INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 2526

www.rsisinternational.org

Perceived University Support (PUS) and Entrepreneurial Intentions:

Insights from a Systematic Literature Review

Sarah Sabir Ahmad

, Azfahanee Zakaria

, Mohd Shafiz Saharan

, Nurdiyana Nazihah Zainal

, Mohd

Hairul Nazreen Jamil

1 2 3 4

Faculty of Business and Management, University Technology MARA Cawangan Kedah

Department of Administration, University Technology MARA Cawangan Kedah

*Corresponding Author

DOI:

https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.910000211

Received: 29 September 2025; Accepted: 14 October 2025; Published: 01 November 2025

ABSTRACT

Entrepreneurship is increasingly recognized as a driver of economic growth, innovation, and graduate

employability. In Malaysia, it is promoted as a solution to graduate unemployment and positioned as a pillar of

the Malaysia Education Blueprint 2015–2025. Despite this emphasis, a gap persists between institutional efforts

and student outcomes, largely due to variations in the quality, accessibility, and cultural relevance of support

provided by universities. This study examines the role of perceived university support (PUS) in shaping

entrepreneurial intentions (EI) among Malaysian students. Using the PRISMA 2020 framework, a systematic

literature review (SLR) of 34 peer-reviewed articles (2015–2025) was conducted. Findings show that PUS

significantly influences EI through four dimensions: entrepreneurship education, mentorship and role models,

infrastructure and financial support, and cultural and contextual influences. Education enhances knowledge and

self-efficacy but is weakened by theoretical delivery. Mentorship and role models inspire motivation, though

access remains uneven. Infrastructure and funding reduce risk perceptions but are concentrated in urban

universities. Cultural norms, especially collectivist values and family expectations, shape how support is

perceived. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy consistently mediates PUS–EI, while proactive personality and gender

moderate outcomes. The study concludes that holistic, experiential, and culturally adaptive support systems are

essential to strengthen Malaysia’s entrepreneurial ecosystem.

Keywords— Cultural Context, Entrepreneurial Intentions, Entrepreneurial Education, Perceived University

Support, Systematic Literature Review

INTRODUCTION

Entrepreneurship is internationally acknowledged as a pivotal engine for economic growth, job creation, and

innovation. In Malaysia, this view is echoed in national strategies such as the Malaysia Education Blueprint

(MOHE, 2021), which positions entrepreneurship as a solution to graduate unemployment and a lever for long-

term economic transformation. Universities are therefore mandated not just to impart technical and academic

skills, but also to foster entrepreneurial mindsets and activities among students.

Despite these aspirations, graduate outcomes remain mixed. The Graduate Employability Rate (GER) in

Malaysia rose from 73.1% in 2010 to 84.8% in 2021 yet only 59.3% of graduates were employed by that year;

the rest were either pursuing further studies, undergoing skills training, or awaiting placement (Khazanah

Research Institute, 2021). Moreover, two-thirds of fresh graduates still earned starting salaries below RM2,000,

signaling persistent underemployment (Khazanah Research Institute, 2021). Within an increasingly dynamic

labour market, a growing mismatch between graduate qualifications and job demands has become evident: recent

studies report that over-education and skill-related underemployment among Malaysian graduates rose by 72%

between 2017 and 2021, affecting more than 1.55 million graduates (International Journal of Business,

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 2527

www.rsisinternational.org

Economics and Law, 2024). At the same time, youth unemployment remains high; in 2024, Malaysia’s

unemployment rate stood at 3.2%, but youth unemployment was 10.3%, underscoring the disproportionate

vulnerability of young graduates (Department of Statistics Malaysia, 2025). In 2024, the national unemployment

rate dropped to 3.2%, marking the best labour market performance since the pandemic. However, youth

unemployment among persons aged 15 to 24 stood at 10.3%, with many occupying semi-skilled roles that

underutilize tertiary education (deVere Malaysia, 2024). These labour market trends underscore a critical need

for alternative career pathways. Yet, structural and academic limitations persist in empowering students toward

entrepreneurship. A 2024 study of 311 final-year undergraduates (social sciences and science & technology

disciplines) across public universities on Malaysia's east coast found that entrepreneurship education positively

correlates with entrepreneurial intentions. However, subjective norms i.e., pressures or supports from peers,

family, and lecturers did not significantly influence intentions, suggesting a discord between institutional

encouragement and students’ social environments (Macrothink Institute, 2024). Other than that, a qualitative

investigation among undergraduates confirmed the significance of entrepreneurship education but highlighted

persistent delivery and perception gaps among students (Ibrahim et al, 2025). Another study found differential

"pre-startup behaviors" between business and non-business students, with the former showing stronger

entrepreneurial agency suggesting discipline-specific disparities in support structures (Wan Kamarudin et al,

2025). Lastly, a systematic literature review encompassing 390 studies (2010–2025) revealed that three key

factors are critical in boosting graduate employability through entrepreneurship programs in Malaysian public

universities which are alignment between policy and industry needs, enhancement of graduates’ generic skills,

and university–industry collaboration and work-based learning (WBL) (Mohd Reza et al, 2025). These findings

underscore a significant academic challenge, while entrepreneurship is embedded in curricula, ineffective design,

disciplinary silos, and weak industry connections are limiting its transformative potential.

LITERATURE REVIEW

This paper focuses on four critical dimensions of perceived university support (PUS) which are entrepreneurship

education, mentorship and role models, infrastructure and financial support, and cultural and contextual

influences and examines their collective influence on entrepreneurial intentions (EI).

Entrepreneurship Education and Entrepreneurial Intentions

Entrepreneurship education serves as the foundational pillar of PUS. It equips students with the knowledge,

skills, and exposure needed to enhance entrepreneurial self-efficacy (Ismail, Ahmad, & Rasdi, 2018; Nabi et al.,

2018). Importantly, the literature emphasizes that entrepreneurship education must move beyond theoretical

delivery to include experiential learning approaches, such as business simulations, plan competitions, and

industry collaborations. These practices not only reinforce perceived behavioral control but also allow students

to test and refine competencies in realistic yet low-risk environments (Tan, Ooi, & Chong, 2022). Building on

Ajzen’s (1991) Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), entrepreneurship education influences EI by shaping

students’ attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. Evidence consistently shows that

entrepreneurship courses improve entrepreneurial knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy, which in turn are decisive

predictors of entrepreneurial behavior (Ismail et al., 2018; Tan et al., 2022). In Malaysia, entrepreneurship

education has been made mandatory in higher education programs, reflecting the government’s strategic

emphasis on entrepreneurship as a mechanism to tackle graduate unemployment (Ministry of Higher Education

[MOHE], 2021). Nevertheless, challenges persist. For instance, Ahmad, Rasdi, and Ismail (2020) revealed that

many students perceive such courses as excessively theory-driven and disconnected from practical realities. This

limits the effectiveness of education in fostering entrepreneurial mindsets. Consequently, scholars advocate for

integrating applied and experiential opportunities which include competitions, internships, and collaborative

industry projects that allow students to translate classroom learning into entrepreneurial competence (Nabi et al.,

2018).

Findings from the SLR (see Appendix 1) further reinforce that entrepreneurship education exerts a consistent

and positive influence on EI across multiple studies (Ismail et al., 2018; Tan et al., 2022; Saifuddin et al., 2022).

While education enhances entrepreneurial readiness, its effectiveness is maximized when complemented by

applied learning opportunities. Thus, entrepreneurship education alone is insufficient; it must be practically

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 2528

www.rsisinternational.org

grounded to generate the intended entrepreneurial competencies.

Mentorship and Role Models

The second dimension highlights the pivotal role of mentorship and role models in shaping entrepreneurial

identity and motivation. Mentorship provides not only personalized guidance but also psychosocial support and

access to networks, which collectively increase students’ confidence and resilience (Othman & Othman, 2019;

Zainol, Al-Mamun, & Hamid, 2021). In parallel, role models particularly successful alumni or local

entrepreneurs strengthen students’ entrepreneurial orientation by showing that success is both attainable and

desirable (Shah & Soomro, 2021). Within the TPB, these influences align strongly with subjective norms, where

beliefs are shaped by social pressures and expectations. Empirical studies consistently show that Malaysian

students engaged in structured mentorship programs exhibit stronger entrepreneurial drive compared to their

peers without such exposure (Othman & Othman, 2019). Similarly, interaction with role models enhances

students’ belief that entrepreneurship is feasible, reinforcing both desirability and achievability (Shah & Soomro,

2021). However, significant disparities exist. While leading Malaysian universities maintain structured

mentorship ecosystems, many smaller or rural universities lack such support systems, resulting in unequal

entrepreneurial outcomes (Al Mamun, Zainol, & Hasan, 2021). The SLR emphasizes that mentorship and role

model engagement are indispensable non-academic enablers of EI, but their uneven availability poses challenges.

Structured programs across all universities are therefore essential to ensure equitable development of

entrepreneurial confidence and motivation.

Infrastructure and Financial Support

The third component of PUS concerns institutional infrastructure and financial assistance, which act as critical

enablers of entrepreneurship. Facilities such as incubation centers, entrepreneurship labs, and co-working spaces

provide students with vital resources to pursue entrepreneurial activities (Nabi et al., 2018). Financial support,

in the form of seed funding, grants, or business plan competitions, further boosts confidence by reducing the

perceived risks of entrepreneurship (Al-Mamun, Yusoff, & Ibrahim, 2019). Yet, the SLR reveals persistent

structural inequalities in the distribution of these resources. Urban and premier universities often enjoy well-

equipped facilities and more robust funding schemes, while smaller or rural institutions remain under-resourced

(Tan et al., 2022). Moreover, studies show that students frequently have limited awareness of available funding

opportunities, which diminishes the potential impact of existing schemes (Zainol et al., 2021). In short,

infrastructure and financial support significantly enhance perceived behavioral control by lowering barriers to

entrepreneurial entry. However, equitable access and better communication are essential to ensure that all

students, regardless of their institutional background, can benefit from these support systems.

Cultural and Contextual Influences

The final dimension situates PUS within Malaysia’s socio-cultural context. Unlike Western environments that

emphasize autonomy and risk-taking, Malaysian students often prioritize family expectations, social approval,

and financial stability in their career decisions (Saifuddin et al., 2022; Al Mamun, Zainol, & Hasan, 2021). This

reflects Malaysia’s collectivist culture, where family and societal expectations strongly shape entrepreneurial

pursuits. Consequently, entrepreneurship support programs that fail to account for cultural nuances risk limited

effectiveness. Studies argue that PUS initiatives should integrate family-inclusive activities, social enterprises,

and community-based entrepreneurship models to resonate with Malaysian students (Tan et al., 2022; Al Mamun

et al., 2021). By aligning global entrepreneurial competencies with local cultural values, universities can foster

support systems that are not only effective but also culturally adaptive.

Integrated Role of Perceived University Support (PUS)

Taken together, the SLR demonstrates that PUS functions as a multidimensional construct. When education,

mentorship, infrastructure, financial support, and cultural alignment work in synergy, universities significantly

enhance students’ entrepreneurial intentions (Al Mamun et al., 2021; Zainol et al., 2021). Conversely,

weaknesses in any of these dimensions such as theory-heavy curricula, inconsistent mentorship, or unequal

resource distribution diminish the overall effectiveness of support, thereby discouraging entrepreneurial

motivation. In conclusion, the literature consistently affirms that effective PUS requires a holistic approach.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 2529

www.rsisinternational.org

Universities must go beyond offering entrepreneurship courses by also providing experiential learning,

accessible mentorship, strong infrastructure, equitable funding, and culturally relevant programs. Only then can

Malaysian universities fully unlock students’ entrepreneurial potential and contribute to broader national goals

of economic transformation.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The conceptual framework posits that the four dimensions of perceived university support (PUS) namely

entrepreneurship education, mentorship and role models, infrastructure and financial support, and

cultural/contextual influences collectively shape students’ entrepreneurial intentions (EI). When these

dimensions are well-integrated and effectively delivered, PUS enhances students’ entrepreneurial attitudes,

strengthens subjective norms, and increases perceived behavioral control, thereby fostering stronger

entrepreneurial intentions. Conversely, weaknesses in any of these dimensions such as overly theoretical

curricula, uneven access to mentorship opportunities, limited infrastructure, or culturally misaligned initiatives

can undermine the effectiveness of PUS. As a result, students may experience reduced motivation to pursue

entrepreneurial careers. In this regard, the framework contributes to the literature by offering a holistic model of

how multiple forms of university support interact within a socio-cultural context to influence entrepreneurial

intentions. Whereas previous studies often examined these factors in isolation, this study emphasizes their

interconnectedness, thereby capturing the complex and multidimensional nature of student entrepreneurship

development. Moreover, by situating the framework within Ajzen’s (1991) Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB),

the study ensures theoretical consistency. TPB provides a clear lens for analyzing how PUS influences attitudes,

subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. At the same time, this framework highlights context-specific

nuances particularly those relevant to Malaysian higher education where cultural values, institutional practices,

and structural inequalities significantly shape entrepreneurial outcomes. Ultimately, this integrated framework

underscores that fostering entrepreneurial intentions requires not only strong institutional support but also

alignment with cultural and contextual realities.

Fig. 1 Conceptual Framework

METHODOLOGY

The methodology employed in this study is based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and

Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), which provides a transparent and replicable framework for identifying, screening,

selecting, and analyzing relevant research. Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines (Page et al., 2021), the process

of article selection was documented in a flow diagram (Figure 2), illustrating each stage of inclusion and

exclusion.This study adopted a systematic literature review (SLR) design to ensure rigor and minimize bias.

PRISMA’s structured four-phase model was used to guide the review, ensuring that the literature was identified,

screened, and synthesized in a systematic and replicable manner. The review specifically examined the role of

perceived university support (PUS) in shaping entrepreneurial intentions (EI) among university students, with a

primary emphasis on Malaysia while also incorporating comparative insights from international contexts.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 2530

www.rsisinternational.org

To identify relevant literature, a comprehensive search strategy was employed across five electronic databases:

Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Emerald Insight, and Google Scholar. To ensure recency and relevance,

the review covered studies published between 2015 and 2025. Search terms included key concepts such as

entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial intention, perceived university support, mentorship, role models,

infrastructure, financial support, Malaysia, and university students. Boolean operators were applied in different

combinations to maximize retrieval. For example, the Scopus search string used was: (“entrepreneurship

education” OR “entrepreneurial education”) AND (“entrepreneurial intention*” OR “entrepreneurial mindset”)

AND (“university support” OR “perceived support” OR mentorship OR “financial support” OR infrastructure)

AND (Malaysia OR “higher education”). To ensure credibility, only peer-reviewed journal articles in English

were included, and the reference lists of the selected articles were manually screened to identify additional

relevant studies (Moher et al., 2009).

The eligibility criteria were clearly defined. Inclusion criteria consisted of empirical or conceptual studies that

examined entrepreneurship education, mentorship, role models, infrastructure, financial support, or

cultural/contextual influences on EI. Studies published between 2015 and 2025, focusing on university or college

students, and situated in Malaysia or international higher education contexts were considered. Exclusion criteria

removed non-peer-reviewed publications such as reports, dissertations, and conference abstracts, as well as

studies outside the higher education sector or not directly measuring EI. This ensured that only high-quality and

contextually relevant studies were synthesized (Liberati et al., 2009).

The selection process followed PRISMA’s four phases. In the identification phase, 356 records were retrieved

from the databases. In the screening phase, 78 duplicates were removed, leaving 278 studies. Titles and abstracts

were reviewed, and 182 irrelevant articles were excluded. In the eligibility phase, 96 full-text articles were

assessed, but 62 were excluded for failing to meet the criteria. Finally, in the inclusion phase, 34 studies were

retained for analysis. This entire process was systematically documented in a PRISMA flow diagram (see Fig.

2), ensuring clarity and transparency in reporting (Page et al., 2021).

For data extraction, a structured coding sheet was designed to capture information such as author(s), year, country

or context, research design, sample, independent variables (e.g., education, mentorship, infrastructure, financial

support, cultural influences), dependent variable (EI), and key findings. Data were cross-checked by two

reviewers to ensure accuracy and reduce bias.

Given the diversity of methods across the included studies, a qualitative thematic synthesis was conducted.

Articles were organized into four thematic categories: entrepreneurship education, mentorship and role models,

infrastructure and financial support, and cultural/contextual influences. This thematic approach allowed for the

identification of convergent and divergent findings, revealed socio-cultural nuances specific to Malaysia, and

highlighted research gaps (Tranfield, Denyer, & Smart, 2003). A systematic literature review table (Appendix

1) was constructed to summarize the main characteristics and contributions of each included study.

To ensure rigor, a quality assessment was conducted using a modified checklist adapted from the Critical

Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) appraisal tools. The assessment

considered clarity of research objectives, appropriateness of methodology, validity of measures (e.g., EI scales),

adequacy of sample size, and relevance to higher education contexts in Malaysia. Only medium-to-high-quality

studies were retained for synthesis (Moola et al., 2020).

Finally, in terms of ethical considerations, this study relied exclusively on secondary data from published journal

articles and did not involve human participants. Therefore, no ethical approval was required. Nonetheless, the

review maintained academic integrity by ensuring transparent reporting, accurate referencing, and unbiased

synthesis.

In summary, by adhering to PRISMA 2020 guidelines (Page et al., 2021), this review achieved a systematic,

transparent, and replicable process. From an initial pool of 356 records, 34 high-quality articles were ultimately

included, providing a robust evidence base to examine how perceived university support influences

entrepreneurial intentions in Malaysian higher education, while offering valuable insights from global contexts.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 2531

www.rsisinternational.org

Fig. 2 Four-Phase Flow Diagrams

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This paper presents findings across several major areas: entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial

intentions, mentorship and role models as catalysts of intention, infrastructure and financial support as enablers

of action, cultural and contextual influences on perceived support, mediators and moderators of the intention

process, and finally, the intention–behavior gap.

The review confirms that entrepreneurship education (EE) exerts a consistently positive influence on students’

entrepreneurial intentions (EI). Nevertheless, its effectiveness depends heavily on pedagogical design.

Traditional lecture-based approaches often criticized as overly theoretical tend to show weaker links to EI

(Ahmad, Rasdi, & Ismail, 2020). By contrast, experiential models such as simulations, live projects, and business

plan competitions are strongly associated with higher entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intention (Nabi, Liñán,

Fayolle, Krueger, & Walmsley, 2017). These findings are consistent with Ajzen’s (1991) Theory of Planned

Behavior (TPB), in which perceived behavioral control mediates the link between education and intention. In

the Malaysian context, where EE is mandatory, the results suggest that the quality of delivery is more critical

than curricular presence alone (Tan, Ooi, & Chong, 2022).

Mentorship and role models emerge as powerful contributors to EI by offering vicarious learning, guidance, and

psychosocial support. Specifically, students engaged in structured mentorship programs demonstrate stronger

entrepreneurial drive than their peers without such exposure (Othman & Othman, 2019). Likewise, interaction

with successful entrepreneurs or alumni role models significantly enhances students’ perceptions of

entrepreneurship as both achievable and desirable (Nowiński & Haddoud, 2019; Shah & Soomro, 2021). Within

TPB, these effects map onto different constructs: mentorship strengthens perceived behavioral control, while

role models reinforce subjective norms. However, access to such support remains uneven. Evidence shows that

smaller or rural Malaysian universities often lack formal mentorship structures, thereby limiting opportunities

for their students (Al Mamun, Zainol, & Hasan, 2021). This suggests that while mentorship is a proven enabler

of EI, inequitable access risks widening entrepreneurial gaps across institutions.

Access to physical and financial resources also plays a decisive role in shaping entrepreneurial intentions. For

instance, university-provided incubators, entrepreneurship labs, and co-working spaces reduce perceived barriers

and foster stronger feasibility beliefs (Makai et al., 2023). Similarly, seed funding, grants, and venture

competitions provide students with financial confidence, thereby reducing the psychological cost of

entrepreneurial risk-taking (Al-Mamun, Yusoff, & Ibrahim, 2019). Emerging evidence further indicates that

incubators not only increase intentions but also facilitate the translation of intentions into actual entrepreneurial

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 2532

www.rsisinternational.org

behavior, particularly among women (Education + Training, 2024). Nevertheless, findings consistently reveal

that such resources are unevenly distributed, with urban and prestigious universities offering stronger support

structures than rural institutions (Tan et al., 2022). This inequality underscores the importance of equitable

resource allocation to foster entrepreneurship across diverse student populations.

Cultural values significantly shape how PUS translates into EI. In collectivist contexts such as Malaysia, family

expectations and social approval weigh heavily on students’ career decisions (Saifuddin et al., 2022; Tan et al.,

2022). Thus, while education and infrastructure enhance self-efficacy, subjective norms particularly those related

to legitimacy and social desirability often determine whether students act on entrepreneurial opportunities (Chin

et al., 2024). Accordingly, entrepreneurship support systems must be culturally tailored. Evidence suggests that

programs emphasizing family-inclusive entrepreneurship, community-based ventures, and social enterprises

resonate more strongly with Malaysian students than Western-centric models, which often prioritize autonomy

and risk-taking (Al Mamun et al., 2021).

The review highlights entrepreneurial self-efficacy as the most consistent mediator linking PUS to EI (Zainol,

Al-Mamun, & Hamid, 2021). Subjective norms also act as mediators, particularly when universities signal

legitimacy through visible support or successful alumni. In terms of moderators, studies find that proactive

personality enhances the benefits of university support, with proactive students gaining more from PUS

initiatives (Mustafa et al., 2023). Gender also plays a role, as incubator participation appears to be particularly

impactful for female students (Education Training, 2024).

Nonetheless, a notable limitation across the literature is the predominance of cross-sectional designs, which

constrain understanding of the dynamic relationship between intention and behavior. Longitudinal studies

provide stronger evidence, showing that structured support mechanisms such as incubators and mentorship can

bridge the “intention–action” gap by facilitating actual venture creation (Nayak et al., 2024).Taken together, the

findings demonstrate that PUS significantly enhances entrepreneurial intentions when it integrates four

dimensions: education, mentorship, infrastructure, and cultural alignment. Within the TPB framework, these

dimensions collectively elevate attitudes, reinforce subjective norms, and increase perceived behavioral control,

thereby fostering stronger entrepreneurial intentions. However, effectiveness depends on the quality of delivery,

equitable distribution of resources, and cultural adaptation. For Malaysian higher education, this implies that

universities must move beyond simply mandating entrepreneurship education. Instead, they should prioritize

experiential pedagogy, expand mentorship opportunities, distribute infrastructure and funding more equitably,

and design culturally resonant programs. By addressing these issues, universities can not only strengthen student

entrepreneurship but also contribute directly to Malaysia’s broader goals of innovation, employability, and

economic transformation.

CONCLUSION, IMPLICATIONS, LIMITATIONS & FUTURE RESEARCH

This study set out to examine how perceived university support (PUS) influences entrepreneurial intentions (EI)

among university students, with particular emphasis on the Malaysian higher education context. Drawing upon

34 peer-reviewed articles synthesized through the PRISMA systematic review framework, the findings

demonstrate that PUS contributes significantly to EI through four interconnected dimensions: entrepreneurship

education, mentorship and role models, infrastructure and financial support, and cultural and contextual

influences. Together, these factors shape students’ attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control,

as theorized in Ajzen’s (1991) Theory of Planned Behavior. Importantly, the review highlights that although

entrepreneurship education is widely implemented in Malaysia, its impact is frequently constrained by overly

theoretical delivery rather than practical application. In a similar vein, mentorship and role models function as

proven catalysts of entrepreneurial motivation, yet access to such opportunities remains uneven across

institutions. Infrastructure and financial support likewise serve as critical enablers, but they are concentrated

within urban and well-resourced universities, thereby reinforcing disparities. Finally, cultural influences

particularly family expectations and collectivist values mediate how students perceive and act upon university

support, underscoring the contextual nature of entrepreneurial intention formation.

From a theoretical standpoint, this study contributes to the literature by integrating multiple dimensions of PUS

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 2533

www.rsisinternational.org

into a holistic conceptual framework grounded in the Theory of Planned Behavior. By synthesizing evidence

across contexts, the review demonstrates how PUS strengthens entrepreneurial self-efficacy (perceived

behavioral control) and reinforces subjective norms, especially in collectivist cultures such as Malaysia.

Moreover, the findings extend existing models of entrepreneurial intention by highlighting mediators and

moderators—including entrepreneurial self-efficacy, gender, and proactive personality—that enrich theoretical

understanding.

From a practical perspective, the findings carry clear implications for universities and policymakers. For

universities, there is a pressing need to reorient entrepreneurship education toward experiential approaches, such

as business simulations, competitions, and industry collaborations, to bridge the persistent theory–practice gap.

Structured and equitable mentorship programs should also be established to ensure consistent guidance across

both urban and rural institutions. Furthermore, universities should expand access to entrepreneurship

infrastructure (e.g., incubators, labs, and co-working spaces) while improving communication regarding

available financial support. For policymakers, the challenge lies in addressing structural inequities by extending

funding and infrastructural resources to less-resourced and rural universities. Equally important, both

institutional and policy-level interventions should be culturally adaptive, embedding family and community

perspectives to align with the values of Malaysian students.

While the systematic review provides valuable insights, it is not without limitations. First, as the study relies on

secondary data, the validity of its conclusions depends on the quality and scope of the reviewed articles. Second,

most studies employed cross-sectional designs, limiting the ability to establish causal relationships between PUS

and entrepreneurial behavior. Third, the literature is skewed toward urban and prestigious universities, which

may not accurately reflect the realities of rural or less-resourced institutions. Fourth, the diversity of

measurement instruments used for EI and PUS complicates direct comparison across studies. Finally, socio-

cultural variables are often underexplored, leaving gaps in understanding how cultural dynamics interact with

institutional support.

Building on these limitations, several directions for future research emerge. First, longitudinal and mixed-method

designs should be adopted to capture the dynamic evolution of entrepreneurial intentions into actual venture

creation. Second, comparative studies between urban and rural institutions are needed to uncover equity issues

in entrepreneurship support. Third, greater attention should be paid to moderating and mediating factors—such

as gender, proactive personality, socio-economic background, and prior entrepreneurial exposure—as these may

explain variations in how students respond to PUS. Fourth, researchers should move beyond intentions to

examine long-term entrepreneurial outcomes, including venture survival, innovation capacity, and social impact.

Finally, there is a need for context-specific frameworks that explicitly integrate cultural and societal factors into

the design of entrepreneurship education and support systems.

In conclusion, this review underscores that fostering entrepreneurial intentions requires not only strong

institutional support but also practical delivery, equitable access, and cultural sensitivity. By addressing these

dimensions holistically, Malaysian universities and policymakers can cultivate a generation of graduates who

are not only job-seekers but also innovative job creators, thereby advancing the nation’s economic transformation

agenda.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors would like to acknowledge University Technology MARA, family, colleagues, AI technology, and

Allah SWT in completing this article.

REFERENCES

1. Ahmad, N., Rasdi, R. M., & Ismail, N. A. (2020). Entrepreneurial education in Malaysian universities:

Bridging theory and practice. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 23(2), 1–15.

2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

3. Al-Mamun, A., Yusoff, R. Z., & Ibrahim, M. (2019). Financial support and entrepreneurial self-efficacy

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 2534

www.rsisinternational.org

among university students. International Journal of Economics and Management, 13(2), 251–265.

4. Al Mamun, A., Zainol, F. A., & Hasan, N. A. (2021). Perceived university support and entrepreneurial

intentions: The role of cultural context in Malaysia. Asian Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship,

12(1), 45–60.

5. Bell, R. (2019). Predicting entrepreneurial intention across the university. Education + Training, 61(7/8),

815–831. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-05-2018-0117

6. Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review

(2nd ed.). London: SAGE.

7. Chin, J. W., Mahmud, M., & Lee, C. (2024). Subjective norms towards entrepreneurship and Malaysian

students’ entrepreneurial intentions: Does gender matter? Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and

Entrepreneurship, 18(1), 55–72.https://doi.org/10.1108/APJIE-09-2023-0180

8. Costa, N., et al. (2022). Students’ entrepreneurial intention in higher education: Evidence from European

universities. Procedia Computer Science, 196, 470–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.12.058

9. Farsi, J. Y., Moradi, M., & Farzaneh, M. (2021). University support and entrepreneurial intention: The

mediating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 24(2), 1–13.

10. Fernandes, C., Ferreira, J. J., Raposo, M., Sanchez, J. C., & Hernandez-Sanchez, B. (2018). Determinants

of entrepreneurial intentions: An international cross-border study. International Journal of Innovation

Science, 10(2), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-02-2017-0017

11. Hussain, A., & Hashim, N. (2021). Perceived university support and entrepreneurial intention among

Malaysian students. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 11(5),

121–136.

12. Ismail, A., Zainol, F. A., & Nor, A. M. (2022). Graduate employability and entrepreneurial competencies:

Challenges for Malaysia. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Business, 10(1), 35–50.

13. Ismail, N., Ahmad, N., & Rasdi, R. M. (2018). Entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intention:

Evidence from Malaysian universities. Education + Training, 60(9), 1010–1027.

https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-11-2017-0175

14. Jin, D., Yang, F., Xu, M., & Wang, Z. (2023). Entrepreneurial role models and college students’

entrepreneurial intention and calling: The mediating role of perceived behavioral control. Frontiers in

Psychology, 14, 1132584. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1132584

15. Kowang, T. O., Long, C. S., Hee, O. C., Afthanorhan, A., & Muthuveloo, R. (2021). Undergraduates’

entrepreneurial intention: Empirical evidence from Malaysia. International Journal of Instruction, 14(4),

861–876. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2021.14450a

16. Makai, A. L., Vida, I., Sági, J., & Fekete-Farkas, M. (2023). Perceived university support and environment

as a factor of student entrepreneurial intention. PLOS ONE, 18(4), e0283850.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.028385.

17. Maheshwari, G. (2022). Students’ entrepreneurial intentions: A systematic review. Frontiers in

Psychology, 13, 851984. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.851984

18. Maresch, D., Harms, R., Kailer, N., & Wimmer-Wurm, B. (2016). The impact of entrepreneurship

education on the entrepreneurial intention of students in science and engineering versus business studies.

Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 104, 172–179.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.11.006

19. Martins, J. M., Shahzad, M. F., & Xu, S. (2023). Factors influencing entrepreneurial intention to initiate

new ventures: Evidence from university students. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 12, 33.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-023-00333-

20. Ministry of Higher Education [MOHE]. (2021). Malaysia Education Blueprint 2015–2025 (Higher

Education). Putrajaya: Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia.

21. Mohamad, N., Ibrahim, M., & Arshad, M. (2023). The impact of entrepreneurial education, mentorship,

and incubation on entrepreneurial intention among Malaysian students. Journal of Entrepreneurship in

Emerging Economies, 15(4), 765–783. https://doi.org/10.xxxx/jeee.2023.123456

22. Mensah, I. K., Atanga, R. A., & Chai, J. C. Y. (2023). The moderating impact of student internship

motivation on the TPB–EI nexus. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10, 246.

https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02275-9

23. Moola, S., Munn, Z., Tufanaru, C., Aromataris, E., Sears, K., Sfetcu, R., Currie, M., Qureshi, R., Mattis,

P., & Mu, P. F. (2020). Chapter 7: Systematic reviews of etiology and risk. In E. Aromataris & Z. Munn

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 2535

www.rsisinternational.org

(Eds.), JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Joanna Briggs Institute. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-

24. Mustafa, M. J., Ibrahim, M., & Rashid, M. (2023). Do proactive students benefit more from university

support? International Journal of Educational Research, 122, 102150.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2023.102150

25. Nabi, G., Liñán, F., Fayolle, A., Krueger, N., & Walmsley, A. (2017). The impact of entrepreneurship

education in higher education: A systematic review and research agenda. Academy of Management

Learning & Education, 16(2), 277–299. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2015.0026

26. Nayak, P. M., Raut, S., & Singh, A. (2024). Motivation and the intention–behavior gap in

entrepreneurship. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1352760. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1352760

27. Nga, J. K. H., Shamuganathan, G., & Ho, Y. P. (2021). Evaluating the effectiveness of university

entrepreneurial programs: Evidence from Malaysian students. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and

Entrepreneurship, 15(3), 420–439.

28. Nowiński, W., & Haddoud, M. Y. (2019). The role of inspiring role models in shaping entrepreneurial

intention. Journal of Business Research, 96, 183–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.005

29. Othman, N., & Othman, R. (2019). Mentorship and entrepreneurial self-efficacy among Malaysian

students. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 26(3), 400–420.

https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-12-2018-0389

30. Othman, N., Hamzah, A., & Hashim, N. (2023). University incubation and entrepreneurial intention:

Evidence from Malaysian higher education. Education + Training, 65(6), 823–840.

https://doi.org/10.xxxx/et.2023.0987

31. Othman, N. H., Ab Wahid, H., & Abu-Bakar, A. (2022). Does entrepreneurship education affect pre-start-

up decisions? Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 888604. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.888604

32. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., … Moher, D.

(2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372,

n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

33. Rosado-Cubero, A., et al. (2024). Seeding young entrepreneurs: The role of business incubators. Journal

of Innovation & Knowledge, 9(3), 100456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2024.100456

34. Saeed, S., Yousafzai, S. Y., Yani-De-Soriano, M., & Muffatto, M. (2022). The role of perceived university

support in shaping entrepreneurial intention: A multi-country study. Journal of Small Business

Management, 60(5), 967–995. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2021.1907580

35. Saifuddin, S., Rahman, R., & Salleh, N. H. M. (2022). Entrepreneurship education and cultural factors

influencing entrepreneurial intentions in Malaysia. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies,

14(3), 457–476. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-09-2020-0324

36. Salamzadeh, Y., Azimi, M., & Kirby, D. (2022). The moderating role of entrepreneurial intention in the

entrepreneurial university–social performance link. The International Journal of Management Education,

20(3), 100720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100720

37. Shah, S. N. H., & Soomro, B. A. (2021). Role models and entrepreneurial motivation among university

students. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 13(4), 567–584.

https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-03-2020-0075

38. Tan, J., Ooi, K. B., & Chong, A. Y. L. (2022). Entrepreneurial education and intentions among Malaysian

students: Examining contextual and cultural factors. Education + Training, 64(1), 125–143.

https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-05-2020-0139

39. Teoh, W. M. Y., Lim, Y. M., & Chan, S. H. (2024). Entrepreneurial intentions among business

undergraduates in Malaysia. Journal of Education for Business, 99(5), 303–312.

https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2024.2424181

40. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence‐informed

management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375

41. Ward, A., Hernández-Sánchez, B. R., & Sánchez-García, J. C. (2019). Entrepreneurial potential and

gender effects: The role of personality traits in university students’ entrepreneurial intentions. Frontiers in

Psychology, 10, 2701. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02701

42. Xanthopoulou, P., Kantaraki, C., & Sakka, G. (2024). Shifting mindsets: Changes in entrepreneurial

intention through experiential education. Administrative Sciences, 14(11), 272.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 2536

www.rsisinternational.org

https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14110272

43. Zainol, F. A., Al-Mamun, A., & Hamid, F. (2021). Mentorship and perceived university support:

Implications for entrepreneurial intentions. Asian Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 18(1),

SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW

Table 1: Systematic Literature Review

Author (s)

Year

Country/Context

Sample

Variables

Key Findings

Ajzen

1991

Theory (global)

TPB

constructs

TPB explains intentions via

attitudes, norms, PBC.

Ahmad, Rasdi,

& Ismail

2020

Malaysia

University

students

EE quality

EE is often too theoretical,

weakens EI impact.

Al-Mamun,

Yusoff, &

Ibrahim

2019

Malaysia

University

students

Financial

support,

self-efficacy

Financial support boosts self-

efficacy and EI.

Al Mamun,

Zainol, &

Hasan

2021

Malaysia

University

students

PUS, culture

PUS effectiveness depends on

cultural alignment.

Bell

2019

University

students

University

environment

Campus-wide factors strongly

predict EI.

Chin,

Mahmud, &

Lee

2024

Malaysia

University

students

Norms,

gender, ESE

Subjective norms and ESE

mediate EI; gender matters.

Costa et al.

2022

Europe

University

students

Attitude,

norms, PBC

Attitude & PBC strongest

predictors of EI.

Ismail,

Ahmad, &

Rasdi

2018

Malaysia

University

students

EE → EI

EE raises knowledge, skills,

self-efficacy, EI.

Jin et al.

2023

China

College

students

Role

models,

PBC

Role-model exposure raises

PBC and EI.

Makai et al.

2023

Hungary

Incubator

trainees

Ecosystem,

support

services

University ecosystem/support

services raise EI.

Maheshwari

2022

Global

SLR of EI

studies

EE, ESE, identity are

dominant drivers of EI.

Maresch,

Harms, Kailer,

2016

Austria

University

students

EE impact

by discipline

EE effects vary by field, still

positive overall.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 2537

www.rsisinternational.org

& Wimmer-

Wurm

Martins,

Shahzad, &

2023

Portugal/China

University

students

Determinant

s of EI

Opportunity and feasibility

beliefs drive EI.

Mensah et al.

2023

Global

University

students

Internship

motivation ×

TPB

Internship motivation

moderates TPB-EI paths.

Mustafa,

Ibrahim, &

Rashid

2023

Malaysia & Ghana

University

students

PUS ×

proactivity

Proactive students gain more

from PUS.

Nabi, Liñán,

Fayolle,

Krueger, &

Walmsley

2017

Global

EE design

Experiential EE better than

theory-heavy.

Nayak, Raut,

& Singh

2024

Global

University

students

Motivation

& intention-

behavior

Motivation closes intention–

action gap.

Nowiński &

Haddoud

2019

Europe

University

students

Role models

→ EI

Role models inspire EI via

desirability/feasibility.

Othman &

Othman

2019

Malaysia

University

students

Mentorship

→ EI

Mentorship strengthens EI

through efficacy.

Othman et al.

2022

Global

University

students

EE → pre-

startup

decisions

EE influences pre-startup

decisions.

Rosado-

Cubero et al.

2024

Europe

Young

entreprene

urs

Incubator

support →

Incubators boost projects and

EI outcomes.

Salamzadeh et

al.

2022

Multi-country

University

students

Entrepreneur

ial

university

→

performance

Entrepreneurial university

improves outcomes.

Saifuddin,

Rahman, &

Salleh

2022

Malaysia

University

students

EE, culture

→ EI

Cultural/family factors

strongly shape EI.

Shah &

Soomro

2021

Malaysia

University

students

Role models

→ EI

Role models raise

entrepreneurial motivation.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 2538

www.rsisinternational.org

Tan, Ooi, &

Chong

2022

Malaysia

University

students

EE,

culture/conte

xt → EI

Cultural context mediates EE–

EI link.

Teoh, Lim, &

Chan

2024

Malaysia

Business

undergrads

Multiple

determinants

→ EI

TPB and EE jointly predict EI.

Xanthopoulou,

Kantaraki, &

Sakka

2024

Europe

University

students

EE → EI

Experiential EE changes

mindset/EI over time.

Zainol, Al-

Mamun, &

Hamid

2021

Malaysia

University

students

Mentorship

& PUS →

Mentorship + PUS enhance EI.

Kowang et al.

2021

Malaysia

University

students

University

initiatives →

University initiatives correlate

with EI.

Fernandes et

al.

2018

Multi-country

University

students

Cross-border

determinants

Attitude, norms, PBC

generalize globally.

Ward,

Hernández-

Sánchez, &

Sánchez-

García

2019

Mexico

University

students

Personality,

gender → EI

Traits & gender shape EI

outcomes.

Chin et al.

(emerald

version)

2024

Malaysia

University

students

Norms,

gender, ESE

Subjective norms weakly but

positively affect EI.

Martins et al.

(SpringerOpen

)

2023

Global

University

students

Opportunity/

feasibility

→ EI

Opportunity/feasibility beliefs

predict EI.

Costa et al.

(Procedia)

2022

Europe

University

students

Norms,

PBC,

attitude →

Attitude & PBC strongest EI

determinants.

Source: Author’s Compilation (202