Abstract Universities play an important role in creating social impact through supporting social entrepreneurs. While existing literature primarily focuses on the educational aspect of nurturing social entrepreneurs, there is a gap in understanding the diverse and heterogeneous initiatives undertaken by universities. Recognizing the call for a nuanced exploration of universities' distinct approaches, we adopt an effectuation theory as an interpretive framework to investigate how universities, with varying scale and scope, support social entrepreneurs. Through 37 in‐depth interviews and 5 focus group discussions at four universities, we offer an empirically grounded typology of four distinct support logics: embedded, auxiliary, opportunity‐driven, and boundary‐spanning. These categories reflect divergent institutional responses to uncertainty, internal capability, and stakeholder engagement. Our findings challenge the conventional narrative of homogeneity in university initiatives, emphasizing that support systems are shaped by a dynamic interaction of structural elements and individual decision‐making processes. This research expands the theoretical discourse on university support for social entrepreneurs by bridging structure and agency and demonstrating how universities act as both integrators of resources and ecosystem enablers. By leveraging internal strengths and cultivating external partnerships, universities create multifaceted, adaptable support mechanisms that reflect the uniqueness of their institutional context and their contributions to the social entrepreneurship ecosystem. The study contributes to evolving debates on the university's roles in entrepreneurial ecosystems and provides a conceptual foundation for future theorization and comparative analysis. It offers actionable insights for university management, social entrepreneurs, and policymakers, advocating for a more nuanced understanding of the role universities play in creating social impact through entrepreneurial ecosystems.
Mensel et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: