies and experiences within entrepreneurial spaces that enable diverse participants to initiate and participate in entrepreneurial value creating processes such as transformation, disruption and startups.

EE in higher education aims to build entrepreneurial character, entrepreneurial mindset and behavior, create added value, take advantage of opportunities and risk taking (Susilaningsih, 2015). EE spurs universities to develop entrepreneurial abilities, skills, and intentions in students (Setiawan, 2014). The effectiveness of EE will enable students to improve their entrepreneurial attitudes (Wardana et al., 2020), entrepreneurial mindset (Handayati et al., 2020; Wardana et al., 2020), entrepreneurial intention (Hattab, 2014; Rengiah, 2013; Zhang et al., 2013), entrepreneurial activities (Souitaris et al., 2007; Walter & Block, 2016), entrepreneurial skills and motivation (Oosterbeek et al., 2010), and even improve students' business performance (Ardyan & Wijaya, 2018). Therefore, universities are expected to be able to offer effective and impactful EE modules (Boubker et al., 2021).

EE at the university level should consider appropriate teaching approaches, allowing students to gain hands-on experience of business start-ups along with practice. This entrepreneurial approach can improve students' entrepreneurial mindset (Cui, 2017; Ndou et al., 2019). By paying attention to the curriculum and teaching techniques of practical entrepreneurship courses, they will facilitate the formation of a better entrepreneurial mindset among students. Utilizing such theories, previous researchers have proposed a relationship between EE, perceived self-efficacy and entrepreneurial attitudes.

There are several associations related to EE, namely entrepreneurship curricula, teaching methods, and university supports (Rengiah, 2013). Mentoring and classroom teaching are teaching models that are often developed in learning. Pribadi (2005) explained that the teaching model of EE was able to increase entrepreneurial intentions. Universities must conduct evaluations related to entrepreneurial curriculum, teaching, materials, and other initiatives for the effectiveness of the implementation of EE. It is anticipated that the creation of effective EE will have an impact on student interest and desire in becoming an entrepreneur (Maritz, 2017).

Entrepreneurship education programs

EE consists of pedagogical programs or educational process for entrepreneurial attitudes and skills (Fayolle et al., 2006). Hernández-Sánchez et al. (2019) explains that the purpose of EEPs is to apply theory into practice. EEPs in Indonesia consist of mentoring, entrepreneurial competency development, and entrepreneurial learning types (Amalia & von Korflesch, 2021). EEPs motivate, increase self-confidence, encourage students to be more proactive and foster enhanced enterprising behavior. EEPs are also able to develop certain personal entrepreneurial mindsets, competencies, skills and talents (Fayolle, 2013; Fayolle et al., 2006; Karlsson & Moberg, 2013), improve life status and create high satisfaction (Din et al., 2016), and prepare students to be able to face challenges and uncertainties. Frank (2007) states that entrepreneurship-based curriculum planning will be able to stimulate managerial knowledge, problem solving ability, manage risk well, self-efficiency, leadership, and creativity.

EEPs are degree programs designed and developed to provide mastery and experience during academic studies (Ahmed et al., 2020). Several program modules that can be developed at universities that implement EEPs include entrepreneurship character development, communication skills, leadership, self-motivation, selling skills, business management, and evaluation and management of business (Tedjakusuma et al., 2019). Ghina (2014) explains the need for a sense of belonging and ethical responsibility in EEPs. Ardianti (2009) added that there are several tools used in EEPs, namely business models, student business start-ups, consultation with practising entrepreneurship, computer and behavioral simulations, live cases, etc. Ahmed et al. (2021) provided an alternative online learning experience via massive open online courses (MOOCs). Maritz's (2017) model validated the components of EEPs, which consist of outcomes, objectives, assessment, contextualization, content, pedagogy, audience, and entrepreneurial ecosystems.

Overall, the scholarship of EE within an Indonesian context has been somewhat slanted toward individual HEI case studies, primarily directed at the introduction and development of EE into offerings and programs (Abduh & Maritz, 2011; Noya & Astridya, 2015; Sendouw et al., 2018) with limited scholarship on country-wide EE developments (Amalia & Von Korflesch, 2021). This paper hopes to fill this gap in the body of knowledge. Other EE scholarship has been a component of entrepreneurship education programs, such as entrepreneurial attitudes and start-up growth (Indarti, 2020), entrepreneurial development (Ahmed et al., 2021), curriculum development (Tedjakusuma et al., 2019), effectiveness of EE implementation in HEIs (Ghina, 2014), and EE funding and resources (Ardianti, 2009). The replication and extension study (Maritz et al., 2019) provides specific inferences and dynamics that may be replicated in an Indonesian context, such as integrating components of EEPs, EE outcomes and impact, pedagogy and experiential learning, and overall EE leadership.

The above narrative on EEPs provides inference to research question 1 (RQ1):

How are EEPs consistently represented across universities in Indonesia?

In the section to follow, we discuss the integration of entrepreneurship support services within broader entrepreneurial ecosystems, including the interface with university entrepreneurship education programs.

Entrepreneurial ecosystems and the entrepreneurial university

Researchers have provided significant interest in entrepreneurial ecosystems over the past decade (Maroufkhani et al., 2018; Wurth et al., 2021). The emerging concept can be defined as “a set of interdependent actors and factors coordinated in such a way that they enable productive entrepreneurship within a particular territory” (Stam, 2015). Recent research on entrepreneurial ecosystems tends to focus on several major areas, such as domains/components (Spigel, 2015; Spigel & Harrison, 2017; Stam and van de Ven, 2021), functional characteristics (Kang et al., 2021), contexts (Acs et al., 2017; Cao & Shi, 2021; Wurth et al., 2021), and dynamics (Shwetzer et al., 2019; Mack and Mayer, 2016; Spigel and Harrison, 2017).

A significant amount of research explains the important role of EE ecosystem research. Entrepreneurial ecosystems play an important role in increasing economic resilience at the local level (Iacobucci & Perugini, 2021), providing new ideas for research on the development of sustainable entrepreneurial activities (Kang et al., 2021), understanding the relationship between each attribute in the ecosystem (Spigel, 2015), a network of various companies that work together and compete in one supply chain, increasing interest in entrepreneurship (Mawardi, 2020). Entrepreneurial ecosystems enable the sharing of knowledge, technology and innovation as well as business networks from one institution to another (Audretsch & Belitski, 2021).

Within Indonesia, the entrepreneurial university gained momentum after a benchmark report commissioned by the European Union (BEEHIVE, 2017). The research was conducted at 22 entrepreneurship-based universities in Indonesia. The opportunity for entrepreneurship development in Indonesia is widespread, supported by the large population of Indonesia occupying the fourth largest position after China, India and USA. According to the 2013 Global Economic Monitor (GEM) research, Indonesia achieved the second highest score (35%) in entrepreneurial intentions among other ASEAN countries. Research results from BEEHIVE (2017) indicate the need for certain theme categories (for example, leadership and governance, entrepreneurship development through teaching and learning) and unit/centre development related to entrepreneurship.

Entrepreneurship support systems

Entrepreneurship support systems play a critical role in the innovation and entrepreneurship process (Cohen et al., 2019; Kennett et al., 2020). They enable increased connectivity and resource support (Bergman & McMullen, 2021; Goswami et al., 2018; Wurth et al., 2021), which suggest that support systems such as university accelerators and incubators can lead to an overhaul in the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Embracing entrepreneurial ecosystems and the entrepreneurial university, entrepreneurship support systems also include student incubators and student entrepreneurship ecosystems (Maritz et al., 2022a, 2022b).

Despite rapid growth, there is a lack of consensus on how entrepreneurship support systems should be integrated, as EE appears to be a multidisciplinary field and able to accommodate various disciplines (Abduh & Maritz, 2011). Entrepreneurship thrives in environments where various stakeholders play important synergistic roles, which frequently involves multi-stakeholder collaboration (Van De Ven, 1993). The creation of entrepreneurship ecosystems requires collaboration among the stakeholders involved in order to create local conditions that encourage entrepreneurial activities through stakeholders’ collaboration to assist entrepreneurs in developing and growing new firms (Simatupang et al., 2015). Maritz et al. (2021) identified student entrepreneurship ecosystems as dynamic processes integrating innovative start-up facilitation, complemented by a myriad of university support systems, including university accelerators, mentorship, professors of practice/entrepreneurs in residence, start-up hubs, innovation parks, entrepreneurship clubs and network resources and alignment of university strategic orientation to align with the entrepreneurial university.

The scholarship of EE related to entrepreneurship services and support in Indonesia is scant, with only a few research papers available (Ahmed et al., 2020; Sendouw et al., 2018). Gozali et al. (2020) provided a timely paper on business incubators in Indonesian public universities, further emphasizing the need for further research with reference to entrepreneurship support services and university accelerators and incubators.

The above narrative on entrepreneurship support services provides inference to research question 3 (RQ3): Why do EEPs appropriately link or integrate entrepreneurship support services into their programs?

In the next section, we provide an overview of our methods and research design.

Methods and measurement

We undertake the first ever descriptive and emergent inquiry design approach into EEPs in Indonesia, consisting of nascent literature review and quantitative analysis of entrepreneurship programs in Indonesian HEIs. We apply a nascent archetype regarding iterative open inquiry, inclusive of an examination of EEPs and entrepreneurship offerings representing a replication and extension of similar studies in Australia and Malaysia (Looi & Maritz, 2021; Maritz et al., 2019). Our reasoning for this approach is to align with the original foundation paper (Maritz et al., 2019), as emergent inquiry adds recent developments within this landscape, mindful that we are not depicting fully causal outcomes.

Our three-staged design approach aligns with the three research gaps identified in this research, based upon international and nascent best practice in EE and EEPs. These research components include EEP distribution/prevalence in Indonesia, integration of EEPs and EE, and integration of EEPs and entrepreneurship support services. These components in turn align with our 3 research questions embracing the representation of EEPs across Indonesia, EEP linkages/integration of EE into programs, and EEP linkages of entrepreneurship support services. Our design approach is summarized in Fig. 1 below.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Research design employed in this article

Full size image

The quantitative component included the collection of data from published sources on Indonesian HEI websites across the period from September 1, 2021, to March 15, 2022. This specific time period was purely incidental, with no specific logic for the defined period other than time taken to collect the multiple data sources. Our criteria included a rationalization approach, originally inclusive of all HEIs in Indonesia, further segmented by only selecting accredited HEIs, followed by HEIs portraying prevalence of entrepreneurship courses, and then by HEIs in Indonesia that have a vision and mission of entrepreneurship, typically referred to as entrepreneurial spirit. Table 1 represents the sample classification based upon the above criteria.

Table 1 Sample Classification
Full size table

Vision and mission are important strategic imperatives that drive HEIs in Indonesia to achieve their goals. Referring to the approach by Bacigalupo et al. (2016) regarding the entrepreneurial competency framework, Amalia and Von Korflesch (2021) explain that having a clear vision is one of the competencies that universities in Indonesia should possess. Many global universities, including Indonesian universities, have been identified as entrepreneurial universities by demonstrating an entrepreneurial vision and mission (Prihandono and Utami, 2018). One of the visions, missions, or goals of universities in Indonesia is to develop entrepreneurship, not only as a discipline, but a university-wide initiative (see Table 1). Building an entrepreneurial architecture or structure is necessary to develop vision, strategy and organizational culture (Nelles & Vorley, 2010).

Several studies related to entrepreneurship education in Indonesia have focused on students studying at campuses that have an entrepreneurial-based vision and mission or entrepreneurship-based curricula (Amalia & Von Korflesch, 2021; Budiman et al., 2020; Haris et al., 2018). Budiman et al. (2020) explained that to be able to maintain the achievement of an entrepreneurial vision and mission, universities in Indonesia need to embrace and demonstrate various policies and programs, which are reflected in universities’ strategic plans. Having a purposeful vision encourages universities to create entrepreneurship-based curriculum. In entrepreneurship curriculum, students in Indonesia learn about leadership, teamwork, self-confidence, creativity, initiative, and enterprising business skills (Irawanto and Novianti, 2021). Institutions can support and motivate students to be confident to become entrepreneurs after they graduate, providing tools to enhance their self-efficacy in start-up activities. Entrepreneurship education encouraged in higher education is expected to produce higher education graduates who are able to become independent and have an entrepreneurial spirit. Ardyan and Wijaya (2018) explained the effectiveness that entrepreneurship education has on the impact on improving students’ business performance. Therefore, it is vital that entrepreneurial vision and mission are embedded in the curriculum and entrepreneurship education programs. The role of the campus as an educational institution in producing entrepreneurs is very important, not only to the HEI, but overall economic and social prosperity of the country.

Table 3 identifies Indonesian HEIs that align their vision and/or mission with the entrepreneurial university. We provide an overview of these HEIs vision, mission and aims against the ideologies of entrepreneurship. It should be noted that most Indonesian HEI documents retrieved from internet searches were translated from Indonesian to English by Indonesian scholars.

Similar to the 2019 and 2021 studies, data were collected based on content analysis, with various categories depicted in Table 2. Compound rankings were tabulated using a points-per-category bases, using the following allocations within entrepreneurship contexts: Full EEPs (6 points), programs with major specializations in entrepreneurship (4 points), programs with minor specializations in entrepreneurship (2 points), core entrepreneurship subjects (2 points), related entrepreneurship subjects (1 point), entrepreneurship core subject ONLINE (2 points), entrepreneurship related subject ONLINE (1 point), multi-disciplinary core entrepreneurship subject (2 points), multi-disciplinary related entrepreneurship subject (1 point), Chair/Professor in entrepreneurship (3 points), Entrepreneur in Residence/Professor of Practice (2 points), university accelerators/incubators (2 points), other ecosystems/support structures (2 points). These categories represented criteria and data for the three research questions. We are mindful that this research component is descriptive in nature, and future research intends to measure the impact and outcomes of these categories.

Table 2 Distribution of EEPs in Indonesia
Full size table

In the next section, we provide an overview of the results from our research design.

Findings and discussion

We integrate the three main configurations, which provide inferences on EEPs, with identified research gaps using a three-stage approach. These in turn provide insight on additions to the existing body of knowledge and status of EEPs in Indonesia.

Stage 1: EEP distribution: quantitative approach

Using content analysis, this stage identified a coded distribution of EEPs in Indonesia. Table 2 identifies the distribution of EEPs in descending order, inclusive of identification as Accredited HEIs in Indonesia that have entrepreneurship courses as well as a vision and mission of entrepreneurship, referred to as entrepreneurial spirit. Overall, only 33 HEIs out of a total of 3115 HEIs in Indonesia offer some prevalence of EE or entrepreneurship support. Table 3 provides an overview of the entrepreneurial strategic intent of these HEIs. Together, the activities of these HEIs correspond to a total Indonesian entrepreneurship activity rate of 3% (GEM, 2020), indicating that entrepreneurship activity in the country is significantly low when compared to most other developing nations. Furthermore, only 10 HEIs have full EEPs; in other words, they offer either a Bachelor or Master programs in entrepreneurship. Similarly, only 10 HEIs have major specializations in entrepreneurship (8 or more entrepreneurship subjects), with only an additional 6 HEIs having minor specializations in entrepreneurship (at least 4, but less than 8 entrepreneurship subjects).

Table 3 Vision/Mission/Aims of Entrepreneurship in Indonesian Higher Education
Full size table

We are mindful of the quantitative nature of this approach and the need for further research on the qualitative impact and outcomes of these EEPs. Our analyses also exclude other entrepreneurial initiatives, such as international collaborations, bootcamps, hackathons, and so on. This is outside the ambit of EEPs and may be an interesting foundation for additional research. We can however add inference as to reasons for inconsistent representation of EEPs in Indonesia. Such inference may well be due to insufficient specialized entrepreneurship education academics/scholars, further effected by lack of entrepreneurship education Professors, and lastly, an insufficient embracement of national government entrepreneurship policies.

Addressing research question 1, our findings in this section suggest that EEPs are not consistently represented across universities in Indonesia.

Stage 2: Integration of EEPs and entrepreneurship education

This stage is a replication and extension of the Maritz et al. (2019) research, “Boom or bust? Embedding entrepreneurship in education in Australia,” where we linked together the prevalence of EEPs and EE. This includes the prevalence of EEPs and associated core subjects (directly aligned to entrepreneurship) plus subjects related to entrepreneurship (indirectly aligned to entrepreneurship) Core subject examples include start-up fundamentals, entrepreneurship theory and practice, new venture creation, opportunity evaluation, corporate entrepreneurship, lean start-up, business model design, design thinking, social entrepreneurship, technology entrepreneurship, and start-up failure. Related subject examples include innovation management, creativity, family business, business plans (mindful that this is a dated concept in entrepreneurship terminology), transformation, disruption, small business management, technology management, and digitalization. Only a few HEIs were seen to offer core entrepreneurship subjects, all aligned to those HEIs that offered full entrepreneurship programs (majors and minors in entrepreneurship). Subjects related to entrepreneurship were more prominently distributed among HEIs, albeit the direct association to entrepreneurship may be somewhat questionable if these HEIs do not offer full programs in entrepreneurship. It is also clearly apparent that online entrepreneurship subjects are rare within Indonesian HEIs, with only 5 HEIs offering them. The prevalence of multi-disciplinary entrepreneurship subjects is also negligible, with less than 10 HEIs providing such instances. An example of such multi-disciplinarity would be entrepreneurship subjects in engineering or health sciences programs.

Integrating stages 1 and 2 of this research, coupled with the Maritz et al. (2019) research, identified incongruence of outcomes and alignment between EEPs and EE is significantly scant within Indonesian HEIs.

Addressing research question 2, based on the inconsistent alignment of EE with EEPs (apart from a few EEPs), our findings in this section suggest that EEPs have neither appropriately linked nor integrated EE into their programs.

Stage 3: Integration of EEPs and entrepreneurship support services

The major themes that emerge from this stage of the research include the prevalence of university support services such as university accelerators, incubators, Chairs/Professors in entrepreneurship, entrepreneurs in residence/Professors of Practice, and entrepreneurial ecosystems. While an assumption can be made that it would be difficult for an HEI to show prevalence in this stage if they have no EEPs, it is important to note the rapid proliferation of entrepreneurship support services globally (Maritz et al., 2022a, 2022b). This underscores the importance and relevance of this stage of research. Only 8 Indonesian HEIs have Chairs/Professors in entrepreneurship, with only 11 HEIs offering entrepreneurs in residence or Professors of Practice. Despite the rapid expansion of university accelerators globally, this trend is not too apparent within Indonesia. Only 17 HEIs have university accelerators, with 21 HEIs providing other entrepreneurship support, such as entrepreneurial ecosystems, student entrepreneurship initiatives and start-up resources. It is interesting to see that a few Indonesian HEIs provide entrepreneurship support services, despite very limited activity in accredited entrepreneurship courses and programs. In such cases, for example, an HEI may not deliver any EE curricula, but may well host a university accelerator. Overall, Indonesian HEIs significantly lag with regard to the integration of EEPs and entrepreneurship support services as evidenced on global platforms (Bergman & McMullen, 2021).

As with previous studies on EEPs (Looi & Maritz, 2021; Maritz et al., 2019), there are always outliers that are the exception to the rule. This is certainly the case in Indonesia, as evidenced by the high prevalence of EEPs, EE and entrepreneurship support systems. Examples here include, in no particular order, Universitas Bina Nusantara, Universitas Ciputra, Universitas AMIKOM Yogyakarta, Universitas Tidar Magelang, Universitas Muhammadiyah Cirebon, Universitas Mercu Buana, Universitas Negeri Makassar, Universitas Mercu Buana Yogyakarta, and Universitas Muria Kudus. Other promising HEIs, who portray high prevalence of EEPs and moderate entrepreneurship support systems include Universitas Muhammadiyah Jakarta, Universitas Muhammadiyah Purworejo, Universitas Indraprasta PGRI, Universitas Potensi Utama, and Universitas Muhammadiyah Gesik. These HEIs account for over 91% of EEPs, EE and entrepreneurship support services in Indonesia, providing evidence of the scarce and disparate distribution of EE in Malaysia.

Addressing research question 3, based on the inconsistent alignment of entrepreneurship support services with EEPs (apart from a few EEPs), our findings in this section suggest that EEPs have neither appropriately linked nor integrated entrepreneurship support services into their programs.

Conclusion

Our preliminary results, while applying iterative and emergent inquiry rather than fully causal outcomes, provide guidelines and inferences for researchers, educators, policymakers, and practitioners alike, as they seek to explore and act upon the impact of EEPs, EE and entrepreneurship support services in Indonesia. We have provided context within the domains of our three identified research gaps.

Within the Indonesian EEP domain, we found a marginal growth of EEPs over the past decade, albeit attributable to approximately only 15 HEIs. The vast majority of HEIs do not have any examples of EEPs, EE and entrepreneurship support services. As such, in these regards, the Indonesian HEI sector significantly lags globally, where these types of activities are accelerating across both developed and developing nations. What also lags is the scholarship of EE within the Indonesian context. This research thus lays a foundation, upon which further collaboration and engagement with Indonesian EE scholars can be developed. Furthermore, despite documented evidence of strategic alignment (entrepreneurship spirit) among 33 Indonesian HEIs, only a few of these institutions provide actual or substantive evidence of entrepreneurship initiatives.

In addition to the above findings and limitations, our research provides new insights, derived from the content analysis of mainstream online documents and resources on university websites, on the current quantitative status of EEPs. Further research into the measurement and impact of EEPs, EE and entrepreneurship support systems are called for, to provide a continuous updating to and fuller integration of our body of knowledge of the Indonesian situation. Further research is also needed on the economic and social impacts and outcomes of these activities, not only at the level of individual HEIs, but also regionally and nationally.

Overall, despite the slow growth of EEPs in Indonesia over the past decade, there exists an opportunity for HEIs, governments, policymakers, and educators to accelerate the spread and intensify EE offerings, thereby advancing the economic and social wellbeing of the population. Specific implications of this study include the recruitment of entrepreneurship specific academics to enhance the scholarship of learning and teaching, inclusive of entrepreneurship specific leadership from entrepreneurship Professors, the robust development of EEPs that align with HEI strategic alignment, and implementation of best practice EE initiatives, such as experiential learning and learning from entrepreneurial failure.