Dismantling the market of privilege: an integrated framework for inclusive entrepreneurship education in Africa

Entrepreneurship education is widely promoted as a pathway to innovation, growth, and social progress, especially in response to youth unemployment, economic stagnation, and inequality (Henry, 2015; Nabi et al., 2017), with universities and accelerators offering new opportunities worldwide (Aithal and Aithal, 2023; Bodolica and Spraggon, 2021). Yet, beneath the surface of this flourishing market lies a reality where access is not equally distributed: what Meschitti et al. (2024) describe as a “market of privilege,” a neoliberal system that reproduces unequal access and conditional inclusion within academic and professional fields, structuring entrepreneurial education less by talent or ambition than by entrenched social, economic, and cultural hierarchies (Martins et al., 2024; Ojediran et al., 2022).

Thus, despite its expansion, entrepreneurship education has been criticised for narrowing the very gates it claims to open, perpetuating exclusion, especially for women ^[1] and other minority groups, by reinforcing Western-centric models of success (Ahl and Nelson, 2015; Marlow and Swail, 2014). Around the world, women’s enrolment in business schools and MBA programs is on the rise, with record gains reported in North America, Europe, and Asia (GMAC, 2023; Forté Foundation, 2024). However, this global progress tells only part of the story. In much of Africa, women remain starkly underrepresented in tertiary business education, where systemic barriers restrict both access and participation (Kanyumba and Lourens, 2021; Menon, 2024; Zoe Talent Solutions, 2020; Ubfal, 2024). Limited access to finance, inadequate digital infrastructure, and entrenched patriarchal norms constrain women's opportunities, reinforcing conditional inclusion in entrepreneurial ecosystems (Ayiku et al., 2022; Liouane, 2024; Peter and Orser, 2024).

Traditional entrepreneurship education, often rooted in Western models, risks re-inscribing privilege under the guise of meritocracy by overlooking the intersecting dynamics of gender, race, and class in African contexts (Lebeloane, 2017; Stoker et al., 2024a). These programs, shaped by neoliberal values of competition and meritocracy (Al-Haija and Mahamid, 2021; Boni-Le Goff et al., 2020), typically prioritise business planning and pitch competitions while paying little attention to mentorship, gender dynamics, or systemic inequality. This weakens the cultural relevance of such education programs in non-Western settings, like Africa, and perpetuates the “market of privilege,” (Meschitti et al., 2024), limiting women’s access to vital networks and resources (Menon, 2024; Ubfal, 2024).

In contrast, inclusive entrepreneurship education integrates equity into its design through culturally responsive curricula, mentorship, empathy, and peer collaboration, foregrounding collective agency, equity, and societal impact (Aithal and Aithal, 2023; Eid and Akella, 2024; Henry et al., 2024; Nate et al., 2022; Yani and Zaakiyyah, 2024).

We define inclusive entrepreneurship in higher education as a framework integrating equity-focused pedagogical strategies to ensure broader access, participation, and success across diverse groups and minorities. It combines four interrelated dimensions: (1) inclusivity, by addressing the social, economic, and institutional barriers; (2) entrepreneurial education, by equipping learners with relevant knowledge and practical tools; (3) gender and intersectionality, by attending to the unique and overlapping disadvantages faced by women and other marginalised groups; and (4) cultural contextualisation, by designing curricula and mentorship models that reflect local norms, practices, and institutional realities (Adeoti, 2025; de Bruin and Swail, 2024).

While past research has documented gender disparities in entrepreneurship education (Ahl and Nelson, 2015; Brush et al., 2017; Marlow and Swail, 2014), few studies have examined how pedagogical structures themselves either reproduce or challenge these inequalities. Theoretically, this raises important questions about how inclusion operates within education systems that are historically shaped by neoliberal and Western-centric assumptions. For example, traditional entrepreneurship education tends to prioritise individualism, scalability, and formalisation, principles that may conflict with the lived realities of African women entrepreneurs, who often operate within informal networks and community-based logics (Adeoti, 2025; de Bruin and Swail, 2024). This study therefore addresses a significant gap in the literature by exploring how entrepreneurship higher education can be systematically designed to promote gender inclusivity and disrupt the “market of privilege” as defined by Meschitti et al. (2024).

From a theoretical standpoint, we integrate insights from three theoretical lenses, i.e. Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT), Critical Pedadogy, and Network Theory. While SCCT highlights the role of mentorship, self-efficacy, and learning experiences in shaping career trajectories for marginalised learners (Lent et al., 1994; Maheshwari et al., 2022), Freire's emancipatory vision embedded in Critical pedagogy positions education as a means of fostering critical consciousness and collective transformation (Freire, 2020). Network Theory further underscores how access to opportunity is structured through social capital, with both formal and informal mentoring within collaborative ecosystems proving crucial (Granovetter, 1973; Portes, 1998). These frameworks were intentionally selected to capture three interconnected levels of analysis: SCCT at the individual level (self-efficacy, identity, and resilience), Critical Pedagogy at the pedagogical level (curriculum, power, and transformation), and Network Theory at the institutional level (social capital, mentorship, and access). Therefore, rather than applying these frameworks in parallel, we integrate them to illuminate the relational, pedagogical, and structural factors that shape inclusive learning environments in under-resourced contexts (Giroux, 2024; Portes, 1998; Maheshwari et al., 2022). Thus, we position inclusive entrepreneurship education as both a pedagogical intervention and a structural strategy for disrupting entrenched inequalities and challenging Meschitti’s et al. (2024) “market of privilege.”

For our purpose, we examine the E4Impact Global MBA program (E4Impact GMBA), a transnational entrepreneurship education initiative offered in sixteen of the 30 E4Impact Foundation partner universities across Africa (E4Impact Foundation, 2023). Designed to address regional disparities in access and impact, the program integrates social values, mentorship, and localised curricula to promote inclusive entrepreneurial outcomes. By centring participant experiences and unpacking how the program enables (or fails to enable) inclusive practices, this paper develops a conceptual framework rooted in local realities and informed by global debates on entrepreneurship, education, and equity. Thus, we contribute to the literature on entrepreneurship by extending the debates on the intersection of pedagogy, gender equity, and institutional access in under-resourced contexts. Conceptually, we develop the Inclusive Entrepreneurship Higher Education Framework, which integrates culturally sensitive curricula, mentorship, collaborative networks, and social impact into a dynamic model designed to dismantle entrenched markets of privilege.

The paper proceeds with a review of literature on entrepreneurship education and gender, followed by an explanation of the methodology and interview design. The results then highlight mentorship, culturally sensitive curricula, social impact, and collaborative networks. The discussion integrates these findings into the proposed Inclusive Entrepreneurship Framework, and the conclusion offers actionable recommendations for policymakers, educators, and program designers.

Entrepreneurial education has long been recognised as a pathway to innovation, economic growth, and social advancement. As the global demand for entrepreneurship programs grows, universities and private institutions have responded by offering a wide range of specialised training, mentorship, and networking opportunities (Aithal and Aithal, 2023). Additionally, according to Bodolica and Spraggon (2021), accelerators and incubators have emerged as critical elements of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. However, scholars agree that beneath the surface of this flourishing market lies a reality where access to entrepreneurial education is not equally distributed: a “market of privilege” (Meschitti et al., 2024) exists within entrepreneurial education, where access, opportunities, and outcomes are often predetermined by socio-economic status, cultural capital, and networks (Martins et al., 2024; Meschitti et al., 2024; Ojediran et al., 2022; Santiago Vela, 2021). Drawing on McIntosh’s (1988) foundational work, privilege is understood as unearned advantage based on intersecting social identities such as gender, race, class, and educational background. Within entrepreneurship education, these privileges are institutionalised through preferential access to elite programs, funding opportunities, influential networks, and legitimised forms of knowledge. Such mechanisms reinforce systemic inequalities by favouring individuals who align with dominant norms of “excellence” and merit, thereby marginalising those from underrepresented groups. Thus, this “market of privilege” (Meschitti et al., 2024) in entrepreneurship education inadvertently creates and perpetuates systemic inequalities and barriers, particularly for women and underrepresented minorities, creating an entrepreneurial landscape where privilege itself often dictates success (Jackson, 2020; Strawser et al., 2021).

The literature indicates that women face additional challenges compared to male entrepreneurs, stemming from deeply ingrained societal expectations and stereotypes, which hinder their access to vital support systems (Ojong et al., 2021). For instance, stereotypes about women’s capabilities in mathematics and finance can discourage them from pursuing entrepreneurship education in the first place (Meschitti, 2019). This disparity is further exacerbated by gendered norms within entrepreneurial ecosystems, where male entrepreneurs are more likely to secure funding and recognition (Ojong et al., 2021). This, in turn, would lead to the homogenisation of entrepreneurial ecosystems, failing to represent the diversity of experiences, challenges, and ideas in society, where the innovations may be more likely to reflect the needs and desires of privileged groups rather than the broader population.

In addition to socioeconomic and gender-based disparities, transnational entrepreneurship programs developed and administered in the Global North often unintentionally reinforce Eurocentric ideology regarding legitimate knowledge and entrepreneurial success criteria. This perspective is supported by Chakravarty et al.’s (2020) critical examination of U.S. education abroad programs, which exposes how these initiatives often perpetuate imperialist and neoliberal ideologies, sidelining alternative epistemologies and practices. Although initially obscured, these assumptions become increasingly apparent to students as tensions emerge between their classroom learning and real-world entrepreneurial experiences. As Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2018) argues, such dissonance reflects deeper epistemic constraints, where dominant educational models suppress local knowledge and entrepreneurial logics.

At the institutional level, these dynamics reflect deeper structural issues. Meschitti (2020) notes how academic systems shaped by Western models often favour certain ways of teaching and evaluating success, which may not align with the lived realities of students in African contexts. Such Western administered programs risk reinforcing a dynamic where Western institutions are viewed as the “experts” setting the agenda, while African partners are expected to implement. Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2018) describes this as a lack of “epistemic diversity” when only certain kinds of knowledge or experience are treated as legitimate. This creates a situation where students are encouraged to participate, but only on terms that may reflect institutional hierarchies and global power imbalances.

To move toward more inclusive and equitable models, it is therefore fundamental to contextualise such programs, actively engaging with local educators, recognising community-based forms of entrepreneurship, and creating space for multiple ways of knowing and learning (Chakravarty et al., 2020). This entails moving beyond individual student support, and includes critically interrogating the institutional structures that govern knowledge production and determine whose voices are amplified or marginalised.

The distribution of privilege in entrepreneurial higher education can differ markedly depending on the institutional context. The specific economic, social, and political conditions within which entrepreneurial education is deployed shape how privilege operates within educational institutions and influences the types of opportunities available to different social groups (Ayiku et al., 2022; Gadzali et al., 2023; Ojong et al., 2021).

According to de Bruin and Swail (2024), an intersectional perspective discloses the complex interplay of race, gender, and socioeconomic status in shaping entrepreneurial experiences. The literature highlights that, especially in developing countries, women’s educational opportunities are frequently constrained by traditional gender roles, financial limitations, and the lack of supportive infrastructure for women’s entrepreneurship. This is where Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) becomes essential. SCCT focuses on how self-efficacy beliefs, shaped by social learning, feedback, and role models, influence career choices and persistence in challenging environments (Maheshwari et al., 2022; van Ewijk, 2024). For women in under-resourced contexts, mentorship and exposure to relatable success stories can significantly alter perceptions of what is possible. SCCT thus supports the importance of integrating mentorship into entrepreneurship curricula as a key mechanism for challenging internalised limitations and building entrepreneurial agency.

Globally, the representation of women in business education has seen significant improvement. In 2024, women constituted 42% of students in full-time MBA programs worldwide, reflecting a steady increase in female participation over the past 2 decades (Forté Foundation, 2024; Leckrone, 2023). However, this progress masks stark regional disparities. In developing economies, for instance, women face more acute challenges in accessing both higher education and entrepreneurship programs due to structural barriers, gender norms, and limited resources. In Africa, the female-to-male ratio in tertiary education remains disproportionately low, with systemic and cultural barriers further limiting women’s representation in business schools (Zoe Talent Solutions, 2020). According to Ahmed and Yaqoob (2025), the gender gap in secondary and higher education is particularly marked in rural areas, where early marriage, household responsibilities, and safety concerns limit education opportunities for young women. In countries such as Nigeria, Kenya, and South Africa, women entrepreneurs frequently face difficulties accessing formal business education and encounter additional challenges in securing funding due to deeply ingrained gender biases within the financial sector (Fatoki, 2014).

Combining the insights of Critical Pedagogy, SCCT, and Network Theory enables a holistic understanding of these barriers, not only in terms of access but also in the quality of engagement, inclusion, and empowerment experienced by learners. Taken together, these three theoretical perspectives formed a multi-level analytical scaffold. SCCT informed our analysis of individual self-efficacy and how participants interpreted their capacity to pursue entrepreneurial careers in light of systemic constraints. Critical Pedagogy provided the lens to examine the power dynamics embedded in the program’s curriculum and pedagogical strategies. Network Theory enabled us to investigate the institutional and relational infrastructure of inclusion, such as mentorship, alumni support, and transnational partnerships, and how these supported or limited access. This triangulated theoretical approach ensured that our analysis accounted for personal, classroom-based, and systemic dimensions of privilege and inclusion.

To answer the research question, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 50 E4Impact GMBA participants in Ghana, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Mozambique, Kenya, Tunisia, Sierra Leone, and Italy. The study adopts a qualitative research design to explore the program’s impact on inclusivity and its role in addressing the “market of privilege” (Meschitti et al., 2024) in entrepreneurship higher education. The E4Impact GMBA program is part of the E4Impact Foundation, a social change organisation founded in 2010 by the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore (Italy) to support new businesses in Africa and address multiple Sustainable Development Goals. Notably, it offers a transformative model for inclusive entrepreneurship higher education by addressing the systemic barriers that have historically excluded African women from entrepreneurial ecosystems, by integrating culturally sensitive curricula, mentorship, and practical learning opportunities (Argiolas and Benamar, 2024; Odey and Turay, 2023).

A qualitative, interpretivist methodology was chosen to elicit in-depth accounts of participants’ lived experiences, perceptions of structural barriers, and the meaning they assign to entrepreneurship and education. This approach aligns with the commitments of Critical Pedagogy (Giroux, 2024), which foregrounds marginalised voices and situates knowledge within cultural and social contexts. It also reflects Social Cognitive Career Theory’s emphasis on individual cognitive processes, such as self-efficacy, best captured through narrative inquiry (Maheshwari et al., 2022).

Instead of testing predefined hypotheses, the study sought to inductively generate insights into how inclusivity is constructed, practiced, and experienced across African contexts. This supports the development of a grounded framework tailored to diverse institutional and socio-economic realities. Guided by an interpretivist paradigm, which assumes reality is socially constructed and context-dependent (William, 2024), the study prioritizes understanding how individuals make meaning of their lived experiences. In line with this orientation, it explores how participants in the E4Impact GMBA program perceive and navigate inclusion, mentorship, and structural barriers in entrepreneurship education.

The epistemological stance of this research is constructivist, recognising that knowledge emerges through interaction between the researcher and the participant (Mills et al., 2006). This philosophical grounding aligns with the study’s qualitative design. It supports the use of semi-structured interviews and inductive analysis, allowing for a nuanced understanding of diverse perspectives across various sociocultural contexts.

Semi-structured interviewsAppendices 1–6 were the primary data collection method due to their flexibility and depth (Tracy, 2024). The review protocol is reported in Appendices 1–6. This approach enabled participants to share their experiences and perspectives in their own words, while allowing us to probe for additional information as needed. The interviews were conducted virtually, leveraging online platforms to overcome geographical and time difference barriers and accommodate participants’ schedules. This method included voices from various locations, reflecting the program’s pan-African reach.

Data for this study were collected between October and December 2024 using a purposive sampling approach (Campbell et al., 2020). This strategy was selected over snowball sampling (Goodman, 1961) to ensure maximum variation in participant roles and locations rather than relying on existing social networks, which may have reinforced sample homogeneity. Recruitment and interviews were conducted in overlapping waves rather than strict phases: student and alumni participants were interviewed first, followed by lecturers, administrators, mentors, and business advisors. Each participant was interviewed twice, with sessions lasting between 30 and 60 minutes. This iterative approach allowed emerging insights to inform subsequent interview focus areas, while remaining consistent with the semi-structured design. We continued sampling until we achieved theoretical saturation, consistent with the approach outlined by Patvardhan et al. (2015), whereby additional data from new informants began to repeat existing themes and failed to generate novel theoretical insights.

All participants were initially contacted through the E4Impact Network’s institutional channels, alumni networks, or program coordinators. No financial or material incentives were provided; participation was entirely voluntary and based on informed consent.

The sample was primarily composed of students and alumni of the E4Impact GMBA program (36 interviewees), representing the entrepreneurial component of our sample. However, to crystallise our data from interviews with the entrepreneurs, we triangulated by including a diverse range of stakeholders (Table 1) who engaged with the E4Impact GMBA program in various capacities and at different stages of its lifecycle. Given the interpretive nature of qualitative research, this study employed crystallisation to explore key informants’ perspectives through multiple lenses, embracing complexity rather than pursuing a singular notion of objectivity (Ellingson, 2009). Participants were drawn from eight African countries, namely, Ghana, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Mozambique, Kenya, Tunisia, Sierra Leone, and Italy - in addition - as the headquarters of the program, ensuring broad geographic and institutional representation. Indeed, although the program operates primarily across African contexts, Italian-based administrators were included due to Italy’s role as the origin and coordinating hub of the E4Impact Foundation. These administrators have played a central role in shaping the program’s transnational curriculum, mentorship structures, and implementation strategies, making their perspectives critical for understanding its pedagogical and institutional configuration.

The participants are outlined in the next paragraphs.

1. Students and Alumni – These were current participants or graduates of the E4Impact GMBA program, representing a range of entrepreneurial sectors, including agribusiness, healthcare, education, and renewable energy. Many were first-generation entrepreneurs operating in resource-constrained environments, and several were managing businesses while completing the program. Their perspectives were central to understanding how the program influenced their entrepreneurial identity, access to resources, and ability to navigate gender-specific barriers.

2. Lecturers – Academic faculty involved in the design and delivery of course contents. Their disciplinary backgrounds included business strategy, finance, marketing, and sustainable development. Several had experience in entrepreneurship education across both African and European institutions, and many were involved in contextualising content for local settings. Their insights provided critical perspectives on curriculum adaptation, gender-sensitive teaching methods, and pedagogical challenges.

3. Administrators – These were program managers, coordinators, and institutional leaders responsible for implementing the E4Impact GMBA across partner universities. Their roles included coordinating between academic departments, external partners, and the E4Impact Foundation. They provided valuable information on institutional goals, logistical constraints, and strategic approaches to inclusion and localisation.

4. Guest Speakers and Mentors – These participants were professionals and industry leaders who delivered practical workshops or served as mentors during the program. Their backgrounds ranged from corporate executives to social entrepreneurs and government policy advisors. They often worked directly with student teams, providing feedback on business plans and guidance on scaling ventures. Their input highlighted the role of mentorship in building confidence and increasing access to opportunities.

5. Program Leaders – Also referred to as Country Coordinators in some institutions, these are senior academic or managerial staff responsible for overseeing the implementation of the E4Impact GMBA at each partner university. They serve as the primary liaison between local teaching teams, the E4Impact Foundation, and external stakeholders and were instrumental in facilitating participant recruitment and logistics during this study.

6. Business Advisors – These professionals, embedded within the GMBA program and working directly under Program Leaders, provide tailored, one-on-one support to participants throughout their entrepreneurial development. Their responsibilities include guiding business modelling, marketing strategy, and financial planning, as well as supporting pitch preparation and connecting participants to local entrepreneurial ecosystems. Recruited from university staff or regional business experts, they bring contextual knowledge and practical insight to complement academic learning.

While this study included mentors, guest speakers, and business advisors as key external stakeholders involved in direct program delivery, it did not include other influential actors such as representatives from donor organisations (e.g. the Italian Agency for Development Cooperation), partner NGOs that support program outreach, government ministries overseeing higher education or entrepreneurship (e.g. national innovation agencies or small business development authorities), and impact investors engaged in graduate venture funding. Although these actors contribute to shaping the enabling environment through policy, financing, and ecosystem coordination, their perspectives were not captured in this study to maintain the targeted focus on pedagogical design, mentorship, and participant experience within the GMBA.

The Gioia methodology (Gioia et al., 2013) was employed to code and analyse the data, providing a structured yet inductive framework for understanding participants’ experiences. Gioia’s methodology was selected due to its alignment with the research aim of developing a grounded, conceptually robust framework. Unlike case-based methods such as Eisenhardt’s (2021), which are typically used in comparative case study designs, the Gioia method supports iterative abstraction from raw data to higher-order themes while preserving the authenticity of participants’ voices (Gioia, 2021), a critical concern in studies inspired by Critical Pedagogy. Following the best practices of this methodology, the following three-step procedure was implemented:

1. First-Order Concepts: Participants’ statements were coded into first-order concepts that closely reflected their own words and phrases, maintaining fidelity to their perspectives. This process emphasised capturing participants’ lived experiences without imposing pre-existing theoretical frameworks.

2. Second-Order Themes: The first-order concepts were then grouped into broader, interpretive themes that identified underlying patterns and connections. These themes moved beyond descriptive accounts to provide analytical insights aligned with the research questions.

3. Aggregate Dimensions: The second-order themes were further distilled into overarching aggregate dimensions that encapsulated the study’s key findings. These dimensions offered a conceptual understanding of the E4Impact GMBA program’s role in fostering inclusivity and challenging systemic privilege.

As an illustrative example, the coding process revealed themes such as mentorship, practical learning, and confidence-building, which were synthesised into aggregate dimensions like “Empowerment through Mentorship” and “Bridging Structural Gaps in Entrepreneurship Education” (Table 2).

The qualitative methodology and the Gioia coding approach provided a robust framework for examining the E4Impact GMBA program’s impact. The semi-structured interviews allowed for in-depth data collection, while the Gioia methodology ensured systematic analysis, maintaining a balance between participants’ voices and interpretive rigour. This dual approach facilitated the development of actionable insights into the program’s ability to address inclusivity challenges in entrepreneurship education.

This study also drew on secondary data, including internal documents shared by the E4Impact Foundation, such as program reports and training materials, as well as publicly available information from the websites of ventures founded by alumni. These sources helped contextualise participants’ narratives and enrich our understanding of the program’s broader ecosystem. The analysis is grounded in an interpretivist epistemology, which, according to Lincoln and Guba (1985), views knowledge as co-constructed through situated, narrative-based accounts. This approach aligns well with the qualitative research traditions in entrepreneurship and education (William, 2024).

To comprehensively evaluate the E4Impact GMBA program’s impact on inclusivity and its challenge to Meschitti et al.’s (2024) “market of privilege,” qualitative data from diverse stakeholders, including students, lecturers, administrators, guest speakers, mentors, students and alumni, was analysed using the Gioia methodology. Following Gioia et al. (2013), we identified first-order concepts grounded in participants’ own language, which were then inductively grouped into second-order themes through comparative analysis. These themes were subsequently synthesised into three aggregate dimensions that structure the conceptual architecture of the Inclusive Entrepreneurship Higher Education Framework (see Figure 1). The three aggregate dimensions: Promoting Inclusive Practices, Empowerment through Mentorship, and Bridging Structural Gaps in Entrepreneurship Education, represent the key pedagogical and programmatic mechanisms through which the GMBA fosters inclusive entrepreneurial development.

Note: All participant names used in this section are pseudonyms. A table of representative quotes is included in the Appendix.

Inclusivity emerged as a defining feature of the E4Impact GMBA program, manifesting the program’s commitment to equitable participation and representation across gender, socioeconomic backgrounds, and cultural contexts in various countries.

The program’s commitment to gender and socioeconomic inclusivity was consistently reported. Participants described a classroom culture that “accommodates women very well” (Jane) and a student demographic that included parents, young professionals, and individuals from rural areas. Financial flexibility and empathy toward students’ life conditions were widely appreciated. William reinforced this view, describing the program as “inclusive of all genders and backgrounds, creating a level playing field for everyone.”

Lecturers like Dr Benard emphasised targeted strategies to enhance gender equity, such as mentorship programs and active participation in class activities. He explained: “We ensure that women are given more opportunities to participate during discussions and presentations because they are often underrepresented in such spaces.” These intentional efforts support women’s academic and professional growth and foster a more inclusive classroom culture.

The program’s inclusivity extended beyond gender to embrace participants from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds. Olivia, a student, shared how the program accommodated her financial struggles: “They were very patient with me … I couldn’t complete some tasks on time, but they gave me leeway because they understood my situation.” This personalised support enabled her to engage with the curriculum despite financial hardships fully.

Jack, another E4Impact GMBA alumnus, highlighted the program’s diverse composition: “We had fathers, mothers, young men, young women, and even couples in the same cohort. It truly represented different walks of life.” These testimonies underscore the program’s ability to create an environment where participants from varied backgrounds feel seen and supported.

The E4Impact GMBA program actively confronts traditional barriers in entrepreneurship, reshaping notions of privilege and accessibility within the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Addressing systemic inequities equips participants with the tools and mindset to redefine success and inclusivity.

A key strength of the program lies in its ability to formalise Africa’s predominantly informal business ecosystems, creating pathways for entrepreneurs to operate on larger scales. Emmanuel, an administrator, explained, “This program brings a level of formality, encouraging entrepreneurs to think beyond traditional practices and adopt a pan-African and global approach.” The program helps participants position themselves as competitive players in regional and international markets by bridging the gap between local practices and global standards.

Mentors like Desmond also play a pivotal role in challenging entrenched narratives about privilege. Drawing from his personal experience, he said, “I started my business with a toolbox and no inherited wealth. I want participants to see that success comes from ingenuity, resilience, and community collaboration, not elite networks or formal credentials.” These powerful personal stories challenge conventional notions of entrepreneurship, inspiring participants to embrace alternative pathways to success and empowering them to build ventures rooted in creativity and perseverance.

The program’s inclusive ethos is further reflected in its targeted outreach to marginalised groups. Precious, a mentor, described her work with women entrepreneurs, focusing on teaching them how to access funding without traditional collateral and preparing them for leadership roles. “I mentor women entrepreneurs [so] that they can be eligible for board appointments in big corporate organisations,” she explained. By fostering financial independence and advocating for greater representation, the program creates opportunities for women to break through systemic barriers.

Beyond its work with women entrepreneurs, the program extends its support to rural innovators and other underrepresented groups. Mentorship initiatives ensure that these participants gain access to critical resources and guidance, contributing to a more diverse and equitable entrepreneurial ecosystem.

Mentorship emerged as a cornerstone of the E4Impact GMBA program, providing participants with both professional and personal support. It was consistently highlighted as a key driver of success, offering participants the guidance needed to navigate challenges and grow as entrepreneurs.

The mentorship initiatives pair participants with experienced professionals who provide comprehensive, hands-on support. Dr Benard illustrated this approach: “I help students navigate their challenges, from identifying good lawyers to solving personal problems that affect their businesses. It’s not just about business; it’s about holistic support.” This dual focus on professional guidance and emotional well-being enables participants to overcome obstacles and gain confidence.

For many participants, mentorship also fosters transformative insights. Adeya, a current GMBA student, reflected, “The mentorship broadened my perspective and encouraged me to incorporate SDG goals into my business strategy.” Such guidance empowers participants to align their ventures with broader societal goals, ensuring their work contributes to sustainable and impactful growth.

Mentorship within the program extends beyond one-on-one relationships to create a collaborative community. Group discussions and networking events provide opportunities for participants to exchange ideas, share experiences, and build meaningful connections. Jack highlighted this aspect: “The program encourages collaboration among peers and mentors, allowing us to learn from one another’s experiences and form meaningful connections.” This collective environment reinforces the program’s commitment to building a supportive and resource-rich ecosystem for participants.

The E4Impact GMBA program places a strong emphasis on practical, hands-on learning, which participants consistently praised for its real-world relevance. This approach ensures that theoretical concepts are directly applied to entrepreneurial ventures, creating immediate value.

Tanya, an alumnus, remarked, “What stood out the most for me was the practical aspect of the program. We didn’t just learn theories; we applied them directly to our businesses, which was transformative.” Angela similarly noted how the program enhanced her understanding of business operations: “I now know how to develop my business from end-to-end, and I’ve been able to implement these changes effectively.”

The curriculum’s adaptability further amplifies its impact. Emmanuel explained, “The curriculum is tailored to the needs of each country, incorporating local examples and case studies that resonate with participants.” This localisation ensures the content remains relevant and accessible, addressing the specific challenges of diverse entrepreneurial contexts.

A defining outcome of the program is its ability to enhance participants’ confidence and self-efficacy, equipping them to pursue ambitious goals and navigate complex challenges.

Sandra, an alumnus, credited the program with transforming her mindset: “It really boosted my leadership skills and gave me the courage to take on new opportunities, both professionally and personally.” Other participants echoed this sentiment, emphasising how the program fostered an entrepreneurial mindset. As Adeya noted, “It equipped me with the tools to navigate challenges and pursue growth with confidence.” The program empowers participants to break through systemic barriers and achieve their goals by building self-belief.

The E4Impact GMBA program also instils a strong sense of social responsibility, encouraging participants to integrate social impact into their entrepreneurial strategies. Liz described how the program shaped her commitment to community development: “I’ve used the skills I gained to empower women in my community and create economic opportunities for those in need.”

This focus on social impact extends to sustainability, with participants incorporating environmental considerations into their ventures. Adeya highlighted this alignment: “The program taught me to align my business practices with SDG goals, creating products that address societal challenges while protecting the environment.” By embedding social responsibility into its curriculum, the program ensures that participants not only pursue personal success but also contribute to broader societal goals.

Figure 2 presents the Inclusive Entrepreneurship Higher Education Framework, which integrates four key pedagogical mechanisms – culturally sensitive curricula, mentorship, collaborative networks, and social impact – into a cyclical, ecosystem-oriented model of inclusive entrepreneurial learning. At its core, the framework positions inclusivity as a dynamic process, enabled through iterative feedback among students, educators, industry mentors, and community stakeholders.

Culturally sensitive curricula ensure that learning content is tailored to the socio-economic realities of diverse learners and refined continuously through localised feedback and contextual relevance. Mentorship serves as both a pedagogical and emotional support system, fostering self-efficacy and identity formation while providing pathways for guided experimentation. Collaborative networks serve as a relational infrastructure that bridges learners with mentors, funders, and policy actors, enabling the circulation of practical insights and peer learning. Social impact, rather than being a downstream effect, is embedded directly into curriculum design and assessment, aligning entrepreneurial training with community needs and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

The outer ring of the framework represents the inclusive entrepreneurial ecosystem in which these four mechanisms reinforce one another in a recursive cycle. Knowledge, support, and innovation flow continuously between individual learners and the broader institutional and social environment, challenging the entrenched dynamics of the “market of privilege” (Meschitti et al., 2024), by redefining what counts as entrepreneurial excellence. By mapping these dynamic interdependencies, the framework offers a scalable model that both captures the lived experiences of program participants and dismantles systemic barriers, providing a blueprint for inclusive curriculum design in resource-constrained settings.

The findings reveal that the E4Impact GMBA addresses traditional barriers in higher education through tailored mentorship, culturally sensitive curricula, and a strong emphasis on social impact, all within a framework that fosters collaborative networks. This discussion situates these findings within the lens of Meschitti et al.’s (2024) “market of privilege”, exploring how the program both disrupts and, at times, risks reproducing exclusionary structures, while offering recommendations for advancing inclusivity in entrepreneurship education.

Entrepreneurship education (EE) has been widely critiqued for reproducing structural inequalities, with policies and programs unintentionally favouring dominant groups by assuming uniform entrepreneurial journeys (Henry et al., 2024; Stoker et al., 2024b; Wood and Eagly, 2002). Building on this critique, this paper adopts the “market of privilege” (Meschitti et al., 2024) as its core analytical lens. Unlike reformist approaches focused on institutional solutions, the “market of privilege” (Meschitti et al., 2024), highlights how neoliberal logics actively reshape the conditions of inclusion by enforcing male-centred, middle-class, and racialised standards of excellence; promoting conditional inclusion (where women must conform to dominant norms to succeed); generating new intra-group hierarchies (e.g. privileging elite or white women over others); and suppressing epistemic diversity by rewarding status-quo knowledge systems (Reilly et al., 2016; Yarrow and Johnston, 2022). Through this lens, the E4Impact GMBA demonstrates both the possibilities and limitations of inclusive entrepreneurship education: while it disrupts many barriers, it also illustrates how inclusion can inadvertently reinforce existing privilege when tethered to neoliberal frameworks.

The E4Impact GMBA program’s innovative approach challenges traditional exclusion by embedding mentorship, culturally tailored curricula, and community-oriented impact. Mentorship fosters both professional guidance and emotional support, extending Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) by demonstrating how culturally grounded mentoring enhances self-efficacy, resilience, and entrepreneurial persistence in under-resourced and gender-constrained environments (Adeoti, 2025; Maheshwari et al., 2022; Menon, 2024; van Ewijk, 2024).

The program also incorporates culturally sensitive curricula tailored to the unique contexts of the target markets. This ensures the educational content is relevant and resonates with the participants’ contexts, enhancing the learning experience and challenging traditional gender roles and stereotypes (Meschitti, 2020). It also eliminates the one-size-fits-all approach, empowering participants to implement practical solutions tailored to their specific ventures.

In contributing to Critical Pedagogy, this study operationalises Freirean ideas by embedding learner agency, local knowledge, and cultural responsiveness into the design of entrepreneurship education. Echoing Freire’s (2020) emphasis on education as a practice of freedom, the curriculum moves beyond technical instruction to foreground the sociocultural realities of learners. In doing so, it challenges the neoliberal assumptions of individualism and meritocracy that often underpin traditional models of entrepreneurial education, a critique well-articulated by Boni-Le Goff et al. (2020). This approach aligns with Giroux’s (2024) call for learner-centred, culturally situated pedagogy that resists decontextualised, managerialist frameworks.

Social impact integration is another hallmark of the program, embedded at the design stage, encouraging ventures that align with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and societal goals, thereby challenging profit-driven logics (Henry et al., 2024). These elements converge in the Inclusive Entrepreneurship in Higher Education Framework, which advances Network Theory by demonstrating that inclusive ecosystems can be intentionally designed rather than emerging organically. Drawing on Portes’ (1998) work on social capital, the framework illustrates how structured peer collaboration and mentor-student relationships serve as deliberate mechanisms to redistribute access to entrepreneurial resources and opportunities. By embedding social capital development into its pedagogical design, the program disrupts the reproduction of privilege that typically characterises venture formation within elite entrepreneurial ecosystems (Strawser et al., 2021).

Despite these advances, the E4Impact GMBA model also reveals how the “market of privilege” (Meschitti et al., 2024) can reassert itself under neoliberal logics, unintentionally limiting its transformative potential. High program costs, reliance on English-language instruction, and emphasis on international prestige risk privileging urban, elite, or well-connected participants, thereby excluding those most disadvantaged. One student shared, “Many women I know couldn’t apply because of the fees”, underscoring the economic barriers that inhibit access for those from disadvantaged backgrounds, while another pointed: “It feels like this MBA is for people already in networks. If you are not connected or don’t speak the ‘business language’, you struggle to keep up”. Additionally, the use of English as the sole medium of instruction presents a linguistic hurdle that may exclude otherwise capable participants: “I had to translate some of the materials into Shona just to understand the assignments. It was very stressful.”

These reflections signal important limitations in the program’s reach and reveal how even well-intentioned initiatives risk replicating the very “market of privilege” (Meschitti et al., 2024), they aim to disrupt, thereby relegating the initiatives to symbolic gestures rather than catalysts for genuine transformation (Tzanakou and Pearce, 2019). They also raise critical questions about the sustainability of inclusion when equity is pursued primarily through market-aligned logics. As such, there is a pressing need for reflexive evaluation frameworks and institutional safeguards that can anticipate and mitigate the re-inscription of structural hierarchies under new, meritocratic guises.

The E4Impact GMBA contributes to developing inclusive ecosystems by fostering representation, collaboration, and intersectionality. Efforts to ensure gender balance and accommodate diverse backgrounds address longstanding inequities in entrepreneurship higher education (Ojong et al., 2021; Strawser et al., 2021). Building on the mentorship role outlined above, collaborative networks extend this support by connecting participants with peers, industry professionals, and policy actors, redistributing access to social capital (Portes, 1998). These networks, intentionally cultivated through program design, advance Network Theory by demonstrating that entrepreneurial ecosystems can be constructed as equity-enhancing infrastructures rather than emergent properties of existing privilege.

The program also tackles intersectional challenges (Jackson, 2020) by integrating Critical Pedagogy, SCCT, and Network Theory within the Inclusive Entrepreneurship Higher Education Framework. This advances theoretical understanding by reconceptualising inclusion not as static access but as a dynamic, recursive process that simultaneously develops individual agency, fosters supportive relational environments, and challenges institutional exclusion, offering a scalable model for systemic transformation in entrepreneurship ecosystems.

While impactful, the program faces several limitations regarding accessibility, scalability, sustainability, the lack of specific KPIs, and inconsistent mentorship practices. In terms of accessibility, the program’s cost excludes many women from disadvantaged backgrounds. Several participants expressed concern over the program’s affordability, with one participant remarking, “I honestly thought the program was coming with some loans or cushions that could assist us.” Addressing this requires implementing alternative funding models such as scholarships, grants, or income-based repayment plans. Revolving funds could also allow participants to support future cohorts. The significant resources required also raise challenges to the program’s scalability, as replicating personalised support and mentorship at scale is far from trivial. Leveraging technology for mentorship and introducing blended learning models, combining online modules with in-person workshops, could extend the program’s reach without diluting its quality.

Sustainability remains a critical dimension of inclusive entrepreneurship education, particularly in ensuring long-term impact and adaptability. The proposed framework inherently supports sustainability by embedding dynamic feedback loops that allow continuous refinement of mentorship, curricula, and collaborative networks. By institutionalising mechanisms for iterative learning and collaboration, the framework ensures that programs remain responsive to evolving participant needs and societal challenges. Fostering partnerships with local organisations and governments enhances the framework’s adaptability across regions, providing scalability and contextual relevance.

Among the critical issues, participants highlighted the absence of measurable KPIs for gender equality and inclusion. As Erica noted, “There is a need for defined metrics to measure how much the program is empowering women and achieving inclusivity targets.” Introducing KPIs, such as tracking the proportion of women-led ventures, would enhance transparency and accountability. Finally, it is worth noting that inconsistent mentorship practices may impact the program’s effectiveness. Indeed, the mentorship experience varies across regions; Emmanuel stated, “Zimbabwe has structured mentorship in place, but this is not replicated across other countries.” Addressing these gaps is essential to prevent the persistence of conditional inclusion within the very frameworks designed to dismantle privilege.

This study makes three principal contributions: theoretical, conceptual, and practical, to the evolving scholarship on entrepreneurship higher education and inclusion.

At the theoretical level, a distinctive contribution of this study lies in the cross-fertilisation of Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT), Critical Pedagogy, and Network Theory, which together generate insights that extend well beyond the scope of each framework individually. SCCT highlights how mentorship builds self-efficacy and entrepreneurial identity, yet on its own it risks overlooking the structural and cultural barriers that shape who can benefit from such mentorship (Maheshwari et al., 2022; van Ewijk, 2024). Critical Pedagogy addresses these limitations by foregrounding power, voice, and cultural relevance, reframing education as a practice of freedom that can challenge neoliberal notions of meritocracy (Walmsley and Wraae, 2022). Network Theory complements both by illuminating how intentional relational infrastructures, such as mentorship networks and peer collaboration, can redistribute social capital and provide access to resources traditionally concentrated within privileged groups (Adeoti, 2025; Portes, 1998). By integrating these perspectives, this study offers a more comprehensive account of how inclusive entrepreneurship education can simultaneously develop individual agency, reshape pedagogical practices, and reconfigure institutional access. This synthesis reveals that mentorship is not merely a vehicle for building self-efficacy (SCCT), but also a culturally situated and power-sensitive practice (Critical Pedagogy) that functions within a deliberately designed ecosystem (Network Theory). Through this cross-fertilisation, the Inclusive Entrepreneurship Higher Education Framework provides a unique theoretical lens to examine and eradicate deep-seated privileges, showing how interventions must operate across personal, pedagogical, and structural levels to produce lasting inclusion.

Conceptually, the study advances the Inclusive Entrepreneurship Higher Education Framework (Figure 2), an empirically grounded model that integrates curricular relevance, mentorship, network building, and social impact into a recursive learning system. Its innovation lies in reconceptualising inclusion not as one-time access, but as a sustained and dynamic pedagogical process that produces agency, belonging, and social change (de Bruin and Swail, 2024). Unlike existing models that often equate inclusion with enrolment numbers or representation, this framework positions inclusivity as an ongoing practice embedded in culturally sensitive pedagogy, reflexive mentorship, and intentional network design. By bridging SCCT, Critical Pedagogy, and Network Theory, it offers a multi-level, cohesive structure for analysing how inclusive systems are built and maintained in resource-constrained contexts.

Practically, the framework offers a roadmap for designing entrepreneurship education in contexts where historical inequalities and resource gaps persist. It identifies actionable levers, such as localising content, formalising mentorship structures, and aligning impact measures with SDG principles, that institutions and policymakers can implement. Additionally, the model encourages longitudinal tracking and feedback loops to evaluate inclusion over time, addressing a gap in how such programs are assessed (Menon, 2024; Ubfal, 2024).

This study makes several key recommendations across multiple levels to further enhance the program’s impact. The findings show that the E4Impact GMBA develops a distinct set of skills often overlooked in traditional business education. The E4Impact GMBA program supports the development of entrepreneurial skills that differ significantly from those promoted in traditional, individualistic business education. Beyond technical knowledge, participants reported gaining competencies such as collaborative problem-solving, community engagement, reflexive leadership, ethical decision-making, and the ability to recognise and act on opportunities in resource-constrained contexts. These non-traditional skills, practised through mentorship, peer collaboration, and exposure to locally relevant challenges, were critical in transforming marginalisation into agency. For example, Liz described how she used these skills to empower women in her community and create economic opportunities for those in need. Therefore, unlike conventional programs that centre on pitch performance or rapid market expansion, the E4Impact GMBA emphasised ethical decision-making, resilience, and inclusive team-building. Program designers should therefore move beyond one-size-fits-all curricula to intentionally cultivate such inclusive competencies, which are essential for dismantling systemic barriers and redefining entrepreneurial excellence.

To ensure these benefits are sustained and broadened, policymakers should allocate resources to support inclusive entrepreneurship higher education while incentivising private-sector investment in women-owned businesses, particularly those focused on social impact. Public-private partnerships can strengthen the financial and resource base necessary for these initiatives, ensuring that access is not limited to the already privileged. Within higher education institutions, inclusive practices should be institutionalised by embedding culturally sensitive content and mentorship into curricula, while recruiting and supporting women faculty and mentors to provide diverse role models. Accessibility and scalability also require expanding scholarships for disadvantaged groups and adopting blended learning models that combine online and in-person delivery.

Adopting the Inclusive Entrepreneurship Higher Education Framework (Figure 2) provides a structured pathway to embed these practices systematically. By integrating culturally relevant curricula, mentorship, collaborative networks, and social impact into a recursive learning system, the framework helps to counteract the reproduction of the “market of privilege” (Meschitti et al., 2024), and redefine entrepreneurial excellence on more equitable and contextually grounded terms.

In summary, this study addresses a theoretical puzzle: how can entrepreneurship education be restructured not only to build skills but also to dismantle systemic barriers to participation? This question directly engages with and refocuses the discourse on the theme of the “market of privilege” (Meschitti et al., 2024). By contrasting Meschitti et al.’s (2024) “market of privilege” framework with reformist approaches, this study argues for a more radical shift that interrogates the foundational assumptions of inclusion under neoliberal education models. Indeed, inclusive entrepreneurship education must not only build skills but also interrogate and transform the structures that restrict access. The E4Impact GMBA demonstrates how inclusive pedagogy can equip learners to challenge systemic inequities, while also revealing the ongoing risks of conditional inclusion tied to neoliberal logics. In doing so, it mirrors broader patterns identified in academic and research institutions, where formal equality efforts often mask deeper structural hierarchies (Meschitti, 2020; Yarrow and Johnston, 2022).

Future research should examine how such frameworks can be applied in diverse institutional contexts, with particular attention to language accessibility, rural outreach, and participatory curriculum design. Such studies would expand understanding of how to transform markets of privilege into ecosystems of inclusive possibility. Additionally, future studies could investigate how inclusive entrepreneurship education models in the Global South negotiate the risk of reproducing conditional inclusion within neoliberal logics of performance and meritocracy. They could also explore how culturally grounded pedagogies and mentorship structures reshape the criteria of “excellence” that sustain markets of privilege, and assess the sustainability of these shifts over time. Another promising avenue is the examination of intersectional dynamics within inclusive programs: for instance, how differences in socioeconomic status, ethnicity, or language among women participants can produce new hierarchies of privilege, and what strategies might effectively mitigate such unintended consequences. Advancing such enquiries will not only refine our understanding of how markets of privilege operate within entrepreneurship education but also provide actionable insights for designing programs that achieve lasting gender equity and systemic inclusion in higher education.

This study explored the innovative approaches of the E4Impact GMBA program in addressing traditional barriers to entrepreneurship in higher education and fostering inclusive entrepreneurial ecosystems. The findings highlight the program’s strengths in mentorship, culturally sensitive curricula, social impact integration, and collaborative networks, all of which contribute to empowering underrepresented groups, particularly women. However, identified gaps in accessibility, scalability, and consistency of mentorship underscore the need for further enhancements to sustain and extend its impact.

Beyond individual outcomes, the E4Impact GMBA is reshaping societal perceptions of women’s leadership and entrepreneurship in African contexts. Graduates are not only launching ventures but also challenging entrenched gender norms, serving as visible role models who expand what communities consider possible for women in business. By fostering collaborative, community-oriented approaches, the program contributes to shifting public attitudes toward greater gender equity, while improving quality of life through enterprises that address pressing social needs such as education, healthcare, and sustainable livelihoods. The program also generates tangible economic value by equipping graduates to create jobs, increase financial inclusion, and strengthen local economies. Many alumni reported establishing ventures that employ community members, open access to essential goods and services, and connect underrepresented groups to markets and funding streams. These outcomes demonstrate that inclusive entrepreneurship education can yield both commercial success and social transformation, reinforcing the case for scaling such models across the Global South.

The proposed Inclusive Entrepreneurship in Higher Education Framework synthesises these components into a cohesive, scalable model, offering actionable routes to address these limitations. Future research could expand the framework’s applicability by incorporating insights from these institutional and policy-level stakeholders, particularly regarding sustainability, scale, and systemic change. Thus, it bridges theoretical insights and practical applications by addressing criticisms and refining existing practices while designing a pathway to systemic change in entrepreneurial ecosystems.

Integrating mentorship, culturally sensitive curricula, social impact, and collaborative networks provides a dynamic and adaptable structure that aligns with theoretical advancements in Social Cognitive Career Theory, Critical Pedagogy, and Network Theory. Its feedback loops ensure continuous refinement, making it applicable across diverse contexts and regions.

Adopting this framework presents an opportunity for the E4Impact GMBA to build on its successes and set a new benchmark for inclusive entrepreneurship education. By standardising mentorship, introducing measurable KPIs for inclusivity, and leveraging scalable solutions, the program can extend its reach and ensure lasting change for its participants and communities.

Inclusive entrepreneurship higher education has the potential to drive systemic change by addressing societal inequities and empowering diverse voices in the business world. Programs like the E4Impact GMBA demonstrate how innovative education models can dismantle barriers, foster empowerment, and create a more equitable entrepreneurial ecosystem. With continued refinement and strategic adoption of the proposed framework, the E4Impact GMBA can strengthen its role as a global leader in inclusive entrepreneurship education, inspiring transformative change across Africa and the globe.

The supplementary material for this article can be found online.