Accessibility of Entrepreneurship Training Programs for Individuals with Disabilities: A Literature Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Entrepreneurial endeavours often begin with entrepreneurship training. Such trainings, however, remain largely inaccessible to Persons with Disabilities (PWDs), and thus, their entrepreneurial potential remains untapped. This comprehensive literature review examines the barriers to entrepreneurship education for PWDs and identifies strategies to overcome these challenges. The review follows the systematic approach of the PRISMA 2020 Statement, using five databases, including Scopus, JSTOR, ProQuest, DOAJ, and Google Scholar. A total of 2140 articles dating back 10 years were identified, screened, and evaluated, and 17 of them were selected and synthesized to inform the findings. The key findings highlight a spectrum of barriers, including inadequate access to quality education, difficulty in customizing entrepreneurship programs, issues related to both physical and digital access, financial barriers, and the influence of societal norms and self-perception. They also identify strategies to make entrepreneurship education more inclusive, such as applying universal design principles, tailoring education to individual needs, shifting towards active learner-centred methodologies, leveraging information technology, and fostering supportive communities. This review is a practical reference for institutions, organizations, and individuals endeavouring to enhance the inclusivity of entrepreneurship training programs. It also provides a theoretical framework for the already identified requirements of PWDs for entrepreneurship training and presents further opportunities through current limitations and suggestions for future research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it