PurposeDespite the significance, university student start-ups and student entrepreneurship ecosystems (SEEs) have been subject to little research. This study aims to apply a qualitative emergent enquiry approach to explore best practice SEEs in Australia, complimented by narratives from leading scholars in higher education institutions with the aim of delineating the integrative components of SEEs.Design/methodology/approachAdopting the entrepreneurial ecosystem framework and aligned to the social cognitive theory, this paper explores the components and dynamics of SEEs, contributing to an understanding of how such components can better support the growth, sustainability and success of student start-ups. The authors extend entrepreneurship research on social construction using narrative research.FindingsThe findings provide guidelines for researchers, entrepreneurship scholars and educators, entrepreneurship students, policymakers and practitioners to enhance the impact and success of university student start-ups by adopting a student ecosystem approach.Research limitations/implicationsThe narratives represent a limited number of universities with an opportunity for further research to empirically measure the impact and outcomes of SEEs. The research is exploratory, inherently conceptual and emergent, providing an opportunity for validation of narrative frameworks in future studies.Practical implicationsThe findings may assist university managers to be more aware of their own subconscious preferences to student entrepreneurship and start-up initiatives, which may be useful in refining their impact and offerings regarding a quest toward the entrepreneurial university.Social implicationsFrom social perspectives, the alignment of the components of SEE has the ability to enhance and shift the entrepreneurial mindset of entrepreneurship students, notwithstanding enhancement of intentionality and self-efficacy.Originality/valueThis is the first study of SEEs in Australia, highlighting the importance of the integration of entrepreneurship education programs, entrepreneurship education ecosystems, the entrepreneurial university and specific start-up initiatives such as university accelerators. Furthermore, students may enhance their entrepreneurial mindset by actively engaging in such ecosystems.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the status of university accelerators (UAs) in Australia, expanding a similar paper on related entrepreneurship education (EE) in 2019. The aim is to review neoteric global best practice UA, aligning context and specific inference to the impact of UAs in Australia.Design/methodology/approach The authors introduce an iterative and emergent inquiry into multi-method research, including a quantitative examination of Australian UAs, Leximancer algorithmic analyses of entrepreneurial strategic intent and narratives from best practice applications.Findings The paper highlights the sparse and inconsistent distribution across UAs in Australia, further characterized by significant symbolic motives of operation. Furthermore, the integration of EE evidenced on global UA is not as evident in Australia, highlighting outcomes more specific to the success of nascent (student) startups as opposed to educational outcomes.Research limitations/implications Limitations include the availability and accuracy of online documents and data, although implications have been mitigated using multi-method research design.Practical implications Despite the provision of critical grounding for practitioners and researchers in developing UAs, further research is recommended regarding the efficacy and impact of these accelerators.Originality/value This study is the first multi-methods emergent inquiry into UAs in Australia, coupled with integration of EE. The authors provide guidelines and inferences for researchers, educators, policymakers and practitioners alike as they seek to explore and act upon the impact of UAs.

Higher education in general and engineering education in particular are divided into three levels in Russia. The first level is the Bachelor’s degree course; the second level is the specialist and Master’s degree program; the third level is the postgraduate training program.

No abstract