SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.10 special issue 22Psychological characteristics analysis that define a disabled entrepreneur author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand

Journal

Article

Indicators

Related links

  • On index processCited by Google
  • Have no similar articlesSimilars in SciELO
  • On index processSimilars in Google

Share


Suma de Negocios

Print version ISSN 2215-910XOn-line version ISSN 2027-5692

suma neg. vol.10 no.spe22 Bogotá Dec. 2019

https://doi.org/10.14349/sumneg/2019.v10.n22.a1 

Research articles

The uniqueness of entrepreneurship of persons with disabilities in Spain

Las singularidades del emprendimiento en personas con discapacidad en España

1 PhD in Economics, Professor in the Department of Sociology, University of Murcia. Murcia, Spain. Email address: portizg@um.es

2 PhD in Sociology, Professor in the Department of Sociology, University of Murcia. Murcia, Spain. Email address: olazcapi@um.es


ABSTRACT

This work addresses the substantial differences in entrepreneurship among people with disabilities. The hypothesis is that in the minor tendency to the entrepreneurship in persons with a disability there are determinant the institutional, cultural and psychological factors, besides the derivatives of the own disability.

It has been used as a qualitative methodology to carry out this research, as a way of approaching the entrepreneurial reality of the group of people with physical and sensory disabilities. The discourse analysis made based on the interviews has allowed us to identify some of the singularities-strengths and weaknesses of this group before the entrepreneurial event.

The results of the research reveal that in the entrepreneurial activity, two groups of factors converge: formal (educational-training, economic, institutional and labor) and informal (cultural, psychological or family). All of them are important to explain entrepreneurship, but not to the same extent, especially when entrepreneurs present the particularities of the group of people with physical or sensory disabilities. This research explains the labor insertion gap in Spain in just over a third of employment in regards to people without disabilities.

Keywords: Entrepreneurship; disability; differences job; limitations; functional diversity

RESUMEN

Este trabajo aborda las diferencias sustanciales en el emprendimiento en personas con discapacidad. La hipótesis de partida es que en la menor propensión al emprendimiento en personas con discapacidad son determinantes los factores institucionales, culturales y psicológicos, además de los derivados de la propia discapacidad.

En la realización de esta investigación se ha utilizado una metodología cualitativa como forma de aproximación a la realidad emprendedora del colectivo de personas con discapacidad física y sensorial. El análisis de discurso realizado a partir de entrevistas ha permitido identificar algunas de las singularidades -fortalezas y debilidades- de este colectivo ante el hecho emprendedor.

Los resultados de la investigación ponen de manifiesto que en la actividad emprendedora confluyen dos grupos de factores: formales (educativo-formativo, económico, institucional y laboral) e informales (cultural, psicológico o familiar). Todos son importantes para explicar el emprendimiento, pero no en la misma medida, especialmente cuando los emprendedores presentan las particularidades del colectivo de personas con discapacidad física o sensorial. Ello explica la brecha de inserción laboral en España en algo más de un tercio del empleo respecto a las personas sin discapacidad.

Palabras clave: emprendimiento; discapacidad; diferencias; empleo; limitaciones; diversidad funcional

Introduction

In order to carry out an analysis of the singularities of entrepreneurship of persons with disabilities and the moderating factors of this process, it is necessary to contextualize the issue by referring to the employment situation of people with disabilities in Spain.

Data survey on employment of people with disabilities held in Spain by the National Institute of Statistics indicates that in 2016 this group had something less than half the activity rate of people without disabilities. Regarding the employment rate, it presents the same trend (INE, 2017). Correspondingly, the rate of unemployment in people with disabilities exceeds by 9.1 percentage points to that of people without disabilities. This situation highlights the difficulties of insertion in the labor market for people with disabilities.

Although it is not the only justification to undertake, self-employment by necessity or opportunity is one of the forms presented by entrepreneurship. In this regard, the percentage of self-employed in 2016 is 16.7% for people without disabilities and 12% in people who have some disability (INE, 2017). Again, the propensity to undertake an independent activity is lower among the latter group, which, in the case of exercising self-employment, does so mostly as an individual self-employed entrepreneur, given that only 3.3% of self-employed entrepreneurs with disabilities are employees. In this case, the figures approximate both groups and reveal one of the structural characteristics of the Spanish business body, such as its small size.

Going deeper a little more in the characteristics of the entrepreneurship of people with disabilities from the data is observed that in 2017 the percentage of male entrepreneurs is higher than that of women from the Observatory on Disability and Labor Market in Spain (Odismet, 2017).

Other sociodemographic characteristics such as age indicate that maturity is usually undertaken, between 45 and 64 years (72%). However, the level of education is not decisive, given that the highest percentage of entrepreneurship occurs among people with disabilities who have subsequent studies (58.1%). Regarding entrepreneurship according to the type of disability, the most frequently occurs among people with a physical disability (54.8%) (Odismet, 2017).

Finally, also the degree of disability affects the propensity to take if one considers that 53.7% of people have recognized disability between 33% and 44% are entrepreneurial and only 2% of the people of those who have a disability equal to or greater than 75% (Odismet, 2017).

Taking into account the data as mentioned earlier, which shows the lower capacity to undertake in the group of people with disabilities, the objective of this work is to delve into the reasons that explain this difference, beyond the very condition of the disability. The issue acquires particular relevance in a society in which work, in its form of employment, is one of the fundamental forms of inclusion and, its deprivation, one of the dimensions of exclusion.

The starting hypothesis is that disability is one of the factors but not the only one, nor the most decisive one, in the limitations of the entrepreneurial activity of people with disabilities. To contrast, this hypothesis, other formal and informal factors analyzed that contribute to explaining the lower propensity to entrepreneurship in the group of people with disabilities compared to those who do not have this condition.

The objective of the work is not to perform a comparative analysis between the entrepreneurship of this group and that of people without disabilities, but to deepen in the peculiarities of entrepreneurship among the former.

To do this, first, a brief review of the literature on the subject is made. Second, the research explains the methodological aspects. Next, the discourse generated in interviews with significant witnesses analyzed the differential aspects of entrepreneurship in people with disabilities. Finally, the main conclusions drew, and the subject received some recommendations.

The option of undertaking an economic activity, by people who have some disability does not have what to present substantially different characteristics to the same option in people without disabilities. The market opportunity or the need linked to work circumstances are the two generic reasons for entrepreneurship, regardless of the characteristics of the subject (Muñoz and Kimmitt, 2018).

The study on the subject, although not enough, already has a long tradition in different disciplines such as sociology or psychology. In Spain, it is essential to mention studies on disability by Romañach (2002), Jiménez and Huete (2003), De Lorenzo (2003), Rodríguez and Pérez (2004), Zarco and García de la Cruz (2004), Ferreira (2007a), 2007b, 2008, 2010), Romañach and Palacios (2007), Jiménez (2007) and Suárez et al. (2014), among others.

The specific works on entrepreneurship and disability have identified some differential aspects related to the motivation to undertake. These studies suggest that, along with purely economic reasons, there are others of a psychological nature linked to need, which are behind the entrepreneurial motivation of the group of people with disabilities (García, Manzanera, Ortiz and Olaz, 2018; Manzanera, García, Olaz and Ortiz, 2018, Ortiz and Olaz, 2017, Ortiz, 2018a, Ortiz and Garcia, 2018).

Some researches (Blanck, Sandler, Schmeling and Schartz, 2000, Godley, 2005) relate entrepreneurship among this group with the need to overcome a state of marginality or social discrimination. In this sense, the investigations of Schur (2003) conclude.

Positively, other research found a relationship between entrepreneurial motivation and the need to acquire greater autonomy, achievement and personal satisfaction (Cooney, 2008), which is especially important for people with disabilities are limited in their possibilities for employment on an equal of conditions with the rest of the population.

Moreover, the development of entrepreneurial activity requires not only will and motivation but also of specific skills and competencies that sometimes are more difficult to acquire and develop in people with a disability. The studies of Ortiz and Olaz (2018)a, 2018b) identify some limiting aspects of entrepreneurship that mainly concern psychological and personal aspects along with others of an institutional, socioeconomic and cultural nature.

Methodology

In the research, a qualitative methodology used based on in-depth, semi-structured, individualized and oral interviews. It is a technique that allows us to collect the different nuances expressed in the discourse based on the degree of freedom in the response of the interviewees.

Regarding the profile of the interviewees, there are 15 people related to the disability world and entrepreneurship. Specifically, there are three profiles identified:

  • - People with disabilities and experience in entrepreneurship and their families.

  • - People with disabilities without experience in entrepreneurship.

  • - Professionals and institutional representatives related to the disability (doctor, work counselor, and social worker).

The discourse analysis has been carried out with the professional software Atlas.TI, and has been accomplished at the textual levels (from codified citations) and conceptual (the level at which the relationships between codes and citations worked on).

Regarding the design of the interview script, has responded to the various dimensions from the venture and its characteristics in this group addresses: personal and psychological, institutional/legal, culture/environment, education/training, economic and family. These aspects, together with the analysis of the differences in the entrepreneurship of the collective and the perspective of this activity, compound the eight questions that make up the script of the interview.

Results. Analysis of the differences in entrepreneurship in people with disabilities from significant dimensions

The social intervention necessary to achieve the full inclusion of people with disabilities must start from a broad knowledge about the peculiarities of the work activity of this group. In the same way that it is fundamental to know the limitations that disability can bring, it is also essential to identify the aspects in which these conditions reproduce.

Table 1 Dimensions of the analysis 

Dimension 1 Physics-accessibility
Dimension 2 Institutional
Dimension 3 Psychological
Dimension 4 Economic-fiscal
Dimension 5 Organizational-business
Dimension 6 Formative
Dimension 7 Family

Source: Self-made

In order to diagnose the differences in the gestation and development of entrepreneurial activity in people with disabilities, then the speech of the interviewees around these great scenarios is analyzed.

The discourse analysis will also allow observing the similarities and differences that the interviewees find in the entrepreneurial motivation of a person with and without a disability.

1. Physical dimension-accessibility

The problems of accessibility affect all areas of life of a disabled person, especially if physical or sensory type. One of these difficulties is the access to information, a key element, for example, to meet and deal with possible aid to those referred above:

If I can not train because I can not even get to the information that is in the public administration ... because look, there are aids for women and young people, but if I do not get there how I do. (E.7)

This added handicap (refers to the difficulties of access to information) has the repercussion of lack of autonomy, lack of access to information and the world. (E.4)

The difficulties referred to by people with disabilities point out the shortcomings of the administration or the institutions that implement the work activity when adapting materials or infrastructures to people who have some physical or sensory limitation.

Well, in my case, for example, when you do specific training to present projects and others, I met many visual problems, when watching the board, they were not prepared thinking of people who have a visual problem, in this case, cost much work and I was not adapted. (E.9)

And for many papers, much paperwork. That another person ... there is accessibility. The electronic issue, okay, I do it electronically, but what if I do not access the documents if I can not fill out the documents. (E.7)

These limitations constitute one of the most significant differences at the time of gestating the entrepreneurial process, since it affects issues such as information or training to undertake and, consequently, the very life of the person with a disability.

A person lacking vision or with little vision, a blind person or a person with low vision, the first handicap is the access to information, places, displacement, personal autonomy, social skills, everything ... a repercussion in his life, global, from activities of his daily life that for us are very habitual until the fact itself of exerting any professional function can be limited. (E.4)

2. Institutional dimension

The aspects mentioned are closely related to the availability of resources with which to eliminate physical barriers that limit accessibility. The lack of resources on the part of the administration and the need to reverse this fact they are the most critical demands of the interviewees. In this case, the differential aspects are again the difficulties and problems faced by the group of people with disabilities, compared to the need for greater mobilization of resources.

Well, the truth is that people with disabilities have many more problems than other people because they are themselves who, first, at the level of the administration, do not meet with the same resources that other people can have. (E.1)

(...) And logically there is no support as it should be for people with this type of disability, especially if the disability is essential enough to harm specific skills. (E.14)

3. Psychological dimension

One of the differential elements in the entrepreneurship of people with disabilities is related to security concerning skills and abilities. Self- confidence is one of the most critical competencies in the entrepreneurial activity (Olaz and Ortiz, 2016, 2018, Ortiz and Olaz, 2016, 2018); therefore, its deficit hinders action in this regard. Insecurity with the life project is a constant in the group of people with disabilities, especially when the business project is intertwined:

I believe that this is perhaps the most significant difference because many times the person with disabilities is not empowered enough to feel that he is capable, not only of his life project but also of carrying through a business project and also successfully. (E.7)

So those limitations also produce a very important effect that is the lack of security, because that person is afraid of not being able to carry out that activity just like someone else who does not have (…) And that part of security then It can make him not dare to undertake things that another person would dare. So the big problem is those physical limitations that are there and the lack of security that there are sometimes. (E.15)

Another of the basic skills is self-esteem. People with disabilities face constant challenges, and one of the most important is related to social acceptance. Frequently, the perception of these people is of greater vulnerability.

They are more vulnerable people, who have low self-esteem and have a harder time overcoming themselves to undertake something (…) They notice that sometimes as they lack strength, for their problem, which can be physical or psychological, depending on the kind of problem they have. (E.1)

It is what I told you; you have to previously work for many barriers, both cultural of your environment and personal and family. (E.7)

Many of the distinguishing aspects of disability become itself and the type and degree of this.

(...) It depends on whether it is a disability from birth or that it arises later, I think there are some small differences, and also that it is a total disability practically or that they are partial or temporary, depending on that, but basically there should be no difference and society should promote that. (E.3)

At a general level, I think that it has the obstacle of handicap itself of disability. (E.4)

Regarding the limitations of the person with a disability, the significant limitation is that some health problems do the daily work that is carried out difficult. Then the big problem is those physical limitations that are there. (E.15)

These issues make it difficult to adapt to the disciplines imposed by any activity and, to a greater extent, the dedication that implies to be an entrepreneur.

4. Economic dimension

One of the economic aspects that arouses a higher degree of agreement among the interviewees is the need to have aid that encourages entrepreneurial activity. One of the ways to do this is by facilitating tax advantages that encourage the entrepreneur. In the case of a group such as people with disabilities, although it is true that they have certain advantages, there are also many additional costs that must be assumed, for example, those derived from the conditioning of activities to overcome the limitations of different types of disability. In this sense, the following interviewee pronounces:

The issue of taxation that takes into account (…) just as you have in the rent, that a person with a disability has more expenses and that is why there are some benefits at the time of such. (E.7)

The economic problem is behind the entrepreneurial motivation, however, among people with disabilities, this motivation becomes especially evident due to the uncertainty of the future and the possibility of managing it taking into account the contingency of the disability.

The fundamental reason is because they have to have a source of income that with a disability is very difficult into the ordinary world of work to be incorporated [...] Fundamentally it is because they have to have a work activity to ensure an income as long as their disability does not allow them an early retirement in certain conditions. (E.2)

The reasons for the entrepreneurship ... well, you look for life basically because in normal situations things are complicated, but if you are disabled and you are a woman, you are even more disabled. (E.9)

The work output, always more difficult for a person with disabilities is a differential motivation compared to that of a person without this limitation.

Well, maybe because companies do not give you a job, I think it is out there ... or if you do not have a project in mind and you pull ahead and go for it. However, many times, the circumstances force them to become an entrepreneur or autonomous, which is the same. (E.11)

Besides the aspects related costs and benefits, in the speech of some interviewees stressed the importance of controlling the channels of access to information and the availability of this in the simplest way possible. This issue is related to the physical aspects and accessibility limits discussed below.

5. Organizational-business dimension

The schedules, commitments, the intensity of days and the broad spectrum of activities that must be carried out by a self-employed or entrepreneur can be affected by the limitations imposed by the disability. Some of the people interviewed state this:

Well, it is probably more difficult for a disabled person to submit to a strict discipline of the companies or their possibilities of work or skills or competencies, it is difficult to find a company that requests it. (E.3)

Therefore, the adaptation of jobs must be comprehensive in the case of people with disabilities, as already mentioned in the training aspects or access to information.

The functional and technical adaptation of the jobs has to happen there because if we give them help... grant projects, pay you the percentage of the social security fee, but if an adaptation does not accompany that or you do not give access... if you give me the money, but I do not know how to access that project or do not adapt it, I will have it very difficult, sometimes impossible. (E.4)

The adequacy of the job is fundamental but once made a catalog of the job that can play that person and with the will of it. (E.10)

One of the organizational elements that help to reduce the differences in entrepreneurial activity between people with and without disabilities is the delegation of tasks that are secondary to the business process. Except in those activities that, due to their physical nature, a disabled person can assume the organization and control of the business activity, which requires an effort or implementation of some capacity related to this aspect, with a guarantee of success. In this sense, one of the people interviewed pronounced:

What is the difference? That is what it depends. Because if I were incapacitated for some things, but if you have a team or someone who is responsible for the aspects and covers the deficiencies that you have (...) less in the aspects of workers, it was in what I most delegated (...) And I can tell you that I have also met him very directly in people I have known very close to, that they have even had to be wholly separated from their work and, nevertheless, the company has continued working but because it has delegated functions and the disabled person what he does is control the operation of the company (...) I think that much less than in this sector because I am thinking right now in a consulting or industrial theme that does not require physical effort, which has a dimension in which the boss does not need to be in any way in the production chain, because then it is easier for the disability to be compatible with the entrepreneurship. (E.2)

The difference, sometimes, is not on the ability of people with disabilities, but in that attributed to them:

For as people are how we are we tend to value and value you, see fewer capabilities than the rest of people without disabilities to run the company, to manage the company or to direct the company. (E.8)

6. Formative dimension

The training revealed as another of the differential aspects in the entrepreneurship of people with disabilities. While training to undertake an activity is necessary in any case, this group is not just any kind of training, but one that adapts to their needs and can overcome limitations.

It is clear that people with disabilities need a more personal and more individualized preparation for everything they have to do in life. (E.5)

The economic crisis has an extraordinary impact on entrepreneurial activity (Ortiz, 2018b). The impact of the cuts execute during the crisis has not facilitated the provision of this group of measures that balance the odd employment situation. This influence has deepened the gap concerning people without disabilities; this is how one of the interviewees evoked the crisis:

When the crisis came, that there was a setback in the resources made available to people with disabilities, aid to people with special educational needs, because that could lead that part of people with disabilities who have suffered these cuts not access the training they may need. (E.5)

The difficulties of this group are a fact, and these are what make the difference made in training on people without disabilities.

There are differences, but there should not be. I believe that a person with disabilities is a prepared person. (E.3)

Nowadays it is true that there are general education plans that if they are a well-taken advantage of in people with disabilities they can even get to university and with good results, but it is also something that is increasing every year, but there is still much work to do there. (E.5)

In short, training yes, but individualized and adapted to the unique circumstances of a person with a disability.

7. Family dimension

The family aspects can constitute a differential factor in the entrepreneurship of people with disabilities.

The interviewed people allude to the family overprotection that accompanies the disability process and that, sometimes, as is the case of entrepreneurship, they can suppose more a limitation than a support for the required autonomy.

And then, let's not deceive ourselves and always generalize, a person who has lost sight as a child has generally had a greater family overprotection in general and that is going to be another handicap (...) more than the handicap of overprotection that it comes from the family and from society too, because sometimes also the positive discrimination that we are fighting so hard to do and such and that is necessary, but we also protect and underestimate the capacities of these people due to ignorance (...) and an overprotection that is implicit in the environment. That means that, if an entrepreneur requires courage and skills, knowledge and culture, all that will be needed here and also high. (E.4)

8. Motivational dimension

Entrepreneurial motivation deserves a special mention in this relation of particular aspects of entrepreneurship in people with disabilities. In this sense, we can speak of two broad categories: those of external nature, which include economic and employment reasons, and internal ones, related to personal aspects.

As for the first ones, of an economic nature, there is nothing to suggest that they are not the same for people with or without disabilities. The need to be economically solvent, the insertion in the labor market and, in short, the achievement of self-employment are essential reasons in both cases. In persons with disabilities, they also charge vital importance concerning those of a personal nature.

As already mentioned the difference, in this case, is not so much the economic motivation that animates the entrepreneurial spirit, but rather the particular difficulties that this group faces when it comes to getting a job.

As for the variables of a personal nature, the people interviewed have identified the "spirit of improvement" as one of the most important to undertake, followed by the need for "autonomy" and the presence of an "entrepreneurial spirit." Knowledge and social utility are also relevant reasons in the entrepreneurship of this group and, in a minor order, other reasons appear such as the need to give continuity to a family company, the illusion, social integration, recognition or happiness that an entrepreneurial project can bring.

Discussion

From the results of the study it is inferred that, although there are diverse aspects that make the difference in the entrepreneurship of people with and without disabilities, not all do it with the same intensity.

The discourse analysis has allowed identifying the dimensions in which the interviewees have placed more emphasis, or what is the same, those issues that, from their perception, are susceptible to mark differences in the conception or implementation of a project entrepreneur. Among them, those related to accessibility, information, and financing stand out as sensitive elements to mark differences. This result is consistent with the studies of Ortiz and Olaz (2018a); 2018b) on the subject.

Secondly, it refers to the derivatives of the disability itself (type and degree) and, thirdly, to organizational-business aspects, such as the adaptation of the job to the needs of the person with a disability.

Fourth, with the same frequency, it appears related to the differences in entrepreneurship psychological and physical issues. Among the first ones, particular reference is made to self-confidence and security, confirming the thesis of Cooney (2008), Olaz and Ortiz (2016), 2018) on the propensity to undertake motivated by the need to acquire greater autonomy, achievement and personal satisfaction, and, among those of a physical nature, to mobility. Other aspects, such as family overprotection, training, administrative resources or the delegation of tasks, without being negligible, appear in the discourse less frequently.

On the contrary, from the point of view of the interviewees, aspects related to taxation are less susceptible to generate differences; the type of company or submission to the discipline of this; trust in the project or the person and the training, on which capacities are supposedly not substantially different between this group and that of people without disabilities.

Finally, among the psychological variables, the least susceptible to generate differences are self-esteem and the ability to excel. This reasoning is logical if one thinks that, precisely, the ability to overcome is capable of playing in favor of a person with disabilities at the time of undertaking, since it is a sufficiently trained competition on a day-to-day basis from the challenges to those who face.

Conclusions

The discourse analysis of the people interviewed has been relevant to identify the differential aspects in the entrepreneurship of people with disabilities. The first conclusion after this analysis is that economic and labor issues are decisive in an activity of this type. In reality, this does not mean a significant difference for the entrepreneurial concerns that can encourage a person without disability towards that same intention, the difference lies, according to the interviewees' discourse, in the higher difficulties faced by the collective in the labor market and the achievement of a job. This data shows that the difference in entrepreneurship would not be in the collective, but, once again, the problem would have a reading and social projection.

The differential fact also starts from the additional difficulties in accessing resources, whether of a formative or informative nature. A fact that, besides, is hindered by the bureaucratic obstacles that accompany the start of the business activity. These findings corroborate the hypothesis of work on the incidence of moderating factors of entrepreneurial activity beyond the condition of disability.

However, it has also shown significant differentiating factor as the disability itself, and not only in front of the group of people without disabilities, but within the first. The degree or the fact of being a disability of birth or supervening mark differences regarding the possibilities of fulfilling an entrepreneurial activity successfully.

Finally, psychological competencies, such as self-confidence and safety, are elements that must be present when dealing with an activity that entails risk, such as entrepreneurship, regardless of the group in question. However, in the case of persons with disabilities acquire a particular relevance, given the limitations to which they are subject to one or another degree.

The differences found are a challenge to start the task of approaching the conditions among the group of people with and without disabilities.

The study constitutes a relevant contribution to the identification of the elements that moderate and singularize the entrepreneurial activity from the perspective of the people involved or affected by some physical or sensory disability. On the other hand, it opens a way of working to continue advancing, in particular, one that analyzes the effectiveness of the measures that mobilize public and private resources to promote the entrepreneurship of this group, its implementation, and results.

In this sense, the results point out the need to individualize the actions according to the peculiarities that each type of disability presents.

One of the limitations of the study is the deepening of the peculiarities of the group of people with disabilities and, especially, their work situation. Reasons for ethical and normative nature on data protection prevent obtaining more exhaustive data on this group; therefore, the approximations of a qualitative nature are especially suitable in their study.

References

Blanck, P. D., Sandler, L. A., Schmeling, J. L. & Schartz, H. A. (2000). The emerging workforce of entrepreneurs with disabilities: Preliminary study of entrepreneurship in Iowa. Iowa Law Review, 85(5), 1583-1668. [ Links ]

Cooney, T. (2008). Entrepreneurs with disabilities: Profile of a forgotten minority. Irish Business Journal, 4(1), 119-129. [ Links ]

De Lorenzo, R. (2003). El futuro de las personas con discapacidad en el mundo (The future of people with disabilities in the world). Madrid: Fundación ONCE. [ Links ]

Ferreira, M. A. V. (2007a). Prácticas sociales, identidad y estratificación: tres vértices de un hecho social, la discapacidad (Social practices, identity and stratification: three vertices of a social fact, disability). Intersticios. Revista Sociológica de Pensamiento Crítico, 1(2), 1-14. [ Links ]

Ferreira, M. A. V. (2007b). Un nuevo concepto para la comprensión de la acción social: la transductividad creativa de las prácticas cotidianas (A new concept for the understanding of social action: the creative transductivity of everyday practices). Intersticios. Revista Sociológica de Pensamiento Crítico, 1(1), 1-16. [ Links ]

Ferreira, M. A. V. (2008). Una aproximación sociológica a la discapacidad desde el modelo social: apuntes caracterológicos (A sociological approach to disability from the social model: characterological notes). Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas, 124, 141-174. [ Links ]

Ferreira, M. A. V. (2010). De la minusvalía a la diversidad funcional: un nuevo marco teórico-metodológico (From disability to functional diversity: a new theoretical-methodological framework). Política y Sociedad, 47(1), 45-65. [ Links ]

García, M. B., Manzanera, S., Ortiz, P. & Olaz, A. (2018). Aproximación sociolaboral a la discapacidad (Social and employment approach to disability). ¿Alternativas para el emprendimiento? Acciones e Investigaciones Sociales, 38, 177-196. [ Links ]

Godley, A. (2005). The emergence of ethnic entrepreneurship. Princeton: Princeton University Press. [ Links ]

Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE). (2017). El empleo de las personas con discapacidad (The employment of people with disabilities) Disponible en: https://www.ine.es/dyngs/INEbase/es/operacion.htm?c=Estadistica_C&cid=1254736055502&menu=ultiDatos&idp=1254735976595. [ Links ]

Jiménez, A. (2007). Conceptos y tipologías de la discapacidad (Concepts and typologies of disability). Documentos y normativas de clasificación más relevantes. En R. de Lorenzo & L. C. Pérez (coords.), Tratado sobre discapacidad. Madrid: Thomson-Aranzadi. [ Links ]

Jiménez, A. & Huete, A. (2003). Las discapacidades en España: datos estadísticos (Disabilities in Spain: statistical data). Madrid: Real Patronato sobre Discapacidad. [ Links ]

Manzanera, R., García, B., Olaz, P. & Ortiz, P. (2018). Una aproximación sociolaboral al emprendimiento desde la discapacidad (A socio-labor approach to entrepreneurship based on disability). En Retos del empleo de las personas con discapacidad: oportunidades y desafíos (pp. 291-309). Madrid: Dykinson. [ Links ]

Muñoz, P. & Kimmitt, J. (2018). Entrepreneurship and the rest: The missing debate. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 9, 100-106. [ Links ]

Odismet. (2017). La situación de las personas con discapacidad en el mercado laboral (The situation of people with disabilities in the labor market). Madrid: Fundación ONCE . [ Links ]

Olaz, A. & Ortiz, P. (2016). The competencial factor like an engine venture. Suma de Negocios, 7(15), 2-8. [ Links ]

Olaz, A. & Ortiz, P. (2018). Causas y factores del emprendimiento de persona con discapacidad. Un análisis competencial a través de la técnica de grupo nominal (Causes and factors of entrepreneurship of people with disabilities. A competence analysis through the nominal group technique). Cizur Menor (Navarra): Aranzadi. [ Links ]

Ortiz, P. (2018a). Emprendimiento y discapacidad (Entrepreneurship and disability). En A. Olaz & P. Ortiz (dirs.), Causas y factores del emprendimiento de personas con discapacidad. Un análisis competencial a través de la técnica de grupo nominal (pp. 29-42) Navarra: Aranzadi. [ Links ]

Ortiz, P. (2018b). La construcción del discurso político del emprendimiento en España: realidad e ideología (The construction of the political discourse of entrepreneurship in Spain: reality and ideology). Papers, 103(2), 229-253. [ Links ]

Ortiz, P. & Olaz, A. (2016). Elements that contribute to boost female entrepreneurship: A prospective analysis. Suma de Negocios, 7(15), 54-60. [ Links ]

Ortiz, P. & Olaz, A. (2017). Emprendimiento, empleo y discapacidad (Entrepreneurship, employment and disability). Navarra: Aranzadi [ Links ]

Ortiz, P. & García, J. J. (2018). Técnicos de la administración (Administration technicians). En A. Olaz & P. Ortiz (dirs.), Causas y factores del emprendimiento de personas con discapacidad. Un análisis competencial a través de la técnica de grupo nominal (pp. 73-86). Navarra: Aranzadi . [ Links ]

Ortiz, P. & Olaz, A. (2018a). Personas emprendedoras con discapacidad (Entrepreneurs with disabilities). En A. Olaz & P. Ortiz (Dirs.), Causas y factores del emprendimiento de personas con discapacidad. Un análisis competencial a través de la técnica de grupo nominal (pp. 117-130). Navarra: Aranzadi . [ Links ]

Ortiz, P. & Olaz, A. (2018b). Aspectos diferenciales en el emprendimiento de las personas con discapacidad (Differential aspects in the entrepreneurship of people with disabilities). En A. Olaz & P. Ortiz (dirs.), Discapacidad y emprendimiento. Dimensiones y contextos interpretativos en clave cualitativa (pp. 39-54). Navarra: Aranzadi . [ Links ]

Pérez, L. C. (2004). El desmantelamiento de la discapacidad y otros escritos vacilantes (The dismantling of disability and other wavering writings). Barcelona: El Cobre. [ Links ]

Rodríguez, G. & Pérez, M. (2004). Pobreza y exclusión social en el Principado de Asturias (Poverty and social exclusion in the Principado de Asturias). Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. [ Links ]

Romañach, J. (2002). Héroes y parias: la dignidad en la discapacidad (Heroes and pariahs: dignity in disability). Disponible en: http://www.minusval2000.com/relaciones/vidaIndependiente/heroes_y_parias.html. [ Links ]

Romañach, J. & Palacios, A. (2007). El modelo de la diversidad (model of diversity). La bioética y los derechos humanos como herramientas para alcanzar la plena dignidad en la diversidad funcional. Generalitat Valenciana: ENIL. [ Links ]

Schur, L. (2003). Barriers or opportunities? The causes of contingent and part- time work among people with disabilities. Industrial Relations, 42, 589-622. [ Links ]

Suárez, M., Alvarado, A. & Sánchez, M. F. (2014). La investigación sobre orientación profesional para colectivos con discapacidad: estado actual y desafíos científicos (Research on professional guidance for groups with disabilities: current status and scientific Challenges). Comunicación III Internacional Multidisciplinar de investigación educativa, Congreso AMIE. Segovia. [ Links ]

Zarco, J. & García de la Cruz, J. J. (2004). El espejo social de la mujer con gran discapacidad (The social mirror of the woman with great disability). Madrid: Fundamentos [ Links ]

Received: November 20, 2018; Accepted: January 24, 2019

*Corresponding Author: Pilar Ortiz García, portizg@um.es

Creative Commons License This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License