An Emerging Conceptual Framework for Small Business Development and Entrepreneurship: Multiply Marginalized People with Disabilities Incubator

Abstract

This article presents a Multiply Marginalized People with Disabilities Small Business Incubator (M2-PWDI), an emerging conceptual model designed to train and peer-mentor entrepreneurs with disabilities (EWD) to birth small businesses, create self-employment, close wealth gaps, and help to accelerate United States (U.S.) and local economic growth by fostering new companies and creating job opportunities. A combination of Critical Disability Theory and Structural Empowerment Theory provided a useful framework to contextualize and support the model’s design and intent. A set of policy and practice recommendations that could be considered by U.S. federal agencies (e.g., Small Business Administration [SBA], Rehabilitation Services Administration [RSA], Department of Commerce, Office of Disability Employment Policy [ODEP], National Institute on Disability, Independent Living and Rehabilitation Research [NIDILRR]), National Institutes of Health [NIH], National Science Foundation [NSF]), state vocational rehabilitation agencies, minority-serving institutions, and researchers for collaborative implementation, evaluation, and scaling of the M2-PWDI to advance the science on business incubators and entrepreneurship among multiply marginalized EWD are presented.

An estimated 61 million adult Americans live with a disability (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2022) with highest prevalence rates among Native Americans (15.8%) followed by Blacks/African Americans (14.1%), Whites (11.3%), people from some other race(s) (10.6%), and Asians (5.2%) (Erickson et al., 2024). People’s experiences are significantly shaped by place (Achten & Lessmann, 2020) as rural residents in the United States (U.S.) report higher disability rates than individuals residing in urban areas across nearly all age categories, gender, and racial combinations (Sage et al., 2019). Studies have also shown that disabled people are more likely than those without disabilities to identify as LGBTQ+ (Human Rights Campaign [HRC] Foundation, 2022; Varadaraj et al., 2021). For example, the Movement Advancement Project (2019) estimates that between 3 to 5 million LGBTQ+ have disabilities. According to HRC Foundation (2022) one in three (36%) LGBTQ+ adults report having a disability compared with one in four (24%) non-LGBTQ+ (cisgender and heterosexual) adults. Disabled people are also more likely to become poor, and individuals experiencing poverty are at a higher risk of developing disabilities (Goodman et al., 2019). Although multiply marginalized people with disabilities as defined by race, ethnicity, LGBTQ+, geography and poverty constitute a significant portion of the U.S. population, millions of entrepreneurs with disabilities (EWD) are “missing” from the entrepreneurial ecosystem because they face a plethora of challenges (De Bruin & Swail, 2024; Komisopoulos et al, 2023; Wright et al., 2022). This ecosystem includes banks, U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) programs, nonprofit organizations, business incubators, and universities that offer training and other support services.

Barriers Faced by Entrepreneurs with Disabilities

Multiply marginalized EWD oftentimes face a spectrum of unique organizational, system, and individual level barriers that discourage and disincentivize them from engaging in entrepreneurship and self-employment activities. These barriers include but are not limited to access to affordable startup capital (Ward-Sutton et al., 2022), lack of mentors, inaccessible physical and digital infrastructure, and inadequate business skills and knowledge, (Berry et al., 2024; Cunningham, 2021; Ostrow et al., 2021; Lopez et al., 2024). In addition, EWD often face challenges in business startup and development because of lower levels of education, less work experience, low self-esteem, stigma, low self-efficacy and negative social attitudes (Tihic et al., 2021). These individual, organizational, and systems level barriers have resulted in uneven entrepreneurial ecosystems (De Bruin &Swail, 2024) that favor elite entrepreneurs and marginalize those from underrepresented groups including people with disabilities. Given these challenges, disability and economic development experts, policy makers, and other stakeholders have called for the establishment of business incubators to help disabled people start or expand their small businesses. Unfortunately, there exists a dearth of scientific information about business incubator models designed for EWD.

The purpose of this article was to describe a Multiply Marginalized People with Disabilities Small Business Incubator (M2-PWDI), an emerging conceptual model designed to train and peer-mentor EWD to birth small businesses, create self-employment, close wealth gaps, and help to accelerate local and national economic growth by fostering new companies and creating job opportunities. To this end, we first provide a review of the literature on business incubators. Next, we discuss factors driving the need for incubators designed for multiply marginalized people with disabilities and two theories (i.e., critical disability theory [CDT] and structural empowerment theory) that were found useful to inform the conceptual framework. Last, we describe the new prototype for M2-PWDI model and its application. A set of policy and practice recommendations that could be considered by U.S. federal agencies (e.g., SBA, Rehabilitation Services Administration [RSA], Department of Commerce, Office of Disability Employment Policy [ODEP], National Institute on Disability, Independent Living and Rehabilitation Research [NIDILRR]), National Institutes of Health [NIH], and National Science Foundation [NSF]), state vocational rehabilitation agencies, minority serving institutions, and researchers for potential collaborative implementation and scaling in order to advance the current state of science on business incubators and small business development among multiply marginalized EWD are presented.

Business Incubators

Federal, state, and local governments in the U.S. invest immense financial resources to support business growth (Almeida et al., 2021; Awonuga et al., 2024 Komisopoulos et al, 2023). Much of this funding is channeled through various entities collectively known as the entrepreneurial ecosystem, which helps to birth and/or sustain early-stage startups and small businesses (De Bruin & Swail, 2024; Komisopoulos et al, 2023). Among these entities, small business incubators have emerged as powerful tools for business development, providing essential services that significantly improve the success rates of early-stage ventures (Budac & Ilie, 2024). The National Business Incubation Association (NBIA) define business incubators as programs designed to accelerate the successful development of entrepreneurial companies through an array of business support resources and services, developed and managed by incubator management and offered both in the incubator and through its network of contacts (Mian, 2021).

Business incubators first emerged in the late 1950s (Awonuga et al., 2024; Indiran, 2021). However, they grew significantly in the 1990s and today play a crucial role in U.S. economic development by helping to form the core of complex ecosystems that support entrepreneurship at local, regional, and national levels (Awonuga et al., 2024; Congressional Research Service [CRS], 2024). According to Grimaldi and Grandi (2005), incubators can be classified into four main types; public business innovation centers (BICs), independent private incubators (IPIs), university business incubators (UBIs), and corporate private incubators (CPIs). Because of the overlap between business-support entities (e.g., accelerators, training programs, business parks) and incubators, which do not always have clear definitions, obtaining their precise numbers has been a challenge. Nonetheless, the technology firm Tracxn reported that there are approximately 2,860 business incubators and accelerators in the U.S. that have a combined portfolio of 30.4K companies (Tracxn Technologies Limited, 2024). The frequency of these incubators differs from state to state. For example, 147 small businesses were leasing space in the 25 incubators based in Oklahoma. These national and state level numbers are expected to grow as incubators play an increasing role in fostering the successful startup of companies focused on technology and artificial intelligence (AI) (Budac & Ilie, 2024; Li et al., 2020) such as those funded through SBA, NIDILRR, NIH and NSF small business innovation research (SBIR) and/or Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs.

Although incubators support startups that align with the parent sponsor’s strategic goals and long-term vision, their primary goal is to foster the growth of new businesses by providing entrepreneurs and small businesses with essential services to help launch their business concepts, operate efficiently, and remain competitive in rapidly changing markets (Budac & Ilie, 2024; Li et al, 2020). These services often include office space, training, technical assistance, mentorship, connections to local and regional resources, and access to funding (Chang & Cheng, 2024). According to the Kenan Institute of Private Enterprise (2022), business incubators generally support startups through buffering, bridging, and curating as key mechanisms. Through buffering, incubators protect startups from competition and external threats. As bridging agents, they connect startups to outside resources, knowledge, and social capital through networking with mentors, investors, and early buyers and suppliers. In terms of curating, incubators can connect EWD to the most appropriate resources that meet their unique needs.

Studies show that incubated companies outperform non-incubated enterprises (Almeida et al., 2021) and that business incubators that collaborate with four-year universities produce some complementary benefits for incubatees that include hands-on learning, mentorship and networking, resource access, skill development and an enhanced entrepreneurial mindset (Aithal & Aithal, 2023). In addition, business incubators not only increase persistence and resilience among entrepreneurs but also their self-efficacy (Almeida et al., 2021). Despite critical evidence showing that incubators impact small businesses and startups positively, EWD still face numerous barriers when seeking incubator support. These challenges include inadequate accommodations, discrimination, stigma, and other environmental and attitudinal factors (Bakker & McMullen, 2023; Mohammadzamani, 2024). De Bruin and Swail (2024), who have extensively studied entrepreneurial ecosystems, concluded that these ecosystems “are not a level playing field (p. 1).” They argue that the business selection process within these ecosystems often favor certain types of entrepreneurs such as people without disabilities, white men, and those with college degrees. This viewpoint is supported by other researchers (i.e., De Bruin & Swail, 2024; Mohammadzamani, 2024; Tiasakul et al., 2024; Tihic et al., 2021) asserting that while business incubators have been effective in helping businesses thrive, they frequently lack sufficient inclusion strategies to meet the needs of entrepreneurs from underserved communities.

Theoretical Foundation for the M2-PWDI Model

A conceptual model is only as strong as the foundation of its underlying theoretical and practical frameworks whilst integrating multiple frameworks enhances the effectiveness and contextual grounding of emerging models (Salawu et al., 2023). Consequently, the Critical Disability Theory (CDT) and Structural Empowerment Theory were carefully selected to form the theoretical foundation of the M2-PWDI model as they strongly align with the goal of empowering multiply marginalized EWD to start and sustain successful enterprises. According to Pena and colleagues (2016), CDT provides a framework to re-evaluate and critique notions of disability to facilitate social change. Therefore, CDT provides the basis for analyzing the current social perceptions about disability while amplifying the voices of EWD by addressing deep-rooted societal and systemic barriers. These barriers include perceptions of disability as a liability, framing disabilities primarily as medical conditions, and systemic exclusion from economic and social participation. CDT challenges these norms by emphasizing the multidimensional nature of disability and recognizing how stigma, inadequate opportunities, and insufficient support systems intersect to perpetuate exclusion (Emir & Brubaker, 2020).

The Structural Empowerment Theory posits that structural conditions within organizations, communities, and societies play a crucial role in shaping an individual’s ability to succeed (Kanter, 1993; Suhermin, 2019). The key components of this theory include access to resources, a supportive organizational culture, information access, opportunities for professional growth and development, participatory decision-making, and supportive policies and practices (Fragkos et al., 2020). The theory advocates for providing individuals with the necessary opportunities, resources, support, and information to enhance their control over their environment and realize their potential. Moreover, it argues that empowering marginalized individuals such as EWD to succeed requires organizations to create environments, systems, and structures that provide access to the necessary resources, opportunities, and agency to help them achieve their goals (Kanter, 1993).

Drivers of Incubators for Multiply Marginalized Entrepreneurs with Disabilities

The factors that drive the need for small business incubator models designed for the heterogenous population of EWD are numerous, complex, and intersectional. The subsections that follow discuss four major factors that have collectively catalyzed the importance of developing a dynamic business incubation model for this population. These factors include employment disparities, persistent poverty, underrepresentation of EWD in the entrepreneurial ecosystem, and economic empowerment and U.S. economic growth.

Employment disparities

People with disabilities often experience significant employment disparities compared to individuals without disabilities. According to a recent Bureau of Labor Statistics report (2024), the unemployment rate for people with a disability was 7.2% in 2023, about twice that of those with no disability (3.5%). These employment inequities remain persistent upon drilling down on racial/ethnic strata. For instance, jobless rates in 2023 were highest for disabled Blacks/African Americans (10.2%) compared to their White counterparts who were (6.7%), Asian (7.0%), and Latino counterparts. Entrepreneurship and/or self-employment represent a vital pathway to address these employment discrepancies experienced by multiply marginalized people with disabilities who seek economic independence (Danguilan, 2023; Hidegh, et al., 2022). Notably, disabled workers are more likely to be self-employed than those with no disability. In 2023, for example, a larger share (8.4%) of disabled people were self-employed compared to those with no disability (5.9%). In addition, disability-owned business enterprises (DOBEs) tend to employ more people with disabilities when compared to non-DOBEs. According to Disability: IN (2022) DOBEs employed people with disabilities at a rate of 10 times that of non-DOBEs supporting 6,414 jobs. A disability-owned business was defined as a for-profit business that is majority owned, managed, and controlled by a person with a disability. Arguably, increasing the number of DOBEs would contribute toward eliminating existing employment disparities among multiply marginalized people with disabilities.

Persistent Poverty

Many multiply marginalized people with disabilities live in poverty and continue to experience material hardships (i.e., the inability to meet basic needs) due to unemployment. According to a publication titled Financial Inequity: Disability, Race and Poverty in America, almost 40% of Blacks/African Americans with disabilities live in poverty, compared with Non-Latinx Whites (24%), Latinx (29%), and Asian Americans (19%) (Goodman et al., 2019). An estimated 46% of LGBTQIA+ adults with disabilities reported a household income of less than $30,000 per year in 2020, compared with 29% of LGBTQIA+ adults without disabilities. About three-quarters or 76% of transgender people with disabilities have household incomes of less than $30,000, compared with 35% of straight cisgender people without disabilities (Medina et al. 2021). Place-based studies have also shown that disabled people who live in rural areas are more likely to experience poverty compared to those residing in urban locales (Dobis et al., 2021). Incubators represent an innovative approach for helping EWD to raise their incomes and living standards and thereby advancing from poverty to the middle class (Karambakuwa & Bayat, 2022).

Underrepresentation of EWD in the Entrepreneurial Ecosystem

People with disabilities are underrepresented at all levels of the entrepreneurial ecosystem (e.g., leadership, policy, management, business ownership). As a result, disabled individuals are largely invisible and voiceless in institutions that make decisions about them (Hidegh et al., 2022; Ward-Sutton et al., 2022). De Bruin and Swail (2024) argue that entrepreneurial ecosystems are contested institutions because they favor the elite at the expense of women and other minorities including people with disabilities. This conclusion is supported by other researchers that have asserted that while incubators have been effective in helping businesses thrive, they are not sufficiently inclusive to meet the needs of entrepreneurs from underserved communities (i.e., Bakker & McMullen, 2023; De Bruin & Swail, 2024; Morris et al., 2024). Ostrow and colleagues (2021) surveyed 60 participants with a history of psychiatric disability who were operating a U.S. based small business. They found that self-employed individuals with psychiatric disabilities considered traditional institutional support such as small business development centers to be unhelpful and therefore infrequently used them, an indication of the challenges EWD face when navigating institutions with missions that are supposed to support their entrepreneurial aspirations. In addition, according to the 2022 Annual Business Survey (ABS), only 3% of disabled people owned a business in 2021, although they constitute about 14% of the population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2023). One study found that disability prevalence among business owners by industry ranged from a paltry high of 4% in “mining” and “other services” to a low of 1.8% in the “management of companies” industry (Rosenblum & McLaren, 2024).

Economic Empowerment and U.S. Economic Growth

Finally, there is a pressing need to empower multiply marginalized individuals with disabilities to create business ventures that can revitalize local, regional, and national economies. Despite facing considerable challenges, minority-owned firms and workers represent a growing share of U.S. businesses and the workforce (Tihic et al., 2021). Consequently, the overall strength of the U.S. economy is increasingly tied to the performance of minority-owned enterprises. In 2022, for instance, DOBEs generated $1.26 billion in annual revenues, $358 million in wages paid and had a total economic impact of $32.3 billion on the U.S. economy (Disability:IN 2022). These statistics show the immense contributions and overall potential that DOBE possess in helping to accelerate the growth of the U.S. economy by and gross domestic product (GDP) if adequately supported. Therefore, it is crucial to remove barriers and empower multiply marginalized people with disabilities to participate fully in the country’s economic development agenda. Small business incubators such as the M2-PWDI represents one innovative approach to empowering EWD in starting their own business and achieving self-employment aspirations.

The M2-PWDI Model

The M2-PWDI model was designed to train and peer-mentor EWD from underserved populations enabling them to launch or expand small businesses, create jobs, close wealth gaps, and help to stimulate local and national economic growth. The model, which is funded by the NIDILRR, is a collaborative effort involving the Rehabilitation Research and Training Center (LU2E-RRTC) on Advancing Employment Equity for Multiply Marginalized People with Disabilities at Langston University and the In the Beginning Business Incubator and Fund Company (ITB). The founder and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of ITB, is a Black/African American woman with a disability. Other partners include Gallaudet University (Gallaudet Innovation and Entrepreneurship Institute) - a disability-serving institution, Urban League of Greater Oklahoma City and affiliates, and Oklahoma Department of Rehabilitation Services. Although the M2-PWDI model is a collaborative effort involving multiple institutions, its conceptualization, interventions, and strategies were developed by the LU2E-RRTC researchers based upon a comprehensive review of the literature and their extensive experience conducting research focused on scientific skill building among people with disabilities.

Guiding Principles of the M2-PWDI Model

The design and content of the M2-PWDI model are grounded in foundational principles of universal design, empowerment, capacity building, and intersectionality. This innovative approach addresses key shortcomings in traditional business incubators by incorporating targeted strategies to dismantle barriers faced by entrepreneurs with disabilities (EWDs), particularly those who are multiply marginalized. As such, the M2-PWDI model represents a paradigm shift from conventional small business incubators, which have historically failed to effectively serve entrepreneurs from underserved communities (De Bruin & Swail, 2024; Mohammadzamani, 2024). Unlike conventional “one-size-fits-all” models (Chandra & Fealey, 2009), M2-PWDI is intentionally inclusive (Cooney, 2021), offering individualized accommodations from recruitment to program completion. These include accessible spaces, adaptive technologies, personalized mentorship, and flexible scheduling.

The M2-PWDI model also departs from traditional paradigms that conceptualize social hierarchies in isolation (e.g., race independent of gender identity or socioeconomic status). Instead, it recognizes that social categories (e.g., rurality, sex, age, class, and race) intersect in dynamic ways to shape individual experiences and outcomes (Holman & Walker, 2021). The model centers the lived experiences of entrepreneurs by engaging their multifaceted identities, highlighting how additional factors such as rural location, race, LGBTQIA+ status, sex, and poverty interact to compound the challenges faced by EWDs. This intersectional lens fosters an environment rooted in empathy, mutual respect, and shared empowerment, where dignity, self-efficacy, and self-confidence are paramount. Rather than providing support in a top-down fashion, the M2-PWDI prioritizes active participation and co-creation.

Further distinguishing itself from traditional models, M2-PWDI adopts a peer-to-peer mentorship approach instead of a hierarchical structure where established leaders serve as the sole mentors. This peer framework creates a more approachable and supportive learning environment, where participants exchange skills, share lived experiences, and develop practical strategies for entrepreneurial success (Cooney, 2021). Additionally, many traditional incubators rely on in-person participation, which can be exclusionary for those facing mobility barriers, stigma, or discrimination. The M2-PWDI model directly addresses these challenges by offering virtual and hybrid formats, greatly enhancing both accessibility and flexibility. These inclusive delivery options extend opportunities to entrepreneurs beyond geographic or physical limitations and help mitigate systemic barriers such as inaccessibility and institutional bias commonly found in traditional incubator environments (Chandra & Fealey, 2009).

Ultimately, the M2-PWDI incubator should be led by trained professionals who are deeply knowledgeable in entrepreneurship and disability inclusion. These staff would ensure that incubatees acquire the critical skills and knowledge necessary for sustainable business success. Participants should be matched with resources, including capital, market access, and technology that are tailored to support the growth of their ventures. Importantly, support should not end at program completion. Graduates should be encouraged to remain connected to a robust network of mentors and resources, ensuring ongoing development and long-term success as business owners.

Hybrid incubation Modality

The Hybrid incubator option or modality serves as a bridge between in-person and virtual incubators, addressing the limitations of both approaches. In this approach, incubatees can choose which services they can receive in-person and/or virtually (Vaz et al., 2022). By blending traditional in-person support with virtual elements, the M2-PWDI hybrid incubation option offers startups greater flexibility and engagement while maintaining the benefits of a physical presence (Attard & Holmes, 2020). The hybrid incubation modality is particularly incubatee-centric, expanding incubation spaces beyond traditional physical facilities and offering significant adaptability. This flexibility reduces stress and enhances satisfaction by allowing EWD to tailor their incubation experience to their unique circumstances. For example, EWD participating in the Hybrid incubation pathway have the ability to participate in the entrepreneur academy and startup community of practice, services that are provided virtually. At the same time, they can utilize in-person elements (e.g., office space and face-to-face interaction with mentors) of hybrid incubation that offer personalized assistance, accommodations, and hands-on support (Vaz et al., 2022).

Virtual Incubator Modality

The virtual incubation pathway offers multiply marginalized EWD an accessible way to participate in the incubator remotely. This approach provides comprehensive startup support services without requiring physical presence of the incubatee. Various synchronous and asynchronous methods of communication (e.g., e-mails, conference calls) and digital platforms (e.g., Zoom, Google Meet, and Microsoft Teams) are utilized to facilitate essential activities, including mentoring, virtual interactions, networking, collaborations, webinars, virtual pitch competitions, and digital meetups. Virtual incubation is particularly well-suited for EWD who live in rural areas or far from a physical incubator, lack reliable transportation, have limited access to a local pool of experts, or experience anxiety in crowded spaces (Saavedra et al., 2022). This model also offers a more flexible and inclusive alternative, especially for EWD who primarily require business support services rather than physical infrastructure. The trade-offs between virtual and traditional incubators are worthwhile because the most valuable services provided are not physical infrastructure, like office equipment or space, but rather the business support they offer (Vaz et al., 2022). Technology companies require specialized expertise and capital to help their businesses thrive and thus services are increasingly offered virtually. By leveraging virtual tools, the M2-PWDI extends its reach beyond local areas, effectively serving EWD living in any part of the world. This expanded reach not only broadens the pool of beneficiaries but also promotes inclusivity by bridging geographic and logistical barriers that EWD often experience.

Appendix

Incubatees with Disabilities

Incubatees with disabilities, who are the main participants and beneficiaries, form a critical component of the M2-PWDI model. Incubatees can self-refer or register through a carefully designed referral infrastructure. To be admitted to the incubator, applicants must meet the following criteria: (a) must have a disability; (b) be a founder, co-founder, or member of an early-stage startup; (c) have the desire to receive incubator services and be held accountable for project goals; and (d) and must be 18 years or older. Individuals with disabilities with a business idea that they would like to turn into a business startup are also eligible. A committee consisting of key stakeholders is responsible for screening and admitting incubatees.

Mentors

Mentorship is a cornerstone of the M2-PWDI model and plays a crucial role in supporting EWD as they develop their businesses. The model employs a multiple mentor approach (Moore et al., 2022) where each entrepreneur is paired with more than one mentor. The multiple mentor approach draws on social network theory (Valente & Pitts, 2017) that asserts that a diverse network of mentors provides greater benefits compared to traditional one-on-one mentorship. This innovative strategy creates a less intimidating environment, enabling participants to exchange practical skills, share personal experiences, and discuss real-world strategies for overcoming entrepreneurial challenges (Cooney, 2021). Generally, mentors provide guidance and advice on critical aspects of startups such as product development, distribution, sales processes, and communication strategies (Malhotra et al., 2024). They also contribute innovative ideas for business growth while offering much-needed emotional and psychological support. Additionally, mentors act as champions for the incubatees’ businesses by connecting them to broader networks and advocating on their behalf.

Shared Office Space and Specialized equipment

EWD often face significant challenges in launching and sustaining small businesses that can include limited access to affordable office spaces and essential equipment. High costs frequently place such resources out of reach thereby creating barriers to business development (Balcazar et al., 2023). The M2-PWDI model addresses these challenges by offering affordable office space and equipment to qualified applicants at below-market rates. The shared spaces within the incubator include critical infrastructure such as offices, meeting rooms, and conference rooms that are designed to meet EWD diverse needs. The equipment provided includes computers, dedicated telephones, mailboxes, and audio-visual tools, ensuring a fully functional workspace. To enhance accessibility, the offices incorporate universal design principles and are equipped with assistive technology devices that are user-friendly (Smith, 2023). Moreover, the shared spaces are intentionally structured to foster collaboration and networking. By working alongside one another, incubatees have opportunities to exchange ideas, build partnerships, and cross-pollinate knowledge, which are all essential components of entrepreneurial success (Lindsay et al., 2019). These structures are created to be accessible for EWD’s and secure to allow each business to maintain privacy and security of their business information. Some spaces will have a lock on the office door as well as on the desk, file cabinets along with password-protected computers.

Administrative Service

The administrative services component of the incubator provides comprehensive support to enable EWD to focus on growing their ventures. This component includes a dedicated incubator manager, receptionist, office assistants, and other personnel such as community and networking liaison, accountant, information technology (IT) expert, and legal consultant. The primary role of the administrative team is to effectively and efficiently manage the day-to-day operations of the incubator. They also play a critical role in facilitating access to external resources, such as funding opportunities, mentorship, and specialized services that entrepreneurs need to scale their businesses. Research emphasizes the importance of representation at all levels of the workplace (Baluku et al., 2020). Therefore, the incubator management should actively recruit administrative personnel, including individuals with disabilities, to serve as role models and provide insights that resonate with the incubatees’ experiences. Furthermore, the administrative team should receive continuing cultural competence training to ensure the delivery of high-quality and culturally competent services. Cultural competence training should include training modules such as understanding disability training, understanding cultural diversity within the disability community, and applications of the person-centered approach. Providing cultural competency training will be an on-going process to inform incubator staff about the best ways to aid EWDs.

Collaboration and Partnerships

Establishing collaborations and partnerships is one of the best practices for incubator success. In its mediating role, the incubator should serve as a bridge, connecting EWD with critical external resources and partnerships that often extend beyond the scope of its direct offerings. These extrinsic resources typically include linking incubatees with funders (e.g., venture capitalists, angel investors, federal grant programs), distributors, suppliers, and potential customers, and facilitating introductions to microfinance institutions (Budac, 2024; CRS, 2024). These connections are essential for validating products, expanding market reach, and achieving sustained growth. Incubators with robust financial networks significantly enhance the success rates of their incubatees (Hassan, 2024). Within the research context, partners should be involved in translating findings to practical practice and policy applications. Collaborations and partnerships should also substantially include disabled people whose identities intersect with those of other underserved populations in all activities to help guide the design and implementation of all activities.

The Entrepreneur Academy

The Entrepreneur Academy (EA) is the training cornerstone of business support within the M2-PWDI model. The academy’s primary objective is to equip incubatees with the foundational business knowledge and skills essential for transforming their enterprise ideas into successful startups and/or scaling up existing startups. Through structured learning modules and interactive seminars, participants gain exposure to a comprehensive range of topics (e.g., marketing, financial management, capital fundraising, and leadership development). Typically, the academy comprises 8 to 10 core modules, delivered online using a learning management system (e.g., Canvas) that is supplemented by interactive sessions on electronic platforms such as Zoom and Microsoft Teams. To ensure a well-rounded and impactful educational experience for incubates, these modules are taught by professionals with expertise spanning various sectors (e.g., startups, banking, community engagement, policy). In addition, the curriculum should be meticulously and collaboratively developed by experienced business practitioners and professionals from differing support entities including universities, minority and/or disability-owned businesses, banking, chambers of commerce, and self-care management. This collaborative approach to curriculum development ensures that the academy addresses the entrepreneurial needs of EWD from various underserved backgrounds. Table 1 shows sample academy modules.

Table 1.

Sample Entrepreneur Academy Modules

Incubator Orientation	Introduction of the program curriculum, learning outcomes, and introduce participants. Participants will be matched with mentors
Leadership Development	Defining Leadership, Characteristics of Leaders, Encouraging Growth, Creating Mutual Respect, Setting Smart Goals, Creating Support System
Startup Business Development	Understanding Competition and Customers, Legal Aspects of Startups, Hiring practices, Business Plan Development, Networking, Finance Options, Procurement, Budgeting, Contracting, public employment (e.g., SVRA, VA, AIVRP) systems resources, etc
Behavior Training	Organizational Skills, Supply Chain Management, emotional intelligence, self-efficacy, Creative Thinking, Crisis Management, Diversity and Inclusion, Human Resource Management, etc
Skills Development	Basics in Accounting, Marketing strategies, Bookkeeping, and IT and Web Security; Business Legal Practices, Business Insurance and Bonds, pitching,
Creating a Positive Workplace	Work-life balance, Emotional Intelligence, Goal Setting and Getting Things done, Body Language Basics, Training, Employee Reviews, Leadership development Facilitation Skills, Teambuilding, Performance Management

Note. The table shows a sample of Academy modules and sample topics that could be covered under each module.

Startup Community of Practice

One of the core components of the M2-PWDI is a community of Practice (CoP) which is designed to build a safe community of EWD from underserved communities. A CoP is defined as a learning partnership among people who find it useful to learn from and with each other about a particular domain (Moore et al., 2021). The M2-PWDI model may consist of one or more CoPs. Incubatees could meet face-to-face or virtually on a regular basis, at least once a month, to receive psychosocial support and share information such as their business interests and progress, new entrepreneurial knowledge, strategies to overcome any barriers, network with peers and seasoned business leaders, effective leadership skills. The CoP is based on the distributed intelligence framework and the social theories of learning, which postulate that knowledge is a property passed by groups of people over time in shared practices and not a cognitive residue in the head of an individual (Aldahmash et al., 2024). Because of advances in technology, the CoPs are not limited by geographic proximity. This means that members of the CoP can engage with one another regardless of physical location, time zone, or organizational boundaries.

Outcomes

Outcomes form an integral part of the completion phase, the final stage of the M2-PWDI incubation process. These outcomes provide a comprehensive assessment of the successes and challenges experienced during the incubation period, capturing both immediate and long-term individual and societal impacts. Key outcomes include knowledge and skills, the rate at which businesses graduate from the incubator, the viability of the graduating businesses, and specific indicators of success such as the development of viable products, securing funding, and achieving profitability. Beyond these business-centric metrics, the implementation of the M2-PWDI model yields additional benefits, including increased self-employment opportunities for EWD and their family members, enhanced self-efficacy, leadership skills, social capital, and collaborative capacity. At a societal level, the M2-PWDI model contributes to the creation of employment opportunities for community members, fosters regional and local economic revitalization, reduces crime, and enhances overall quality of life. The outcomes are indicators of the M2-PWDI’s potential as an inclusive business incubation model that will address systemic inequities while helping to accelerate economic growth and social stability.

The Application Phase

The implementation of the M2-PWDI must be carefully executed to ensure it produces expected benefits to EWD and society. Therefore, the implementation, monitoring, and evaluation processes should be consistent with the CDT, structural empowerment theory, and the guiding principles that informed the development of the models. The research team connected with the incubator to maintain informational continuity between the EWD, the incubator and the research team. Throughout the evaluation process the research team engages with the incubator and all project partners at least once a quarter. The research team utilize site visits, interviews with EWDs, an audit of services provided along with documentation reviews to ensure a relational connection between services provided, services requested by EWDs, accommodation that support EWD’s business ventures. The researchers also attend community of practice events to further this connection.

In addition to integrating the various components of the model, below we discuss seven key areas that M2-PWDI implementers should consider: understanding context, recruitment procedures, matching incubatees with mentors, business incubation duration, community engagement and relationships building, monitoring and evaluation, service phase out/graduation.

Understanding Context

The M2-PWDI underscores the critical value of considering contexts when implementing the incubator. Context can be defined as the circumstances that form the setting of the incubator. For example, historical, sociocultural, political, economic, and geographical contexts constitute contextual factors (Moore et al., 2022) that could positively or negatively shape the implementation of M2-PWDI. Each of these contexts interact with and influence each other in complex ways and impact collective and personal EWD’s incubation experiences. Therefore, local and other contexts must be accounted for when designing activities tailored to meet the needs multiply marginalized EWD, while leveraging community strengths and honoring its culture. Accordingly, the model can be customized depending on local, national, and international contextual factors, which often shape the design, implementation, and evaluation of the incubator.

Recruitment Procedures and Referral Infrastructure

The recruitment of incubatees should be an inclusive and systematic process. Thus, the incubator should meet EWD where they are on their entrepreneurial journeys. Rather than relying solely on elitist traditional incubator criteria (e.g., stellar qualifications, vast experiences, highly valuated startups, and potential of the submitted idea and team) that pick only the winners (O’Brien et.al, 2019), the M2-PWDI recruitment team should use a combination of egalitarian and utilitarian motivations in the selection criteria that focus on eliminating barriers. For example, the incubator team may ask questions such as: What accommodations are needed? What is motivating the potential incubate to seek incubation services? What support systems are available? The recruitment team should also ensure that the application process is simple and accessible. How can we avoid mentor-incubatee discordant interactions? To ensure a robust recruitment effort, the incubator team should establish an elaborate referral infrastructure that includes partnerships drawn from universities, state vocational rehabilitation agencies, business community, and community organizations, among others.

Matching Incubatees with Mentors

One of the critical aspects of the model is to ensure that the matching of mentors and incubates is done appropriately. To ensure a strong incubatee-mentor fit, incubator managers should actively recruit mentors with diverse lived and living experiences deemed beneficial to incubatee’s growth. They must also be committed to fostering equitable business opportunities for EWD. To maximize the impact of mentorship, the incubator curates a diverse panel of mentors with extensive business and community experience. The mentors should be strategically paired with incubatees to help them build entrepreneurial skills, expand knowledge, and grow their social capital which are essential elements for achieving sustainable business success. Mentors must share the vision and mission of the incubator, adhere to incubator rules, and submit a completed application for consideration.

Business incubation Duration

Because capacity building takes time, the M2-PWDI model values smaller, incremental innovations and business growth potential. Therefore, unlike traditional incubators where incubatees are pressured to achieve major milestones within a short time, the model’s incubation duration lasts between 3 to 4 years (CRS, 2023). Moreover, the incubation tenure is designed to be flexible, depending on the performance and specific needs of each EWD. EWD and other minoritized groups are often less prepared for incubation than those from the general population (De Bruin & Swail 2024). As a result, they may require a longer incubation process compared to their peers. Spreading mentorship activities, which is a key element of the model, over time has also been identified as one of the best practices in change processes (Moore et al., 2021) as it allows scheduling flexibility and prevents incubatees, who are often overloaded, from experiencing burnout. Additionally, because incubatees with disabilities are likely to have limited support outside the incubator (Bakker & McMullen, 2023; De Bruin and Swail 2024; Tiasakul et al., 2024), allowing businesses to remain in the program longer provides them with the opportunity to build resilience and thrive in a supportive and nurturing environment.

Community Engagement and Relationships Building

The implementation of M2-PWDI will not be successful without robust community engagement and relationship building. Community engagement has been defined in many ways. Within the M2-PWDI model, community engagement is conceptualized as a process whereby the business incubator proactively works in partnership with community members and/or community-based organizations to build mutually beneficial relationships that ensure that the community’s priorities and cultural values continue to shape services systems and interactions. Thus, community engagement is a deliberative, intentional, collaborative, and an inclusive process (Scheepers et al., 2023). According to Moore et al., (2021) institutions that actively seek to understand the values, concerns, and aspirations of communities are more likely to meet their needs, achieve high uptake of services, and foster a stronger sense of ownership. To ensure meaningful engagement, the incubator managers should engage key stakeholders (e.g., EWD from minority backgrounds, family members, community opinion leaders, local chambers of commerce) and ensure that their concerns and aspirations are directly reflected in the incubator practices.

Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) are essential processes for assessing the implementation, evolution, and impact of the M2-PWDI (Model to Promote Women with Disabilities in Innovation) business incubator model. These activities allow program implementers and researchers to determine how effectively the model is executed, whether it meets its intended objectives, and if any gaps exist between planned and actual outcomes. Evaluation is particularly critical in discerning whether observed changes can be attributed to the incubator intervention itself. Moreover, evaluation data serves as a foundation for making informed decisions regarding the model’s replication and potential scale-up in other settings or populations.

The M&E framework will include both formative and summative components, incorporating pre-test and post-test surveys to capture changes in participant knowledge, skills, and business outcomes over time. Key impact indicators include the number of businesses enrolled in and graduating from the incubator, gains in entrepreneurial knowledge and skills, business survival rates post-incubation, the percentage of incubated businesses securing investor or grant funding, leadership and team building skills, and the satisfaction levels of both incubatees and mentors. Additional metrics include the extent to which incubator resources (e.g., mentorship and workspace) are utilized, the level of community engagement, and perceived socioeconomic benefits to program participants and the local and national economy.

A mixed-methods approach is recommended to ensure a comprehensive and rigorous evaluation. This will involve integrating both quantitative and qualitative data collection techniques. Quantitative methods will include structured surveys and business performance metrics, while qualitative methods may involve focus groups, interviews (face-to-face, telephonic, or virtual), and case studies. The use of multiple data collection strategies ensures a richer, more nuanced understanding of participant experiences and program outcomes. Ultimately, the monitoring and evaluation process will provide critical insights that support ongoing program improvement and help to establish a strong evidence base for the scalability and sustainability of the M2-PWDI model. Specifically, the evaluation results would identify challenges to successful replication of the intervention and the circumstances and activities that contribute to successful adoption of the intervention in real-world settings.

Service Phase out/Graduation

The vision of the model is that incubatees would graduate from the incubator after achieving their goals (e.g., business knowledge and skills, self-efficacy). The model further envisions that the experience gained, networks developed, and skills developed during the incubation period can have a profound impact on the future trajectory of a startup. To ensure a smooth transition, services are gradually withdrawn to make sure the incubatee has every opportunity to be successful. The M2-PWDI considers post-graduation support (support given to incubator) graduates as critical to the success of EWD. Accordingly, graduates are encouraged to continue participating in the community of practice to share their experiences and receive support. Moreover, they should be encouraged to seek the services of the incubator as needed basis. Graduates should also be provided with a list of resources that can be utilized to deal with mental health issues and any other challenges.

Scalability and Sustainability

To ensure long-term viability and broader application of the M2-PWDI model, intentional strategies for scalability and sustainability are embedded into the implementation framework. First, the model considers continuous evaluation as essential to document outcomes, identify areas for improvement, and provide empirical evidence of the model’s effectiveness. These evaluation efforts will serve as a foundational basis for justifying expansion and securing future funding. To that end, implementers should actively seek funding opportunities from multiple sources, including federal agencies (e.g., the Small Business Administration [SBA], NIDILRR, and the Department of Labor) and private entities that support disability initiatives, workforce development, and small business growth .In addition to federal support, introducing a tiered participation fee structure for incubated startups could contribute to financial sustainability while ensuring accessibility remains a priority. This fee structure can be flexible, offering scholarships or sliding scale rates to accommodate entrepreneurs with limited resources. Strategic partnerships with higher education institutions, community-based organizations, and local business communities will also be critical for scaling. To promote regional scalability, the M2-PWDI model should be adaptable to various sociocultural, economic, and policy contexts. By embedding flexibility, fostering cross-sector partnerships, and maintaining a commitment to accessibility and inclusivity, the M2-PWDI model can be both sustainable and scalable on a national, and potentially global, level.

Implications and Conclusion

The need for business incubators that provide support and space to help people with disabilities is vital to business success. Although incubators are increasingly playing a critical role in the U.S. entrepreneurial ecosystem, multiply marginalized people with disabilities continue to experience limited business incubation opportunities. In this conceptual article, we present the M2-PWDI model that is designed to train and peer-mentor EWD from underserved populations in starting their own small businesses. Incubator successes all together can help to advance self-employment outcomes, close wealth gaps, and stimulate U.S. and local economic growth by encouraging new enterprises and creating new good paying jobs.

Although the M2-PWDI model was informed by the extant literature and aligns well with the CDT and structural empowerment constructs, no evaluative data exists as to the effectiveness of the model for business incubation among EWD. As such, like other conceptual models, the M2-PWDI may not represent a complete generalization of reality. Indeed, most models will need to be revised to accommodate new knowledge, information, developments, or respond to current business startup realities. The implementation and evaluation of this model would advance the current state-of-the-science on business incubators for multiply marginalized EWD and provide answers to large questions that key stakeholders need answered regarding its applicability and resources needed to scale the model. Furthermore, assessment will ensure that the model continues to reflect current knowledge and practices. For this reason, future research should consider addressing the following questions: What aspects or components of the model are most effective? Are there differences in business performance between EWD enrolled in hybrid and virtual business incubators? Are there differences in knowledge and skills between EWD enrolled in hybrid and virtual business incubators? How do the participants (incubatees and mentors) describe the experience of participating in the M2-PWDI? What aspects of the model can be considered for adoption by federal agencies that sponsor disability research?

The number of disabled people in the U.S. continues to grow, and these demographic shifts position DOBEs as important drivers of our nation’s economic growth and global competitiveness. Unfortunately, the participation of multiply marginalized EWD in the entrepreneurial ecosystem is unacceptably limited and thus represents a compelling basis for developing new incubator models to address barriers and help start small businesses. We believe that the various components of the M2-PWDI model, applied together, can bring about a transformation of business development culture within the nation’s entrepreneurial ecosystem.

Last, federal agencies (i.e., SBA, RSA, Department of Commerce, ODEP, NIDILRR, NIH, NSF) are encouraged to fund additional priorities that link community-based incubators and minority-serving institutions such as HBCUs and TCUs as partners in implementing, testing and scaling incubators such as M2-PWDI within underserved and marginalized communities. Such efforts could help determine the model’s utility and efficacy in helping multiply marginalized EWD exploit their full entrepreneurial potential and advance implementation science.

Figure 1.

M2-PWDI Model