Women tech entrepreneurs in Ecuador: Knowledge barriers, network gaps, and systemic dynamics
-
Author(s)Fausto Vinicio Calderón-PinedaLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5425-1057
,
Ana María Ortega-ÁlvarezLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0288-3209
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.24(3).2026.05
-
Article InfoVolume 24 2026, Issue #3, pp. 68–83
- 159 Views
-
32 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Type of the article: Research Article
Abstract
Although Ecuador has a high rate of women’s business ownership, only a small proportion of these enterprises operate within the technology sector. This study aims to examine women’s technological entrepreneurship in Ecuador using a qualitative phenomenological approach. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 23 female entrepreneurs between September and October 2025. The findings revealed recurring themes in participants’ experiences, including gender inequality, bureaucratic obstacles, conservative social attitudes, and limited access to professional networks. Despite these challenges, the entrepreneurs emphasize that they possess considerable resilience and innovation, adapting to emerging technologies and building strategic support networks. Participants also highlighted the importance of inclusive public policies to address these barriers and promote a more equitable and sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem for women in the technology sector. Although the study focuses on a single country, its findings provide valuable insights into the current state of women’s technological entrepreneurship and highlight the significant role of the institutional and social environment in shaping the development of such ventures.
Acknowledgment
We would like to thank the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru, CENTRUM, our families, and colleagues for their support throughout this process.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)L26, O32, J16
-
References61
-
Tables3
-
Figures2
-
- Figure 1. Categories and patterns identified in the emic perception analysis
- Figure 2. Heat map of co-occurrence between categories of women entrepreneurs
-
- Table 1. Description of sociodemographic variables
- Table 2. Experience: Quotes from interviewees
- Table A1. Script used in individual interviews
-
- Acevedo-Duque, Á., Gonzalez-Diaz, R., Vargas, E. C., Paz-Marcano, A., Muller-Pérez, S., Salazar-Sepúlveda, G., Caruso, G., & D’Adamo, I. (2021). Resilience, leadership and female entrepreneurship within the context of SMEs: Evidence from Latin America. Sustainability, 13(15), Article 8129.
- Adikaram, A. S., & Razik, R. (2023). Femininity penalty: Challenges and barriers faced by STEM woman entrepreneurs in an emerging economy. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 15(5), 1113-1138.
- Aguas, P. P. (2022). Fusing approaches in educational research: Data collection and data analysis in phenomenological research. The Qualitative Report, 27(1), 1-20.
- Ahn, S., Kim, K.-S., & Lee, K.-H. (2022). Technological capabilities, entrepreneurship and innovation of technology-based start-ups: The resource-based view. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, Complexity, 8(3), Article 156.
- Akanji, B., Mordi, C., & Ajonbadi, H. A. (2024). Confronting social dominance ideology: How professional women manage career stereotypes in male-dominated occupations. Employee Relations: The International Journal, 46(4), 913-933.
- AlQubaisi, E., Chopra, A., & Haddad, A. (2024). Qualitative study on the barriers to women’s entrepreneurship in the tech industry. In A. Hamdan (Ed.), Achieving Sustainable Business through AI, Technology Education and Computer Science: Volume 2: Teaching Technology and Business Sustainability (pp. 131-142). Springer.
- Althalathini, D., & Abdul-Rahman, S. (2025). Between two worlds: Refugee women entrepreneurs navigating institutional forces of home and host countries. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 32(1), 145-168.
- Anggadwita, G., & Indarti, N. (2023). Women entrepreneurship in the internationalization of SMEs: A bibliometric analysis for future research directions. European Business Review, 35(5), 763-796.
- Badghish, S., Ali, I., Ali, M., Yaqub, M. Z., & Dhir, A. (2023). How socio-cultural transition helps to improve entrepreneurial intentions among women? Journal of Intellectual Capital, 24(4), 900-928.
- Badzaban, F., Rezaei-Moghaddam, K., & Fatemi, M. (2021). Analysing the individual entrepreneurial resilience of rural women. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 11(1), 241-254.
- Blanco Rada, C. P., & Park, B.-J. R. (2024). Achieving success in the retail industry: Key factors for female digital entrepreneurs. Journal of Technology Management Innovation, 19(3), 28-42.
- Bridges, D., Wulff, E., & Bamberry, L. (2023). Resilience for gender inclusion: Developing a model for women in male-dominated occupations. Gender, Work Organization, 30(1), 263-279.
- Bustamante-Mora, A., Diéguez-Rebolledo, M., Díaz-Arancibia, J., Sánchez-Vázquez, E., & Medina-Gómez, J. (2025). Inclusive Pedagogical Models in STEM: The Importance of Emotional Intelligence, Resilience, and Motivation with a Gender Perspective. Sustainability, 17(10), 4437.
- Carreiro, J. (2021). Gender role beliefs, household chores, and modern marriages. New England, United States: Antioch University.
- Clark-Saboda, J. L., & Lemke, M. (2023). Revisiting Acker’s gendered organizational theory: What women overcome to stay in the superintendency. Frontiers in Education, 8.
- Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications.
- de Carvalho, L. M. (2026). Ecofeminism and agroecological practices as resistance to structural violence and women’s empowerment in São Paulo, Brazil. Cities, 175, Article 107134.
- Deng, W., Liang, Q., Li, J., & Wang, W. (2021). Science mapping: A bibliometric analysis of female entrepreneurship studies. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 36(1), 61-86.
- Draper, C. E., Motlhatlhedi, M., Klingberg, S., Mabetha, K., Soepnel, L., Pentecost, M., Nkosi, N., Mabena, G., Barker, M., Lye, S. J., Norris, S. A., & Weller, S. (2025). Young women’s health behaviours in context: A qualitative longitudinal study in the Bukhali trial. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 12, Article 101622.
- Ghimire, D. M. (2024). The influence of culture on the entrepreneurial behavior of women: A review paper. The Nepalese Management Review, 20(1), 82-102.
- Gulsia, O., & Yadav, S. (2023). Conceptualizing network approaches for a successful farm entrepreneurship using ATLAS.ti®. Sustainable Technology and Entrepreneurship, 2(1), Article 100026.
- Gupta, A. (2024). Qualitative methods and data analysis using ATLAS.ti. Springer.
- Gyan, C., & Kwakye, J. (2025). Building resiliency in community development: The experiences of women in rural communities in Ghana. Social Inclusion, 13.
- Işık, C., Ongan, S., Günlü, E., Aydın, R., & İmamoğlu, İ. K. (2025). The role of women’s entrepreneurship, unemployment, global warming, and technology in sustainable development: Evidence from OECD countries. Sustainable Development, 33, 1059-1077.
- Kakeesh, D. F. (2024). Female entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial ecosystems. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 26(3), 485-526.
- Kapusniak, H. (2026). Founders vs. funders: Masculinity contests in Silicon Wadi. International Journal of Gender Entrepreneurship.
- Kovaleva, Y., Hyrynsalmi, S., Saltan, A., Happonen, A., & Kasurinen, J. (2023). Becoming an entrepreneur: A study of factors with women from the tech sector. Information and Software Technology, 155, Article 107110.
- Li, S., Peluso, A. M., & Duan, J. (2023). Why do we prefer humans to artificial intelligence in telemarketing? A mind perception explanation. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 70, Article 103139.
- Machado, D., Correia, A., Braga, A., Salamzadeh, A., & Braga, V. (2025). Business innovation and internationalisation in female-owned businesses: A fuzzy-set QCA approach. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 16, 16725-16753.
- Mari, M., Poggesi, S., Abatecola, G., & Essers, C. (2024). Women entrepreneurs and innovation: Retrospect and prospect. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 9(3), Article 100519.
- Mashapure, R., Brighton, N., Chikazhe, L., Msipa, N., Grace Kuda Portia, N., & Gwiza, A. (2022). Challenges hindering women entrepreneurship sustainability in rural livelihoods: Case of Manicaland province. Cogent Social Sciences, 8(1).
- Matharu, S. K., & Juneja, D. (2024). Factors impacting resilience of women entrepreneurs in India in the face of COVID-19. Vision, 28(4), 448-458.
- Memanova, T., & Catita, I. (2025). Catalyzing Women in STEM Entrepreneurship: Ecosystem Gaps and Pathways for Support in Central America and Ecuador. IBD Lab.
- Meoli, A., Piva, E., & Righi, H. (2024). Missing women in STEM occupations: The impact of university education on the gender gap in graduates’ transition to work. Research Policy, 53(8), Article 105072.
- Moro Visconti, R. (2020). The valuation of technological startups. SSRN Electronic Journal.
- Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Sage publications.
- Muhammad Tayyeb, S., & Paulet, E. (2025). Analysis of women’s social entrepreneurship in underdeveloped, emerging and developed economies: A multicultural exploratory study. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 19(4), 913-940.
- Nafees, S., Sujood, Siddiqui, S., & Hamid, S. (2025). Unveiling gender disparities in entrepreneurship: A systematic review on women entrepreneurs and inequality in India. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 20(3), 745-780.
- Nevi, G., Ancillai, C., Pascucci, F., & Palladino, R. (2025). Investigating female entrepreneurship: A micro-perspective of drivers and barriers for aspiring and experienced women entrepreneurs. International Entrepreneurship Management Journal, 21(1), Article 11.
- Paiva, T., Felgueira, T., Alves, C., Gomes, N., Salgado, S., & Salaberri, M. (2024). An education model to empower women in tech entrepreneurship. Frontiers in Education, 9.
- Paryavi, M., Campos, F., & Santos, I. (2025). Women don’t avoid competition, they avoid competing against men: Experimental evidence from Kenya. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 116, Article 102353.
- Prasanth, A., Densy, J. V., Surendran, P., & Bindhya, T. (2023). Role of artificial intelligence and business decision making. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science Applications, 14(6).
- Qiao, S., Fang, X., Wang, J., Zhang, R., Li, X., & Kang, Y. (2025). Generative AI for thematic analysis in a maternal health study: Coding semistructured interviews using large language models. Applied Psychology: Health Well-Being, 17(3), Article e70038.
- Rodriguez, J. K., & Guenther, E. A. (2022). Gendered organization theory. In D. D. Bergh (Ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management. New York: Oxford Academic.
- Sadraei, R. (2025). Role of networks in driving innovation and global growth: Enhancing women-led start-ups in the internationalisation arena. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship Innovation, 26(3), 239-250.
- Sánchez-Riofrío, A.-M., Faytong-Haro, M., Roa, O., & Valderrama-Álvarez, J. (2024). Enhancing women’s entrepreneurship in rural Ecuador: A study protocol aligned with the sustainable development goals. Economies, 12(9), Article 225.
- Sasiwongsaroj, K., Ono, M., Duangkaew, S., & Kimura, Y. (2024). Emic and etic perspectives in transnational migration research: Methodological reflections of a cross-national research team. Qualitative Research Journal, 24(2), 194-204.
- Shafique, K. (2022). Addressing community participation barriers using emic-etic perspectives. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 81, Article 103270.
- Singh, P., Tabe, T., & Martin, T. (2022). The role of women in community resilience to climate change: A case study of an Indigenous Fijian community. Women’s Studies International Forum, 90.
- Suseno, Y., & Abbott, L. (2021). Women entrepreneurs’ digital social innovation: Linking gender, entrepreneurship, social innovation and information systems. Information Systems Journal, 31(5), 717-744.
- Tabassum, N., & Nayak, B. S. (2021). Gender stereotypes and their impact on women’s career progressions from a managerial perspective. IIM Kozhikode Society Management Review, 10(2), 192-208.
- Thelma, C. C., & Ngulube, L. (2024). Women in leadership: Examining barriers to women’s advancement in leadership positions. Asian Journal of Advanced Research Reports, 18(6), 273-290.
- Tracy, S. J. (2024). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. John Wiley & Sons.
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2020). Human Subject Regulations Decision Charts: 2018 Requirements.
- Vettik-Leemet, P., & Mets, T. (2024). Entrepreneurship and innovation – Process overlap or the same? Systematic overview and converging process-dynamic model. Administrative Sciences, 14(2), Article 38.
- Voss, J., Butz, B., & Ettl, K. (2025). What’s driving them? A qualitative approach to explore women entrepreneurs’ motivations in STEM. International Journal of Gender Entrepreneurship, 17(2), 215-244.
- Wang, R., & Chebo, A. K. (2021). The dynamics of business model innovation for technology entrepreneurship: A systematic review and future avenue. Sage Open, 11(3).
- Wang, X., Wu, L., & Hitt, L. M. (2024). Social media alleviates venture capital funding inequality for women and less connected entrepreneurs. Management Science, 70(2), 1093-1112.
- Williams, M. J., & Syddall, V. (2022). Women, fisheries technology and development: Toward new research approaches. Gender, Technology Development, 26(3), 357-384.
- Woods, P., & Sikes, P. (2022). Successful writing for qualitative researchers. Routledge.
- Zajko, M. (2021). Conservative AI and social inequality: conceptualizing alternatives to bias through social theory. AI & Society, 36(3), 1047-1056.
-
From knowledge creation to commercialization performance: Non-linear effects on green and digital energy start-ups
Milena Kirilova Filipova ,
Olha Рrokopenko ,
Petra Krišková ,
Dmytro Halynskyi
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/kpm.10(2).2026.08
Knowledge and Performance Management Volume 10, 2026 Issue #2 pp. 122-142 Views: 159 Downloads: 51 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯType of the article: Research Article
The conversion of knowledge into organizational and market performance is a central challenge for innovation-driven economies. This study examines how innovation activity and its commercialization shape the entrepreneurial performance of knowledge ecosystems, using green and digital energy start-ups as an empirical context. The aim is to investigate the non-linear relationships among knowledge creation, knowledge commercialization, and start-up development, with particular attention to whether mismatches between innovation activity and market uptake generate diminishing returns or imitation-driven entrepreneurial dynamics. The analysis is based on a balanced panel of 37 countries over the period 2018–2023, comprising 222 country-year observations. The methodology applies TWFE with DK standard errors, complemented by quadratic specifications, turning-point analysis, and lagged models. The findings reveal an inverted U-shaped relationship between innovation commercialization and start-up activity, confirmed by negative, significant squared terms for sales of new-to-market and new-to-firm innovations in green start-ups (β2 = −0.1588) and digital start-ups (β2 = −0.1462), with turning points at 0.1428 and 0.0021, respectively. Funding dynamics demonstrate threshold effects: product innovation has a U-shaped relationship with early-stage digital funding (β2 = 2.0630), while process innovation strengthens later-stage funding for green (β2 = 1.8100) and digital start-ups (β2 = 1.8434). The knowledge commercialization gap positively affects digital start-ups (β = 0.1111), suggesting that uncommercialized knowledge may stimulate market entry. Lagged results confirm temporal effects, with past innovation commercialization reducing digital start-up activity (β = −0.2483). Knowledge creation alone does not ensure performance growth; sustainable start-up development requires effective knowledge-to-market conversion.
