Towards Inclusive Entrepreneurship: Understanding Stakeholders, Gender, and Tech Dynamics

Hina Ahmed^*

Faculty of Business & Management Sciences, Superior University Lahore, Pakistan

Received: 10 March, 2025; Accepted: 20 March, 2025; Published: 31 March, 2025

Citation: Hina, Ahmed. “Towards Inclusive Entrepreneurship: Understanding Stakeholders, Gender, and Tech Dynamics.” J Glob Entrep Manage (2025): 123. DOI: 10.59462/JGEM.3.1.123

Copyright: © 2025 Hina Ahmed. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Introduction

Entrepreneurial ecosystems are critical in promoting technological growth, economic development, and social evolution in today’s rapidly shifting global environment [1]. Entrepreneurship and startup undertakings are aided by the complex connectivity between numerous stakeholders, organizations, resources [2], and networks found in the ecosystems. Nevertheless, while EEs are well identified, additional research is required to fully understand the nature of diversity and inclusion within the ecosystems [3]. The biggest issue to be solved presented in this study is the rapidly growing gap in diversity and inclusivity discovered in entrepreneurial ecosystems throughout the world [4]. ...

Methodology

The research methodology for the current study is a mixed-methods approach [20], to obtain a structured view of the factors influencing inclusivity and diversity in entrepreneurial ecosystems. As a result, qualitative interviews and focus groups allowed in obtaining in-depth insights into the participants’ experiences [21], quantitative surveys assisted in collecting the demographics and inclusiveness/oppression levels [22]. Thematic analysis identified the patterns and themes [23], network analysis helped to map the interactions within the stakeholder systems [24].

Results

Multiple perspectives on the factors influencing diversity and inclusion in entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs) are provided by the study’s findings. The intricate interactions between genders, diverse backgrounds, experiences, and structural impediments that define entrepreneurs’ engagement and opportunities inside EEs. Themes including networks, institutional support, and resource accessibility are significant determinants of inclusion. ...

Discussion

The diversity and inclusion in entrepreneurial ecosystems highlight the systemic barriers impacting both the commitment and opportunity of entrepreneurs intersect with other factors such as networking, access to resources, and support from institutions. ...

Conclusion

The research highlights exactly how innovation impacts EE incorporation along with highlights the worth of digital remedies in eliminating barriers as well as advertising inclusivity inside EEs irrespective of gender. The research study likewise highlights the drawbacks of present metrics and methods for assessing EE influence directing to the need for even more complete analyses of EEs’ results on variety as well as incorporation. ...

References

1. Spigel, Ben, and Richard Harrison. “Toward a process theory of entrepreneurial ecosystems.” Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 12, no. 1 (2018): 151-168.
2. Audretsch, David B., and Maksim Belitski. “Entrepreneurial ecosystems in cities: establishing the framework conditions.” The Journal of Technology Transfer 42 (2017): 1030-1051.
3. Calderón-Argelich, Amalia, Stefania Benetti, Isabelle Anguelovski, et al. “Tracing and building up environmental justice considerations in the urban ecosystem service literature: A systematic review.” Landscape and Urban Planning 214 (2021): 104130.
4. Mason, Colin, and Ross Brown. “Entrepreneurial ecosystems and growth oriented entrepreneurship.” Final report to OECD, Paris 30, no. 1 (2014): 77-102.
5. Fairlie, Robert W., and Alicia M. Robb. “Race and entrepreneurial success.” Cambridge, MA: The (2008).
6. O’Brien, Emma, Thomas M. Cooney, and Per Blenker. “Expanding university entrepreneurial ecosystems to under-represented communities.” Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy 8, no. 3 (2019): 384-407.
7. Aldrich, Howard E., and Martha Argelia Martinez. “Many are called, but few are chosen: An evolutionary perspective for the study of entrepreneurship.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 25, no. 4 (2001): 41-56.
8. Brown, Ross, and Colin Mason. “Looking inside the spiky bits: a critical review and conceptualisation of entrepreneurial ecosystems.” Small Business Economics 49 (2017): 11-30.
9. Brush, Candida, Linda F. Edelman, Tatiana Manolova, and Friederike Welter. “A gendered look at entrepreneurship ecosystems.” Small Business Economics 53 (2019): 393-408.
10. Roundy, Philip T. “‘Small town’ entrepreneurial ecosystems: Implications for developed and emerging economies.” Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies 9, no. 3 (2017): 238-262.
11. Cao, Zhe, and Xianwei Shi. “A systematic literature review of entrepreneurial ecosystems in advanced and emerging economies.” Small Business Economics 57 (2021): 75-110.
12. Morris, Jonathan, Wyn Morris, and Robert Bowen. “Implications of the digital divide on rural SME resilience.” Journal of Rural Studies 89 (2022): 369-377.
13. Philip, Lorna, and Fiona Williams. “Remote rural home based businesses and digital inequalities: Understanding needs and expectations in a digitally underserved community.” Journal of Rural Studies 68 (2019): 306-318.
14. Aaker, David A., and Christine Moorman. Strategic Market Management. John Wiley & Sons, 2023.
15. Phillips, Wendy, Hazel Lee, Abby Ghobadian, et al. “Social innovation and social entrepreneurship: A systematic review.” Group & Organization Management 40, no. 3 (2015): 428-461.
16. Malhotra, Ruchika T. Inclusion on Purpose: An Intersectional Approach to Creating a Culture of Belonging at Work. MIT Press, 2024.
17. Gangadharan, Seeta Peña. “The downside of digital inclusion: Expectations and experiences of privacy and surveillance among marginal Internet users.” New Media & Society 19, no. 4 (2017): 597-615.
18. Krishnan, Commander S. Navaneetha, L. S. Ganesh, and C. Rajendran. “Entrepreneurial Interventions for crisis management: Lessons from the Covid-19 Pandemic’s impact on entrepreneurial ventures.” International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 72 (2022): 102830.
19. Wang, Qingfang. “Planning for an inclusive entrepreneurial ecosystem: COVID-19 and business resilience in underserved communities.” Journal of the American Planning Association 89, no. 3 (2023): 295-309.
20. Creswell, John W., Michael D. Fetters, and Nataliya V. Ivankova. “Designing a mixed methods study in primary care.” The Annals of Family Medicine 2, no. 1 (2004): 7-12.
21. Gill, Paul, Kate Stewart, Elizabeth Treasure, and Barbara Chadwick. “Methods of data collection in qualitative research: interviews and focus groups.” British Dental Journal 204, no. 6 (2008): 291-295.
22. Nardi, Peter M. Doing Survey Research: A Guide to Quantitative Methods. Routledge, 2018.
23. Clarke, Victoria, and Virginia Braun. “Thematic analysis.” The Journal of Positive Psychology 12, no. 3 (2017): 297-298.
24. Wasserman, Stanley, and Katherine Faust. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. 1994.