Gendered pathways to personal and professional development through entrepreneurship education for persons with disabilities Open Access

Entrepreneurship is increasingly recognised as a tool for empowerment among marginalised populations, including people with disabilities (PWDs), who often encounter persistent barriers to mainstream employment. Tailored entrepreneurship education (EE) programmes are promoted as a mechanism to equip PWDs with the skills, knowledge, and confidence to overcome social and economic exclusion. Emancipation, as defined by Fleischmann (2006), involves liberation from entrenched structures of poverty, dependence, and marginalisation, conditions disproportionately experienced by PWDs. Entrepreneurship can therefore serve as a pathway to greater autonomy and agency, allowing PWDs to reshape their socio-economic realities (Rindova et al., 2009).

However, despite growing interest in inclusive entrepreneurship, there remains a significant gap in understanding how EE programmes can be structured to respond to the intersecting influences of gender and disability. While prior research identifies behavioural differences in entrepreneurial approaches between men and women, such as men adopting more risk-oriented and strategic behaviours, while women favour methodical and process-driven approaches (Williams et al., 2018), these distinctions are often portrayed as individual choices. What is largely unknown is how broader societal norms regarding gender roles, leadership expectations, risk tolerance, and access to resources shape or constrain these choices for people with disabilities. Without clarity on the influence of structural forces such as institutional discrimination and cultural expectations, the discourse risks misattributing these differences to personal preferences alone.

This is important because failing to understand the structural origins of these behaviours limits our ability to design EE programmes that address the root causes of inequality. While some literature alludes to societal influences on gendered entrepreneurship, few studies provide empirical insights into how these norms actively influence the perceptions, behaviours, and decisions of PWDs. Moreover, the tendency to treat differences as endogenous (i.e. internally motivated) obscures the role of exogenous systemic constraints. As such, the existing literature does not fully account for how social norms and institutional barriers shape entrepreneurial participation and strategy among PWDs, thereby restricting their capacity for genuine economic and social emancipation.

Additionally, research on PWDs in EE programmes often isolates gender and disability as discrete analytical categories. What remains underexplored is the intersectional experience of individuals navigating both gendered and ableist norms simultaneously, especially within entrepreneurship education settings. This includes a lack of understanding of how structural inequalities manifest in program participation, content delivery, mentorship structures, and the cultivation of entrepreneurial identity. Considering these societal expectations and structural norms, these distinctions should not be viewed as essential traits, but rather as a gendered division of economic responsibilities shaped by caregiving roles and financial constraints.

Thus, the core problem this study seeks to address is the absence of an intersectional, empirically grounded understanding of how societal norms surrounding gender and disability shape entrepreneurial strategies and outcomes for PWDs. Specifically, this study investigates the mechanisms through which these norms influence entrepreneurial choices and how EE programmes might be redesigned to mitigate these structural constraints and enhance the emancipatory potential of entrepreneurship. Although research on disability and entrepreneurship has gained attention in recent years, there remains a notable gap regarding the intersectional challenges faced by individuals with disabilities, particularly at the crossroads of gender and disability. While some studies explore disability within entrepreneurship education, few adequately address how gender dynamics impact entrepreneurial experiences and outcomes for people with disabilities. This study aims to fill this gap by examining how tailored entrepreneurship education programmes can support the emancipation of people with disabilities, considering both their gendered experiences and the systemic barriers they face.

Despite the growing body of literature on inclusive entrepreneurship, no prior study has explicitly theorised gendered entrepreneurial patterns among PWDs as phenomena that are structurally shaped rather than purely individual in origin. There is a lack of intersectional theorisation that accounts for how gendered and ableist norms operate together to influence entrepreneurial strategies, resource access, and identity formation. This study addresses these gaps by asking: How do societal norms around gender and disability influence the entrepreneurial strategies of PWDs, and how can EE programmes be more effectively tailored to promote their emancipation? The research is grounded in Emancipation Theory (Rindova et al., 2009), which focuses on overcoming economic and social constraints, and Intersectionality Theory (Crenshaw, 1989), which provides a framework for understanding how multiple identities interact to shape lived experience. Using qualitative interviews with male and female participants with diverse disabilities, this study investigates how participants perceive and navigate societal expectations in the context of entrepreneurship. It also explores how these experiences can inform the design of EE programmes that are not only accessible but also attuned to the structural realities of gendered and ableist barriers. In doing so, this research seeks to advance both theoretical and practical understanding of inclusive and emancipatory entrepreneurship education.

The role of entrepreneurship education (EE) in empowering marginalised groups, particularly PWDs, has attracted growing scholarly and policy attention (OECD, 2021; Ortiz et al., 2019). Entrepreneurship is increasingly seen as a viable pathway to both economic inclusion and social empowerment, offering opportunities for self-sufficiency, identity reconstruction, and personal agency in the face of systemic inequality (Rindova et al., 2009; Welter et al., 2017). In this study, gender and disability are not treated as parallel but separate categories; instead, they are understood as co-constitutive systems that shape opportunity structures simultaneously. An intersectional approach positions these identities as inseparable in practice, producing unique patterns of constraint and possibility that cannot be captured by examining gender or disability in isolation. This literature review explores theoretical and empirical perspectives relevant to this study, with particular emphasis on emancipation, intersectionality, gendered entrepreneurial strategies, and inclusive EE frameworks grounded in systemic, participatory, and ethical thinking.

Emancipation Theory, as articulated by Rindova et al. (2009), conceptualises entrepreneurship as a vehicle for “emancipatory projects” in which individuals seek autonomy, declare intent, and re-author their identities. For PWDs, this form of entrepreneurship goes beyond self-employment; it functions as a strategic act of resistance against entrenched social, political, and economic exclusions (Claes et al., 2012; Meyer et al., 2020). For example, participants in this study expressed how entrepreneurship allowed them to move from passive recipients of care to active economic contributors, directly challenging societal narratives of dependency and incapacity. However, their progress remains obstructed by structural barriers, including inaccessible infrastructure, discriminatory lending practices, and culturally embedded ableist norms (Galloway et al., 2015; Meyer et al., 2020; McQuaid et al., 2022). Thus, effective EE must not only impart technical knowledge but also support critical consciousness and collective agency to confront and navigate these systemic obstacles.

Building on this, Intersectionality Theory (Crenshaw, 1989) provides a lens to understand how overlapping social identities (particularly gender and disability) intersect to shape entrepreneurial access and outcomes. Women with disabilities frequently face dual marginalisation through both ableism and sexism, limiting their access to financial capital, professional networks, and mentorship opportunities (Orser et al., 2012; Williams et al., 2018). Empirical evidence suggests that women with disabilities often adopt collaborative, community-oriented, and trust-based strategies, especially in digital and social enterprise spaces (Bennett et al., 2024). These strategies are not solely a matter of personal preference; they reflect broader societal expectations around caregiving, morality, and emotional labour that influence how women navigate entrepreneurial pathways (Ahl et al., 2012). Female participants in this study often articulated a deep sense of responsibility towards their communities, aligning their business goals with social justice and collective wellbeing. This theme resonates strongly with the gendered norms surrounding ethical entrepreneurship.

In contrast, male participants tended to frame their entrepreneurial journeys using discourses of strategic growth, autonomy, and economic scalability. These strategic preferences correspond with hegemonic masculine ideals of entrepreneurship, which valorise competition, ambition, and financial success (Roberts, 2024). For instance, in the data, male participants frequently described their ventures in terms of “expansion,” “scaling,” and “capital-building,“. In contrast, women more often spoke of “making an impact” and “serving others.” These recurring patterns reflect not just individual motivation but deeply embedded socio-cultural scripts around gender, leadership, and economic value (Ahl et al., 2012; Roberts, 2024).

The manifestation of societal norms in these gendered strategies is further evidenced by differences in how resources are mobilised. Women participants often relied on informal networks and collective support, while men accessed more formal, market-facing resources. This bifurcation is reflective of the gendered nature of social capital, where women, particularly those with disabilities, are often steered toward affective labour and relational roles. In contrast, men are more socially sanctioned to pursue independence and assertiveness (Smith et al., 2023). Hence, the strategic differences observed in this study should not be decontextualised as matters of personality or individual agency alone, but rather understood within the broader framework of social and institutional norms that assign different entrepreneurial meanings and possibilities to different social groups.

While Emancipation and Intersectionality Theories offer robust conceptual frameworks, a clear empirical gap remains in understanding how these dynamics unfold in the everyday lives of disabled entrepreneurs, particularly when disaggregated by gender. The qualitative nature of this study, underpinned by in-depth interviews, is particularly well-suited to addressing this gap. These methods enable the exploration of how participants interpret structural barriers, mobilise limited resources, and construct entrepreneurial identities, thereby contributing to the development of theory from the ground up (Roberts, 2024). An abductive research design (Timmermans et al., 2012) facilitates the iterative interplay between theory and data, enabling the researcher to challenge, extend, and refine existing frameworks through rich, context-sensitive findings.

To build inclusive entrepreneurial ecosystems, EE must embrace systemic thinking, ethical responsibility, and democratic participation (Mezirow, 1991; Galloway et al., 2015). Systemic thinking allows policymakers and educators to view PWD entrepreneurship not in isolation, but within broader frameworks of institutional design, economic policy, and social exclusion. Ethical responsibility addresses the reality that many PWD-led ventures are not merely commercial but also strive to tackle societal issues, requiring a pedagogical focus on value-driven entrepreneurship (Mair et al., 2009). Democratic participation means involving PWDs as co-creators of curriculum and policy, rather than as passive recipients of aid or training (OECD, 2021).

Tailored EE models are therefore essential. Conventional, standardised programmes frequently fail to address the specific needs of PWDs, such as the requirement for adaptive technologies, alternative learning modalities, and mentors with shared lived experiences (Habib et al., 2024). By embedding inclusive design principles and drawing on the experiential knowledge of disabled entrepreneurs, tailored EE can address both technical skill gaps and systemic marginalisation (Yin, 2018). Crucially, the effectiveness of such programmes is enhanced when they explicitly consider gendered and intersectional realities, ensuring that interventions are not just accessible but also equitable and transformative.

This literature review integrates both foundational and recent perspectives to interrogate how EE can foster the economic and social emancipation of PWDs. It situates gendered differences not as isolated or individualised, but as outcomes of complex societal structures and normative pressures. In doing so, the review lays a conceptual groundwork for the study’s empirical exploration, while addressing calls for greater theoretical clarity, gender sensitivity, and contextual nuance in entrepreneurship research following 2018.

This study is grounded in two interrelated theoretical perspectives: Emancipation Theory (Rindova et al., 2009) and Intersectionality Theory (Crenshaw, 1989), which together offer a multidimensional lens for examining the entrepreneurial experiences of PWDs. These frameworks not only inform the study’s conceptual architecture but also underpin its methodological and analytical orientations, allowing for an integrated exploration of how structural barriers, identity, and agency intersect in the lives of disabled entrepreneurs. This theoretical foundation builds on the existing gaps in the literature, where few studies have fully explored how gendered and ableist norms intersect to influence entrepreneurial behaviours and outcomes for PWDs, as discussed previously. By combining these two theories, this study seeks to both challenge and extend the traditional discourse on inclusive entrepreneurship, integrating the nuances of both gender and disability.

Emancipation Theory, as elaborated by Rindova et al. (2009), conceptualises entrepreneurship as a process through which individuals pursue autonomy, make purposeful declarations, and re-author their roles within society. For PWDs, such acts of entrepreneurial self-determination are inherently political and strategic, offering means to contest dominant narratives of dependency, incapacity, and social exclusion (Claes et al., 2012; Meyer et al., 2020). The relevance of this perspective is evident in participant accounts that describe business creation as a pathway to reclaiming identity, asserting control, and fostering economic contribution, often in defiance of persistent ableist structures. These expressions of agency align with the emancipatory dimensions of entrepreneurship, underscoring the importance of viewing entrepreneurial practice not just as economic activity, but as a form of social and psychological liberation.

In this way, entrepreneurship is reframed as more than simply a tool for personal advancement but as a collective endeavour for systemic change, thereby connecting closely with the need for tailored EE programmes that not only impart practical skills but also address the structural inequalities that hinder PWDs’ full participation in economic life. This perspective is especially significant given the challenges highlighted earlier regarding how social norms around gender and disability can shape entrepreneurial practices and outcomes.

Complementing this, Intersectionality Theory (Crenshaw, 1989) foregrounds how overlapping social identities (particularly gender and disability) compound and interact to shape life chances and institutional access. Intersectionality, in this context, enables a granular analysis of how power operates differently across identity configurations. For example, female participants in this study frequently recounted experiences of navigating dual marginalisation, where ableist assumptions intersect with gendered expectations, constraining access to networks, finance, and legitimacy (Orser et al., 2012; Williams et al., 2018). This compounded disadvantage was often accompanied by the adoption of alternative entrepreneurial strategies grounded in relationality, ethics, and community engagement, strategies shaped not only by individual choice but also by structural contingencies and normative pressures (Lopez et al., 2023).

Rather than treating these theories as abstract overlays, the research design actively engaged with them throughout the analytic process. Concepts such as “authoring” and “making declarations” from Emancipation Theory were operationalised during data coding to trace moments in which participants asserted their agency or resisted marginalisation. Likewise, an intersectional lens was systematically applied to capture the nuanced ways in which gendered and ableist norms intertwined across narratives, influencing both perceived barriers and enacted strategies. This deep integration of theory and data reflects an abductive approach (Timmermans et al., 2012), where empirical observations iteratively refine theoretical insights and vice versa. In doing so, the theoretical framework not only enhances the analytical depth of this study but also extends the contemporary discourse on entrepreneurship among marginalised populations. It contributes to calls for greater conceptual precision and contextual sensitivity in entrepreneurship research (Welter et al., 2017), while positioning disability and gender not as peripheral concerns, but as central axes through which entrepreneurial agency and structural inequality must be understood.

This study adopts a qualitative, abductive research design to investigate how tailored entrepreneurship education (EE) programmes can support the emancipation of people with disabilities (PWDs) in Ireland. Informed by Emancipation Theory (Rindova et al., 2009) and Intersectionality Theory (Crenshaw, 1989), the methodological approach is shaped by a deep commitment to understanding how structural inequities (particularly at the intersection of gender and disability) manifest in entrepreneurial contexts and how they are challenged through educational intervention. This methodological choice builds upon the earlier discussion of the structural barriers that PWDs face in entrepreneurship, ensuring that the research not only highlights the barriers but also offers a detailed examination of how tailored EE programmes can respond to and mitigate these constraints.

An abductive strategy was particularly appropriate given the study’s aim to iteratively connect emergent empirical insights with existing theoretical constructs (Timmermans et al., 2012). This design enabled a dynamic interplay between lived experiences and conceptual framing, facilitating the development of a theory that remains grounded in participants’ realities while extending existing understandings of entrepreneurship, gender, and disability. The central research question: How can entrepreneurship education be designed to foster emancipation for people with disabilities, be responsive to gendered experiences, and simultaneously address systemic barriers? —emerged from this iterative engagement and reflects a gap in the literature where entrepreneurship studies have inadequately engaged with the intersectional challenges faced by PWDs (Patton, 2015; Ortiz et al., 2019).

TU Dublin’s entrepreneurship training programme, specifically designed for individuals with disabilities, was selected as the focal case. The Program’s structure, delivered predominantly online over three months, with a tailored curriculum and engagement from lecturers, mentors, and guest speakers, offered a fertile context for exploring how inclusive EE can operate in practice. Its emphasis on practical learning, peer interaction, and iterative feedback aligns with both the empowerment focus of Emancipation Theory and the situated, identity-conscious lens of Intersectionality Theory, which are crucial for addressing the multifaceted nature of structural barriers faced by PWDs, as discussed earlier.

Admission to the programme was highly competitive, with over 40 applicants submitting their business ideas and demonstrating their capacity for online engagement. Of these, 20 participants were selected, none of whom had prior entrepreneurial experience. This characteristic enabled the study to examine the emergence of novice entrepreneurial identities in response to a targeted educational intervention.

Participants for this study were purposively sampled to reflect diversity across gender, disability type (physical, sensory, cognitive), and geographical location (urban/rural). This approach ensured that the sample captured the varying experiences of individuals with disabilities across different intersectional identities, allowing the study to uncover how gendered and ableist norms shaped the entrepreneurial experiences of participants, as outlined in earlier sections. By engaging in a diverse cohort, the study also ensured that the findings would be reflective of the broader spectrum of experiences within this group.

1. Bias Mitigation: Bias was mitigated through multiple strategies, including member checking, which allowed participants to review and comment on their interview transcripts. Additionally, gender- and disability-sensitive interview practices were employed to ensure that both male and female participants felt equally comfortable sharing their experiences. Regular debriefings with supervisory teams further helped to address potential researcher bias, ensuring that the analysis maintained a high level of reflexivity and rigour.

2. Analytic Process: The data analysis was conducted using Braun and Clarke’s (2019) six-phase method for thematic coding. NVivo software was utilised to support the coding process, ensuring transparency and traceability throughout. The analysis was also guided by theoretical constructs from Emancipation Theory and Intersectionality Theory, ensuring that the findings were grounded in both the data and the conceptual framework. This process was designed to integrate the theoretical insights discussed earlier, allowing the analysis to remain deeply connected to the participants’ lived experiences.

Inclusion criteria required participants to: (1) be over 18; (2) self-identify as having a disability; (3) have completed or participated in the TU Dublin EE programme; and (4) consent to an in-depth interview. Of the eligible cohort, nine participants agreed to be interviewed, providing a sufficiently varied sample for thematic depth while allowing close attention to individual narratives.

To capture the complexity of participants’ experiences, semi-structured, in-depth interviews were employed. This methodological choice builds upon the qualitative design discussed earlier, allowing for a comprehensive exploration of the nuanced ways gendered and ableist norms intersect in shaping the entrepreneurial strategies and experiences of PWDs. The interview guide was structured around five thematic domains: entrepreneurial motivations, programme experiences, personal and professional transformation, gender and disability-specific barriers, and perceptions of structural inclusion. This structure facilitated consistency while allowing each participant’s voice to emerge authentically and dynamically, ensuring the research reflected both the individual and collective experiences within the framework of the broader societal constraints previously outlined.

Interviews, ranging from 85 to 110 min in length, were conducted either in person or via secure online platforms, ensuring accessibility in alignment with the goals of the EE programme to cater to diverse learning needs. All sessions were audio-recorded with informed consent, transcribed verbatim, and reviewed for accuracy. To further enhance credibility, participants were allowed to review and comment on their transcripts, supporting member validation and ensuring the findings reflected their authentic voices, consistent with the reflexive approach noted in earlier sections.

The data were analysed through a three-tiered process that sought to retain empirical fidelity while allowing for conceptual abstraction, in line with the abductive approach outlined earlier. This method ensured the analysis remained grounded in the lived experiences of participants while connecting to the broader theoretical constructs of Emancipation and Intersectionality Theory.

1. Thematic Coding: Braun and Clarke’s (2019) six-phase method guided the initial analysis. Codes were generated inductively but sensitised by theoretical constructs from Emancipation Theory and Intersectionality, which were central to this study’s design. This balance preserved the integrity of participant voices while facilitating analytical linkage to broader concepts such as autonomy, resistance, and compounding oppression. NVivo software supported transparency and traceability throughout the coding process, ensuring the integrity of the thematic analysis.

2. Within-Case Analysis: Each participant’s narrative was examined as a standalone case to explore how gender and disability uniquely influenced their engagement with the EE programme. This stage surfaced the micro-level dynamics of constraint and agency within individual stories, allowing the study to examine the nuanced ways in which structural barriers, including gendered and ableist norms, shaped participants’ entrepreneurial journeys.

3. Cross-Case Analysis: Drawing on Yin’s (2018) logic of replication, themes were compared across cases to identify recurring patterns and divergences. This enabled the identification of both shared experiences and distinctive forms of resilience and marginalisation, thus reflecting the intersectional nature of the challenges participants faced, as explored through the theoretical lenses of Emancipation and Intersectionality. The cross-case analysis also ensured that findings were not only reflective of individual experiences but also connected to broader trends in the context of inclusive entrepreneurship education (see Table 1).

To ensure analytical robustness, the study followed Rockmann and Vough’s (2023) approach of constructing a claims Table 2. This tool systematically mapped emergent themes to specific, well-contextualised quotes. Each quote was categorised by type (e.g. anchor, workhorse), enabling critical evaluation of the strength and representativeness of claims, and aligning with the commitment to transparency discussed earlier in the data analysis section. The systematic mapping of themes to participant narratives ensured that the analysis was both credible and rigorous.

This claims table helped ensure that the study’s findings were not only grounded in robust data but also offered a clear and structured way to evaluate the themes emerging from participants’ interviews.

A reflexive stance was maintained throughout, with the lead researcher keeping a journal to document positionality, emotional responses, and decision-making processes, as discussed earlier. To enhance rigour, regular reflective reviews of the coding process were undertaken, ensuring consistency and alignment with the theoretical framework. Bias was further mitigated through gender- and disability-sensitive interview practices, triangulation with course documents and policy texts, and regular supervisory debriefings. Additionally, peer debriefing was employed throughout the analytic process, whereby preliminary codes and thematic structures were reviewed and critiqued by colleagues familiar with qualitative research on disability. Coding transparency was ensured through detailed analytic memos documenting coding decisions and changes over time, creating an audit trail that supports replicability and dependability. These measures collectively enhanced the trustworthiness of the findings and helped centre the lived experiences of participants without imposition.

In keeping with the abductive framework, a secondary analysis was conducted on publicly available evaluations of similar EE programmes for PWDs in other countries, including Denmark, Canada, and Australia. This exercise enriched interpretation by distinguishing findings that were locally grounded in the Irish context from those that reflected global challenges and best practices in inclusive education. By incorporating comparative insights, this analysis strengthened the study’s conclusions by positioning the findings within an international context while also highlighting region-specific nuances. This secondary analysis further reinforced the theoretical grounding of the study, as it provided a broader perspective on how gendered and ableist barriers are navigated in diverse educational contexts. Insights from these secondary programme evaluations were integrated into the coding framework during later analytic cycles, enabling triangulation between the Irish case and international contexts.

As with most qualitative case studies, the findings are context-specific and not statistically generalisable. The small sample size, though methodologically appropriate for a study of this nature, constrains the breadth of representation. Social desirability bias may have influenced responses, particularly given the sensitive nature of the topic. However, measures such as member checking and reflexivity were used to address this potential limitation.

The focus on a single Irish programme also limits the scope of the findings, making it difficult to extrapolate the results to other educational settings or countries. While the study provides valuable insights into the intersectional challenges faced by PWDs in entrepreneurship education, future research should explore how these findings hold in different cultural and policy contexts. Additionally, while the study highlights gendered differences, future work should delve deeper into the intersection of other factors, such as race and socioeconomic status, to understand how these further shape entrepreneurial experiences for PWDs. The integration of these factors could provide a more comprehensive understanding of how various layers of identity interact to influence entrepreneurial outcomes and experiences.

The findings from this study reveal significant gendered differences in how entrepreneurs with disabilities experience and navigate entrepreneurship, particularly across domains such as knowledge acquisition, financial literacy, networking, management skills, and financial emancipation. These differences extend beyond personal preferences and appear to be deeply rooted in broader societal norms and structural expectations that assign distinct roles to men and women. These roles are further shaped by the lived experience of disability. These gendered social scripts not only influence entrepreneurial choices and opportunities but also reinforce power dynamics that shape individual agency, often in invisible ways. This supports the theoretical framework that positions gender and disability as central axes influencing entrepreneurial agency, as discussed through Emancipation and Intersectionality Theory.

Clear gendered patterns emerged in how participants acquired and applied knowledge. Male participants demonstrated a strategic, growth-oriented approach to entrepreneurship, with a particular focus on financial knowledge and investment strategies. As M3 articulated:

This orientation reflects not merely individual ambition but also broader societal expectations that reward men for rationality, autonomy, and financial acumen. As Smith and Jackson (2023) suggest, male entrepreneurs with disabilities often align their business strategies with socially prescribed masculine norms of risk-taking and expansion, an attempt to counteract disability stigma through the performance of hegemonic masculinity. This finding is consistent with the broader discussion presented earlier, which highlights how gender norms surrounding risk-taking and independence influence men’s entrepreneurial strategies.

By contrast, female participants framed knowledge acquisition within the intersecting constraints of caregiving and economic survival. As F2 explained:

Such perspectives reveal how societal expectations around women’s caregiving responsibilities, particularly for those with disabilities, shape their learning priorities. Nguyen et al. (2022) demonstrate that intersecting gender and disability norms often position women as caregivers first, limiting the scope and ambition of their entrepreneurial engagement. This aligns with feminist disability theory, which highlights how normative gendered care roles can marginalise women’s economic agency (Smith et al., 2021). Significantly, these differences should not be misinterpreted as innate but instead understood through the lens of structural conditioning and internalised gender roles.

It is also worth noting that caregiving responsibilities were a theme raised exclusively by female participants. Male participants were not directly asked comparable questions, which limits the extent to which caregiving can be confidently interpreted as a gendered distinction. This highlights the need for caution in universalising such patterns, as they may partly reflect the design of the interviews. This point echoes the methodological insights from earlier in the study.

The theme of financial literacy further underscored gendered distinctions. For men, financial knowledge served as a means of navigating societal doubts and asserting economic credibility. As M2 described:

In this context, financial competence functions as both a practical business skill and a symbolic mechanism through which disabled men reclaim masculine identity in the face of stigma. Connell's (2005) concept of hegemonic masculinity helps interpret this engagement, whereby entrepreneurship becomes a domain through which social legitimacy is reasserted. Roberts and Lee (2021) similarly note that financial competence among disabled men is often framed as resistance to marginalisation and an assertion of normative masculine traits.

Female participants, by contrast, discussed financial literacy as a means to achieve economic resilience and household sustainability. As F4 stated:

In analysing the gendered differences in financial literacy, it is crucial to consider the broader societal expectations around gender roles. Societal norms often position men as risk-takers and autonomous figures, thus shaping their engagement with financial strategies. Conversely, women are often constrained by caregiving expectations, which impact how they approach financial planning. As F4 articulated, “I need to plan my finances carefully, not just for my business but also for my children.” This reflects the broader societal expectation that women should shoulder caregiving responsibilities, which directly influences their entrepreneurial decision-making process (Patel et al., 2022).

This highlights the disproportionate burden of unpaid care work placed on women, especially those with disabilities (Patel et al., 2022). It also echoes the findings of Martínez et al. (2024), who demonstrate how women with disabilities frequently negotiate financial autonomy amidst entrenched family obligations. Furthermore, women reported facing structural barriers to financial access. For example, F4 reported experiencing discriminatory treatment during the loan application process. Such accounts are supported by Harper et al. (2023), who argue that financial institutions often reproduce gendered and ableist biases, limiting women’s access to capital. Again, these distinctions should not be viewed as essential traits, but as reflective of a gendered division of economic responsibilities grounded in structural norms.

Networking emerged as an essential practice for all participants, though its meanings and applications diverged by gender. Male participants framed networking as a tool to gain access to professional spaces and share knowledge—especially as a mechanism to overcome isolation and structural barriers. As M3 noted:

This finding aligns with Taylor et al. (2021), who observed that disabled male entrepreneurs often utilise professional networks to reinforce traditional business identities and gain access to capital, thereby aligning with masculine-coded norms of individualism and success.

Female participants, on the other hand, spoke of networking primarily as a source of emotional support and shared understanding. As F2 explained:

This underscores the relational and affective dimensions of women’s entrepreneurial ecosystems. Kumar and Bell (2025) argue that such peer support is central to women’s entrepreneurship, particularly for those navigating the dual pressures of caregiving and social marginalisation. In contrast to the instrumental view of networking among men, women’s accounts emphasised solidarity and emotional resilience, an often overlooked yet vital resource in entrepreneurial practice under gendered constraints.

Both men and women valued management skills, yet they operationalised them differently. Male participants described management in terms of rational planning and business operations, aligning with normative expectations of entrepreneurs as autonomous, profit-driven agents (Miller et al., 2024).

Female participants framed management through the lens of simultaneous business ownership and caregiving labour. As F3 shared:

This highlights how the concept of management is inherently gendered in practice. O’Connor and Green (2023) contend that the dual pressures of productive and reproductive labour define women’s entrepreneurship. These pressures were largely absent from men’s narratives, though, again, the absence of targeted questioning may explain this gap.

Financial emancipation emerged as a central theme, shaped by gendered interpretations. Women often linked emancipation to their ability to provide care and ensure household stability. As F4 explained:

Such interpretations reflect broader societal roles that position women primarily as caregivers (Patel and Stewart, 2022) and reinforce the idea that financial independence serves caregiving security rather than personal expansion.

In contrast, male participants framed emancipation in terms of autonomy and personal control. M2 remarked:

This finding aligns with Anderson (2021), who frames economic agency as a form of resistance against the marginalisation of disabled men. The data suggests that the gendered experience of disability not only affects resource access but also influences how financial independence is understood and enacted.

The theme of spending power also revealed gendered dynamics. Men expressed aspirations for long-term investment and business growth, aligned with markers of ambition and entrepreneurial identity. As M2 stated:

Women, however, described their spending decisions in terms of balancing household and business needs. F3 shared:

These findings align with those of Harper et al. (2023), who argue that women’s entrepreneurship is shaped by multitasking and emotional intelligence, particularly in constrained socio-economic environments. These financial decisions are not solely personal choices but are shaped by broader gendered expectations about who maintains household stability.

The interplay of societal norms, gender, and disability in shaping entrepreneurial agency is synthesised in Figure 1. It visually captures the above themes, illustrating how male entrepreneurship tends to centre around autonomy, rational planning, and professional networking. In contrast, women’s entrepreneurship is anchored in caregiving demands, emotional resilience, and constrained financial planning. This conceptual model draws on Ortiz et al. (2019), who argue for an intersectional understanding of entrepreneurship that recognises the gendered and ableist structures influencing agency.

In line with the tenets of Emancipation Theory (Rindova et al., 2009), the findings illustrate how participants navigate structural barriers in their entrepreneurial journeys. The themes of self-confidence, financial planning, and caregiving responsibilities align with broader social structures that influence entrepreneurial decision-making. The intersectional lens provided by Crenshaw (1989) further illuminates how these barriers manifest differently for male and female participants. These findings contribute to the development of a conceptual model that represents how gender and disability intersect to shape entrepreneurial agency. The model visually captures the central themes of autonomy, caregiving, and financial independence, reflecting the theoretical underpinnings of empowerment and structural inequity.

Finally, the study revealed gendered differences in how entrepreneurship influenced personal emancipation and future career trajectories. For male participants, entrepreneurship served as a route to reclaim autonomy and self-worth in a society that often devalues disabled identities. As M4 explained:

This finding aligns with Sullivan et al. (2024), who highlight the role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy in empowering individuals with disabilities. Female participants, meanwhile, linked confidence to resilience against structural constraints and caregiving exhaustion. As F1 stated:

Career aspirations also diverged across gender lines. This study advances entrepreneurship and disability studies by integrating Emancipation Theory and Intersectionality Theory into the analysis of entrepreneurial experiences for people with disabilities. The study provides new insights into how gendered and disability-specific barriers influence entrepreneurial outcomes and how these barriers can be mitigated through tailored entrepreneurship education. The proposed conceptual model represents an intersectional framework for understanding how PWDs navigate structural constraints (Figure 1), offering a valuable contribution to the literature on inclusive entrepreneurship education. Men viewed entrepreneurship as a means to escape employment exclusion and reassert control, while women prioritised flexible, care-compatible roles. These findings echo Morgan et al. (2025), who document the gendered nature of employment transitions within disability entrepreneurship. The model presented in Figure 1 is an empirically grounded, conceptually informed synthesis. It emerged inductively from a cross-case thematic analysis, drawing selectively on prior conceptual work (e.g. Braun et al., 2019) to structure its dimensions. The model is intended both as a theoretical contribution (extending Emancipation and Intersectionality Theory into the context of entrepreneurship education for PWDs) and as a practical design tool for educators and policymakers.

The findings of this study reveal distinct gendered differences in the entrepreneurial experiences of people with disabilities, particularly in the areas of financial decision-making, self-confidence, independence, and career trajectories. Male participants generally view self-confidence as an inherent attribute critical to their entrepreneurial success. As M4 noted, “I am confident now and know what I need to do to start my own business,” showcasing how confidence acts as a central driver in their entrepreneurial journey. This contrasts with the experiences of female participants, such as F4, who described self-confidence as a complex and evolving process intertwined with emotional growth, societal expectations, and vulnerabilities. These findings align with gendered socialisation patterns that traditionally position men as agents of control and women as caregivers, requiring women to justify or balance their entrepreneurial ambitions within socially prescribed boundaries (Clark and Gough, 2023). Thus, women’s self-confidence is portrayed as relational and contested, shaped by societal messages surrounding capability, caregiving roles, and visibility. These patterns are best understood not as a function of individual preference alone, but as outcomes of entrenched social, institutional, and cultural structures that define what forms of entrepreneurship are considered legitimate or attainable for men and women with disabilities.

In terms of career aspirations, male participants predominantly aim for full-time self-employment, driven by desires for autonomy and control. This reflects broader gender norms that socialise men towards independence, authority, and risk-taking in professional domains. Female participants, while also aspiring to self-employment, often prefer part-time entrepreneurship, viewing it as a strategic approach to balance caregiving responsibilities with financial security. This highlights how societal expectations regarding domestic and caregiving duties shape women’s entrepreneurial decisions, framing entrepreneurship as a flexible tool to manage multiple, overlapping roles. These patterns align with intersectional feminist perspectives, which suggest that women’s entrepreneurial paths are shaped by the intersection of their identities and structural constraints (UN Women, 2021; Habib et al., 2024).

These gendered experiences align with existing literature on the compounded barriers faced by women with disabilities in entrepreneurship. Women often experience exclusion from financial decision-making, limited access to capital, and disproportionate unpaid care responsibilities, all of which constrain their economic opportunities (OECD, 2023a). Structural and cultural barriers reinforce traditional gender roles, limiting women’s economic autonomy and opportunities for sustained self-employment. Men with disabilities, while facing stigma, often embrace confidence-driven, long-term planning strategies that reflect masculine ideals of control and business acumen (Penttilä et al., 2022). Male participants in this study demonstrated more linear, goal-oriented entrepreneurial approaches, prioritising full-time business ownership to independence.

The gendered patterns observed in this study reflect broader societal dynamics, particularly in contexts like Ireland, where men are socialised to value autonomy and assertiveness. At the same time, women are encouraged to prioritise caregiving and relational responsibilities. These normative expectations not only shape entrepreneurial aspirations but also influence the pathways to achieving them. Recent research highlights how women with disabilities draw on emotional resilience, community networks, and adaptive coping strategies to balance caregiving and entrepreneurship (Clark and Gough, 2023; UN Women, 2021). This balancing act, as illustrated in the narratives of the female participants, is not just a logistical challenge but also a symbolic one, reflecting how societal norms govern the allocation of time, effort, and legitimacy in economic engagement.

Thematically, this study’s findings suggest a preliminary conceptual framework composed of four interrelated themes: self-confidence, financial planning, caregiving responsibilities, and strategic orientation. This framework underscores how gendered and socially constructed contexts shape entrepreneurship among people with disabilities. It indicates a process of gendered capital accumulation, where individuals leverage distinct social, emotional, and structural resources in accordance with their social positioning. This perspective aligns with Bourdieu’s concept of capital and feminist critiques, which emphasise that economic behaviours are socially situated and gendered rather than purely rational or individualistic. Hence, the gender differences observed are embedded in power relations, societal expectations, and opportunity structures, rather than being solely individual traits or choices.

However, several limitations of the study should be acknowledged. The insights stem from a small sample of nine in-depth interviews, which provide rich qualitative data but limit generalisability. Given the exploratory nature of the research, based on a specific Irish entrepreneurship education programme, the findings are context dependent. Caution should be exercised when applying these results to different sociocultural and programmatic environments. Future research should test the findings in varied cultural and policy contexts to broaden their applicability.

To address the barriers faced by people with disabilities (PWDs) in entrepreneurship, this study proposes several actionable steps aimed at enhancing the inclusivity of entrepreneurship education (EE) and empowering individuals to overcome systemic obstacles, while fostering emancipation. These measures align with the broader goal of ensuring EE responds to the unique challenges and gender-specific needs of PWDs.

The study’s findings show that men with disabilities often prioritise autonomy and full-time self-employment, whereas women balance caregiving with part-time entrepreneurship. These differences necessitate a tailored approach in EE. Gender-sensitive curricula should provide additional support to women in balancing caregiving and entrepreneurship, while men may benefit from strategic planning modules that aim to foster long-term autonomy. Moreover, mentorship programmes should be designed to support both male and female participants in navigating their unique challenges, with gender-specific guidance that addresses both empowerment and structural barriers.

Entrepreneurship education curricula must be thoughtfully adapted to include inclusive teaching strategies and flexible delivery methods that cater to the diverse needs of PWDs. This involves providing learning materials in alternative accessible formats (such as audio, video, and braille) to ensure full participation across disability types (European Commission, 2020a). The curriculum should prioritise practical business skills, including financial literacy, awareness of legal rights for entrepreneurs with disabilities, and marketing strategies tailored to accessible products and services (OECD, 2023b). Embedding real-life examples of successful disabled entrepreneurs within the curriculum can serve both as inspiration and tangible evidence of achievable success (OECD, 2023b).

Interactive workshops and peer-to-peer learning groups are vital components of experiential learning in supportive environments (OECD, 2023c). Crucially, these programmes must incorporate gender-sensitive considerations, recognising that male and female entrepreneurs with disabilities navigate distinct entrepreneurial pathways shaped by societal expectations, caregiving responsibilities, and unequal access to financial resources. For instance, women may need additional support in balancing caregiving with business demands, while men may benefit from targeted confidence-building and strategic planning modules. Gender-responsive adaptations of EE will ensure that all participants are empowered more equitably, aligning with broader educational goals of diversity and inclusion.

Although these recommendations are based on a small, detailed sample of nine interviews, the qualitative insights provide a valuable starting point for future research with larger, more diverse cohorts. This will allow for validation and scaling of gendered and disability-specific curricular approaches within mainstream EE policy and pedagogy.

In addition to curriculum adaptation, mentorship plays a pivotal role in supporting disabled entrepreneurs emotionally and practically. Tailored mentorship programmes should connect PWDs with experienced entrepreneurs who understand their unique barriers and can offer relevant guidance (ILO, 2019). Gender-sensitive mentorship models are especially important to address the challenges women with disabilities face in balancing entrepreneurship and caregiving.

Inclusive finance initiatives are equally essential, providing accessible loans, grants, and financial literacy training tailored for disabled entrepreneurs (OECD, 2023a, b, c). Financial institutions must be educated to overcome stereotypes and biases that limit opportunities for PWDs. Furthermore, EE digital platforms should comply with accessibility standards (such as screen reader compatibility and alternative text for images) to guarantee equitable access to critical tools and networks (European Commission, 2020b). Addressing the digital divide ensures that both men and women with disabilities can fully participate in entrepreneurial ecosystems.

Governments must take proactive steps by establishing dedicated funding streams tailored for disabled entrepreneurs, including low-interest loans, grants, and microfinance products that consider their specific challenges (ILO, 2019). Gender-sensitive funding mechanisms are crucial to support women with disabilities, who often face compounded barriers from caregiving and societal expectations. Additionally, subsidies incentivising employers to collaborate with or hire disabled entrepreneurs can foster a more inclusive business environment (ibid.). These programmes should be actively promoted through partnerships with disability organisations and entrepreneurship networks (OECD, 2023a). To further bolster sustainability, governments might explore tax relief measures for businesses owned by PWDs, especially women entrepreneurs, addressing their unique disadvantages.

These recommendations offer valuable guidance for public policymakers seeking to dismantle structural barriers and promote disability inclusion within entrepreneurship. However, they are grounded in the context of this study’s exploratory findings, and larger-scale evaluations are needed to assess the long-term impact and feasibility of gender-sensitive, disability-inclusive funding schemes.

Legislative action should mandate the integration of disability-inclusive content within EE curricula across educational levels, from primary through tertiary education (ILO, 2019). Governments ought to incentivise institutions and entrepreneurship programmes that adopt inclusive practices, thereby guaranteeing equal access to entrepreneurial education and opportunities for PWDs (OECD, 2023b). Furthermore, specific initiatives and funding schemes should be established exclusively for entrepreneurs with disabilities to safeguard these resources for their intended beneficiaries. Gender-sensitive policies must ensure that both male and female entrepreneurs with disabilities benefit equitably from such programmes.

These policy recommendations align with the imperative to transform institutional structures that perpetuate exclusion. Legislative and programme reforms are essential to reshape how EE is framed and delivered, advancing social justice and inclusion.

This research contributes meaningfully to the ongoing discourse on democratising entrepreneurship education by spotlighting the entrepreneurial potential of PWDs and their gendered entrepreneurial pathways. By situating tailored EE within broader frameworks of responsibility, systemic thinking, and emancipation, the study offers fresh insights into how EE can more effectively serve populations with disabilities. It advocates for inclusive, participatory education models that empower PWDs to challenge societal constraints and assume leadership within entrepreneurial ecosystems.

The emphasis on gender-sensitive programme design highlights the necessity of addressing the distinct challenges faced by men and women with disabilities, thereby bridging theory and practice. Concepts of emancipation and intersectionality are operationalised through curriculum design, mentorship, funding, and policy development, demonstrating the practical value of these frameworks.

The societal implications are profound: enhancing PWDs’ access to entrepreneurship fosters economic autonomy, social recognition, and improved quality of life. Moreover, embedding these inclusive strategies in public policy and education challenges prevailing stereotypes related to disability and gender, promoting a more equitable and participatory entrepreneurial landscape. These outcomes are consistent with the study’s empirical findings, grounded in the authentic voices of lived experience.

This study underscores the urgent need for tailored entrepreneurship education (EE) programmes that specifically address the multifaceted challenges faced by people with disabilities (PWDs). The findings highlight the pivotal role that gender plays in shaping the entrepreneurial journeys of men and women with disabilities. Men with disabilities tend to prioritise strategic planning and autonomy in their ventures. At the same time, women often navigate the dual demands of caregiving and entrepreneurship, using emotional intelligence to overcome systemic barriers.

The key takeaway from this research is the imperative for an inclusive, gender-sensitive approach to EE, one that not only accommodates the unique needs of PWDs but also recognises the gender-specific obstacles they face. This approach should integrate accessible curricula, targeted mentorship, inclusive finance mechanisms, and robust policy frameworks designed to empower PWDs within the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Furthermore, government-backed funding initiatives, digital accessibility standards, and legislative mandates for disability-inclusive content in education systems are essential to sustaining these efforts. Collectively, these measures contribute to fostering an entrepreneurial environment that enables PWDs to exercise greater autonomy, thereby advancing both their personal and professional emancipation.

Future research must explore the long-term impact of tailored EE programmes on the entrepreneurial outcomes of PWDs across diverse cultural and international contexts. Policymakers must prioritise inclusive, gender-responsive policies that ensure equitable access to entrepreneurship opportunities for all PWDs, thus promoting a more just and participatory entrepreneurial landscape. By addressing systemic barriers and implementing evidence-based recommendations, stakeholders can create an environment that supports the complete emancipation of PWDs, equipping them with the tools, resources, and support necessary to thrive as entrepreneurs.