The Representation of Entrepreneurship in People with Disabilities: A Discourse Analysis

Comment

Response

I suggest you (briefly) discuss the limitations of qualitative methods, the smaller sample size, and the subjective interpretation of data, which might not be generalizable

Despite the advantages of qualitative methods for exploring complex phenomena such as entrepreneurship in PWD, it is important to point out some limitations inherent to this approach. These include the smaller sample size, which makes it difficult to generalize the results to the entire population. Furthermore, the interpretation of the data obtained may be influenced by the subjectivity of the researcher, which could introduce biases into the analysis. However, this study has taken various methodological precautions to mitigate these limitations. Firstly, proven and rigorous criteria have been followed for the selection of the sample and the design of the interviews. In addition, the data analysis has been carried out using the Atlas.ti software, which allows the information to be systematized and structured in a transparent manner, favoring greater consistency and validity in the interpretations. In this way, the reliability and relevance of the findings are guaranteed, despite the intrinsic limitations of the chacen approach.

I suggest you include a) how the sample was selected (e.g., snowballing?) and the specific set of criteria for participants to be eligible, b) the specific interview questions and c) more explicit details on the analytical framework within ATLAS.TI (the process of analysis).

The sample selection criteria have been defined to ensure a broad and diverse discourse that covers different forms of relationship with the object of study: entrepreneurship in people with disabilities. To this end, three key profiles of interviewees have been identified that allow a comprehensive approach to the phenomenon. The first profile includes PWD who have experience in entrepreneurship, as well as their families, with the aim of exploring their experiences, challenges and learnings in this field. The second profile includes PWD who have not undertaken entrepreneurship, which allows us to analyse the barriers, perceptions and expectations that influence their relationship with entrepreneurship. Finally, the third profile includes professionals and institutional representatives linked to the field of disability, who provide a technical, contextual and structural perspective on the conditions and support necessary to promote entrepreneurship in this group. The selection has been made based on the contacts provided by associations of people with disabilities. The work plan for exploring the discourses with the ATLAS/TI software (version 8) included the following phases:

1. Preparation and organization of the material (creation of the primary documents -DPs- from the transcriptions provided).

2. Downloading the computer program, creating the project/hermeneutic unit and incorporating the primary documents into it.

3. Reading the information collected in the primary documents into the program.

4. Identification and creation of codes and possible families/groups of codes (categories).

5. Coding of the information.

6. Content analysis at two levels: descriptive and relational.

I recommend you provide a more explicit connection between the results and the broader implications for policy and practice, which might appear more thoroughly in the Discussion section

The results obtained in this research highlight multiple dimensions that influence the entrepreneurship of PWD, which generates relevant implications at both the political and practical level. At the political level, these findings suggest the need to design inclusive public policies that address the identified factors as a priority. For example, accessibility in terms of information and financing must be guaranteed through specific financial support programs and adapted information networks, ensuring that PWD have equal opportunities to undertake. Likewise, policies must consider the differences derived from the type and degree of disability, implementing incentives and resources that allow for a personalization of the available aids and services.

From a practical point of view, these results underline the importance of adapting organizational and business environments to meet the specific needs of entrepreneurs with disabilities. The adaptation of work spaces, together with training to develop entrepreneurial skills, are key actions to reduce the barriers faced by these people. Furthermore, psychological and physical issues such as self-confidence and mobility can be addressed through psychological support programmes and rehabilitation services focused on improving the overall well-being of entrepreneurs with disabilities.

Similarly, aspects such as family overprotection, insufficient training, task delegation and administrative resources must be considered in both policy and practical interventions. This involves not only promoting greater training and access to administrative resources, but also raising awareness among families about the importance of allowing greater autonomy and empowerment of PWD in their entrepreneurial initiatives.

Research's limitations and further research needs/opportunities

This research presents some limitations inherent to its qualitative design, such as the small sample size, which makes it difficult to generalize the results, and the subjectivity inherent in discourse analysis. Furthermore, by focusing on perceptions, it does not directly measure the impact of the identified factors on the success of the venture.

Nevertheless, the qualitative findings provide a solid basis for future quantitative research that can validate and expand the results obtained. In addition, including a longitudinal approach in future research could address some of the challenges related to the temporal and geographical limitations of this research.

Comment

Respuesta

Response

In the Abstract, mention that research is based in Spain

The aim of this paper is to identify the main moderating aspects of entrepreneurship among people with disabilities in Spain.

Define entrepreneurship. This is important because in the section starting on line 454, it is not clear whether the interviewees are talking about entrepreneurship or working for another company

 This article adopts the definition of entrepreneurship provided by the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, according to which entrepreneurs are people who engage in business activities within a country, identifying different types and phases of entrepreneurship. In the GEM, “early-stage entrepreneurs” are the proportion of the adult and national population that owns a business, but whose business is not older than 3.5 years, while an “established entrepreneur” is considered to be anyone who owns a business that is older than 3.5 years (GEM, 2024). In this work, they have been considered as a whole.

https://www.gem-spain.com/wp-content/uploads/Informes-Nacionales/Informe-GEM-Espana-2023-2024.pdf

There are much more current cites.

- Abidin, Z., Amran, R., & Lim, K. (2024). Strategies for Entrepreneurs with Disabilities to Expand Their Businesses: A Multi Method Study, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 14(3), 765-779. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v14-i3/21148

- Dakung, Reuel Johnmark, Robin Bell, Laura A. Orobia, and Lemun Yatu. 2022. Entrepreneurship education and the moderating role of inclusion in the entrepreneurial action of disabled students. The International Journal of anagement Education 20: 100715.1.

- Avellone L, Malouf E, Taylor JP, Whittenburg H, Inge KJ. 2023. An international scoping review of factors impacting self-employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 59(1):7-24. doi:10.3233/JVR-230024

-          Alvarado, A., Suarez, M., y Sánchez, M. F. (2020). Trayectorias emprendedoras en personas con discapacidad: Características y condicionantes a través de estudios de caso. Psicoperspectivas, Individuo y Sociedad, 19(2), 1-12. https://dx.doi.org/10.5027/psicoperspectivas-Vol19-Issue2-fulltext-1926

There is a lot of discussion about stigma and self-esteem in the background section, but it is not one of the strong findings from the research, this should be addressed in the conclusion

Note: As previously mentioned, it is important to consider how stigma and self-esteem in PWD are elements to consider in understanding the entrepreneurship process.

On line 89, what is “active”

Note: “active” means: citizens who are of working age.

What is the denominator for the “entrepreneurship rate?”

Note: “entrepreneurship rate?” measure the percentage of people with entrepreneurial disabilities in the total

The paper was difficult to follow. I would recommend using the categories described in lines 153-155 for both the theoretical framework and the findings (1) Motivations to become an entrepreneur (factors that influence the entrepreneurship  decision) (2) Barriers and Facilitators faced by people with disabilities. (3) Outcomes--The paper doesn’t really address this

Note: The authors sincerely appreciate the reviewer's recommendations but understand that the logic of the article must remain faithful to the study funded by the Government of Spain "Disability and Entrepreneurship Project. Competential Analysis" (CSO2016 – 75818 - R)

of the quotes could be identified as a motivation or potential barrier within categories.

Note: The authors sincerely appreciate the reviewer's recommendations but understand that the logic of the article must remain faithful to the study funded by the Government of Spain "Disability and Entrepreneurship Project. Competential Analysis" (CSO2016 – 75818 - R)

.        Barriers. Financial--More expensive for people with disabilities to be entrepreneurs so there should be tax incentives. Line 316-324 (Need some examples of why it might be more expensive—or some explanation of why people with disabilities should get tax incentives to start a business but people without disabilities don’t need them

Note: The authors sincerely appreciate the reviewer's recommendations but understand that the logic of the article must remain faithful to the study funded by the Government of Spain "Disability and Entrepreneurship Project. Competential Analysis" (CSO2016 – 75818 - R)

The authors say: "It is clear that people with disabilities need more personal and individualised preparation for everything they have to do in life" (E.5).  A lot of people with disabilities would argue with that. It does not necessarily need to be personal and ndividualized if it adheres to concepts of universal design

 Note: The authors, regardless of the point of view of the person interviewed, present the speech of that interview. For ethical reasons, the message cannot be altered.

The authors say “The difficulties faced by this group are a fact, and these are what make the difference in terms of training compared to people without disabilities.” I’m not sure which difficulties the authors are talking about.

Note: The authors refer to personal difficulties

lines 326-328 “The economic problem is behind the entrepreneurial motivation, however, among people with disabilities, this motivation is particularly evident due to the uncertainty of the future and the possibility of managing it taking into account the contingency of the disability.” I think what the authors are trying to say (based on the quotes below the text) is that people with disabilities need income and they are often excluded from the labor market

Note: The reviewer interpretation is correct.

Lines 454-492 seem to be related to the regular labor market rather than entrepreneurship. See comment above about the need to define entrepreneurship

Note: One part of the regular labor market is the entrepreneurship. The definition of entrepreneurship is on Theoretical Framework

Figure 1 is a combination of motivators, barriers, and difficulties in the regular labor market titled "Difference in Entrepreneurship for People with Disabilities."  It would be helpful to identify differences in "what." Is it differences in their ability to become an entrepreneur? Differences in their ability to sustain a small business?  

Note: Figure 1 shows the different perceptions of the interviewees about “Differences in entrepreneurship for people with disabilities”

The title will be called: “Differences in perceptions of entrepreneurship for people with disabilities”

Figure 2 is not supported by the research presented. If the authors have research that supports this chart, it should be included

Note: Figure 2 is supported by the research presented, study funded by the Government of Spain "Disability and Entrepreneurship Project. Competential Analysis" (CSO2016 – 75818 - R)

Do the authors have any findings around social capital?

Note Ortiz García P. & Olaz Capitán ÁJ (2021) Entrepreneurship for People With Disabilities: From Skills to Social Value. Front. Psychol. 12:699833. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.699833 Line 214

Lines 553-558 identify reasons for entrepreneurship that I did not see in the research findings

Note: These lines identify the reasons, in the opinion of the authors, for entrepreneurship as a result of the previous process (economic and fiscal aspects, physical aspects-accessibility, training aspects, institutional aspects and psychological aspects)

The discussion/conclusion calls on educational systems, governments, and financing channels to increase awareness of the potential of people with disabilities to become entrepreneurs and provide appropriate supports adapted to the needs of the users. This is a strong and important statement. Unfortunately, I did not feel like it was supported by the research nor did the research identify steps

Note: These conclusions are the result of a study carried out within the framework of a research project funded by the Government of Spain and in which, through 16 interviews, a set of dimensions have been analysed: economic and fiscal aspects, physical aspects-accessibility, training aspects, institutional aspects and psychological aspects. Line 607

First, the definition of entrepreneurship  needs to be added to the paper, not just included in a response to the reviewer.  It is important to make the distinction between entrepreneurship (eg...starting or leading a business) and working for someone else

For example, later in the paper the authors write about "Acceptance of company discipline,"  and "adaptation to the job." These seem to be issues when you are working for someone else (which I clumsily said was the regular labor market). How is that relevant when the person with a disability owns and runs the business? This is also included in the chart.

The definition specified in the response has been included in the manuscript [line 154]

While these challenges are typically associated with integration and adaptation within a traditional hierarchical work structure, in the case of a person with a disability leading their own business, the dynamic changes. Instead of adapting to an employer's expectations or a corporate environment, the focus shifts to creating a flexible work environment that allows the person to manage their needs and abilities at their own pace, which can lead to new ways of accepting and structuring business discipline. Therefore, while these issues present themselves differently, they remain relevant as adaptation to the work environment and the development of a work structure are essential for the business's success. [line 512]

In the original comments, I noted that there is a lot of emphasis on the role of stigma in limiting entrepreneurship. Yet, that didn't show up in the interviews. The authors added "As previously mentioned, it is important to consider how stigma and self-esteem in PWD are elements to consider in understanding the entrepreneurship process," but they did not address why such an important concept didn't arise during the interviews. 

The comment is accepted and a clarification on the subject is included in the manuscript.

Despite being an important topic, the absence of allusions to disability stigma in the interviews may be explained by the focus on structural and tangible barriers, such as access to funding, qualifications and accessibility to physical and digital spaces. These factors are often perceived as more immediate and relevant barriers than social stigma. In addition, many people with disabilities have developed strategies to minimize the impact of prejudice, which reduces the centrality of stigma in their discourse. The lack of specific questions on this topic in the interviews also plays a role, as it was not the main object of the research. [line 628]

As for my comment that some of the quotes are "ableist," I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, recommending that the authors change any of the interviewees words. However, as social scientists interpreting the answers, you need to put the comments in context. More importantly, you need to recognize the bias and perspective of the interviewees. This is a key weakness of the paper. This is particularly problematic given the small sample size and the fact that the authors are talking about people with disabilities in general without mentioning the wide variation in the strengths and challenges of people with disabilities. The authors furthermore did not address the need to identify, in the text of the paper, whether a quote was from a professional, a family member, or a person with a disability (perhaps by labeling the quotes by P1, P2...F1, F2...and D1, D2).

This observation has been taken into consideration and underlined as a limitation of this work.  [line 876]

 A clarification is included in the analysis and the interviews are identified by differentiating the discourse of the professional from that of the person with a disability (Annex 1)

There is a lot of discussion about stigma and self-esteem in the background section, but it is not one of the strong findings from the research, this should be addressed in the conclusion

The comment is accepted and a clarification on the subject is included in the manuscript. [line 704]

The importance of stigma in PWD cannot be denied, but from the perspective of this study based on the dimensions of entrepreneurship, the focus has been situated on other aspects that could limit this process: economic-fiscal; physical-accessibility; training; institutional; psychological; organisational-business and family

The paper was difficult to follow. I would recommend using the categories described in lines 153-155 for both the theoretical framework and the findings (1) Motivations to become an entrepreneur (factors that influence the entrepreneurship  decision) (2) Barriers and Facilitators faced by people with disabilities. (3) Outcomes--The paper doesn’t really address this

The comment is accepted and a clarification on the subject is included in the manuscript. [Line 162]

This exploratory study has analized the discourse analysis of entrepreneurship in people with disabilities through several dimensions: physical; training; institutional, psychological, family among others. Future researchs is still pending to delve deeper into the motivations to become an entrepreneur, Barriers and Facilitators faced by people with disabilities and Outcomes

the quotes could be identified as a motivation or potential barrier within categories.

The comment is accepted and a clarification on the subject is included in the manuscript. [Line 167]

Some authors like Carvajal-Henao et al. (2020), Phillips (2020) and Simón, (2023) identified motivational elements and other barriers in entrepreneurship process

Barriers. Financial--More expensive for people with disabilities to be entrepreneurs so there should be tax incentives. Line 316-324 (Need some examples of why it might be more expensive—or some explanation of why people with disabilities should get tax incentives to start a business but people without disabilities don’t need them

The comment is accepted and a clarification on the subject is included in the manuscript. [Line 380]

The financial barriers in the case of people with disabilities are evidents. For example, in the case of Spain, the deduction for disability has a maximum annual limit of €1,000 and €1,500 for individual or joint taxation, with an additional increase of €500 in individual taxation if the taxpayer has a degree of disability equal to or greater than 65%.

The authors say: "It is clear that people with disabilities need more personal and individualised preparation for everything they have to do in life" (E.5).  A lot of people with disabilities would argue with that. It does not necessarily need to be personal and ndividualized if it adheres to concepts of universal design

The comment is accepted and a clarification on the subject is included in the manuscript. [Line 441]

"It is clear that people with disabilities do not necessarily need more personal and individualized preparation for everything they have to do in life"