• 1. What characteristics define the most frequent leadership models among rural women according to the academic literature?

• 2. What social, cultural, or institutional factors have facilitated the emergence of women’s leadership in rural areas?

• 3. What barriers have limited the recognition or effective participation of rural women in community or political leadership spaces?

• 4. What impacts have been documented in communities where rural women hold active leadership roles?

• 5. What approaches or programs have been implemented to strengthen leadership capacities in rural women?

The selection of studies for the review was based on eligibility criteria designed to ensure relevance, quality, and coherence with the research objectives. The inclusion criteria encompassed peer-reviewed articles published between 2015 and 2025, written in English or Spanish, that addressed entrepreneurial education, women’s entrepreneurship, leadership, and cultural barriers. The study incorporated a range of research methodologies, including qualitative, quantitative, and systematic review approaches, with the overarching objective of presenting empirical or theoretical evidence on women’s participation in entrepreneurial training, rural leadership, or social transformation. The selection prioritised studies analysing the relationships among education, culture, and gender in local development contexts, with a particular focus on Latin America, Africa, and Asia, to identify global patterns and regional specificities. The parameters for the literature search and evaluation were established to ensure the validity and traceability of the results.

It is important to note that only studies from academic databases recognised for their rigour and scientific visibility were included. This ensured the reliability of the evidence used. The selected documents addressed the phenomenon from social, cultural, and institutional perspectives, supported by consistent theoretical frameworks and verifiable methodologies. A range of studies exploring the intersection of gender, education and economic development were also considered, with a particular emphasis on how cultural factors influence leadership and entrepreneurship opportunities for rural women. The exclusion process was executed in three successive phases.

In the initial phase of the study, articles containing indexing errors or duplicate records were eliminated. In the second instance, those without full-text access were excluded because their methodological content could not be analysed. In the third study, an exclusion criterion was applied. This criterion was based on thematic relevance, theoretical depth, and the absence of novel contributions compared to other studies. The implementation of these methodologies resulted in a comprehensive, high-quality set of studies, thereby ensuring a robust methodological foundation for analysing cultural barriers and transformative factors in women’s entrepreneurial education across diverse global regions.

The systematic review was based on two highly visible and internationally recognised academic databases: Scopus and Web of Science. The selection of these platforms was based on their thematic and geographic coverage, as well as their relevance to scientific production in the areas of social sciences, education, and business studies. It is important to note that both databases are regarded as benchmarks for evaluating scientific knowledge. In addition, they provide access to publications that have been peer-reviewed. This ensures the reliability, traceability and consistency of the retrieved information. The amalgamation of these two sources enhanced the representativeness of the included studies, thereby mitigating biases that might have arisen from editorial bias. This approach ensured a more comprehensive coverage of regions and disciplines (Asubiaro, Onaolapo, & Mills, 2024). The search was conducted between January and September 2025, incorporating original articles, systematic reviews, and academic chapters that contributed empirical or theoretical evidence on women’s entrepreneurial education, rural leadership, and cultural barriers.

The process entailed a comprehensive review of the available records in each database, with pre-established inclusion and exclusion criteria being applied to ensure consistency and methodological rigour. Scopus and Web of Science both offer comprehensive metadata, including authorship, year of publication, country, institutional affiliation, subject area, number of citations, and document type. These elements enabled the organisation and classification of results according to scientific and geographical variables. This configuration enabled the refinement of records and the identification of emerging trends in literature. Publications in journals ranked in the Q1 and Q2 quartiles of the Scimago Journal Rank (SJR) were prioritised, thereby ensuring the selection of high-impact studies demonstrating methodological quality. The search was complemented by a manual search in Google Scholar, aimed at locating grey literature and recent works on rural women’s leadership and cultural transformation.

A specific search formula was established for each database, formulated in accordance with the inclusion criteria and the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. The search strategy was designed to capture the core focus of the review: entrepreneurship education and women’s participation. Consequently, the main search of the databases focused on terms directly related to entrepreneurship education and gender. In Scopus, the search formula used was TITLE (“entrepreneurial education” OR “entrepreneurship education”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“women” OR “female”), whilst in Web of Science, the equivalent structure was TS=(“entrepreneurial education” OR “entrepreneurship education”) AND TS=(“women” OR “female”). This strategy was chosen to ensure thematic accuracy and to avoid retrieving an excessively broad corpus of studies on entrepreneurship, leadership, rural development or empowerment that were not directly related to entrepreneurship education.

Whilst concepts such as culture, leadership, empowerment, rural development and social transformation were not treated as separate search blocks in the main database queries, they were incorporated through the eligibility criteria, full-text review, supplementary manual searches and thematic coding. Specifically, studies were retained that addressed women’s entrepreneurship education in relation to cultural barriers, gender stereotypes, leadership dynamics, empowerment processes, rural or community development, institutional constraints or social transformation. Supplementary manual searches and reference checking were also used to identify relevant studies linking entrepreneurship education to these broader sociocultural dimensions.

This approach enabled the review to maintain a focused search strategy, whilst incorporating the broader analytical dimensions necessary to answer the research questions. In this way, culture, leadership and empowerment were operationalised not only as search-related concepts, but also as eligibility and coding categories used to refine the final corpus and guide the qualitative synthesis. This procedure strengthened the coherence between the search protocol, the selection process and the thematic structure of the findings.

The selection of studies was carried out in three consecutive stages, following a systematic procedure designed to guarantee the relevance and quality of the final corpus. In the initial phase, the titles and abstracts were reviewed to ensure thematic consistency and remove redundancies across the various databases. In the subsequent stage, the complete texts of the selected articles from the first stage were analysed. The methodological consistency and coherence of these articles with the defined inclusion criteria were assessed. In the third stage, the final selection was made based on the theoretical relevance and scientific rigour of each document. The review process was overseen by two researchers, who conducted independent reviews of each record to minimise bias. Disagreements were resolved through consensus. The entire procedure is shown in Figure 1, which corresponds to the PRISMA 2020 flowchart.

A total of 842 records were identified from the Scopus (472) and Web of Science (370) databases. A further 18 records were incorporated into the study through a manual search of Google Scholar and a review of bibliographic references. During the preliminary data cleansing stage, 112 duplicate records were removed, leaving 748 unique studies for review. In the screening phase, titles and abstracts were examined, and 421 articles were excluded for lack of relevance to women’s entrepreneurial education, leadership, or cultural barriers. In the eligibility phase, 327 full texts were analysed, and 198 were excluded for not meeting the inclusion criteria, either due to indexing errors, restricted access, or a lack of focus on rural women’s leadership. In the final analysis, 129 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis, and 45 articles were included in the detailed analysis of results. The complete process is shown in Figure 1, which corresponds to the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram.

To enhance the transparency and rigour of the review process, the quality of the included studies was assessed. Given the methodological diversity of the body of research, which included quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods, conceptual, review-based and policy-oriented studies, a tailored quality assessment checklist was developed, based on principles widely used to assess methodological clarity, consistency and transparency in evidence synthesis.

Each study was assessed according to five criteria: (1) clarity of the research objective; (2) appropriateness of the methodological or conceptual design; (3) suitability of the data collection process, sample, corpus or information sources; (4) consistency between the analytical procedure and the findings or conclusions; and (5) transparency in the presentation of limitations and conclusions. Each criterion was scored as 1 for full compliance, 0.5 for partial compliance, and 0 for noncompliance or insufficient reporting. The maximum possible score was 5 points (see Table 1).

Based on the total score, studies were classified into three levels of reliability: high reliability (4.0-5.0), medium reliability (3.0-3.5), and low reliability (<3.0). The assessment was not used as an exclusion criterion, but rather as a tool to evaluate the strength of the evidence and to distinguish between primary empirical evidence and complementary conceptual or contextual support. Discrepancies in classification were discussed amongst the researchers and resolved by consensus.

For conceptual, pedagogical or policy studies, the assessment focused on the clarity of the argument, the relevance of the sources used, the consistency between the literature reviewed and the proposed framework, and the transparency regarding limitations. This flexible procedure allowed the assessment to be comparable across different types of documents, whilst respecting their methodological specificities.

Microsoft Excel was utilised as the primary tool for systematically documenting, organising, and structuring the data obtained during the review process. This approach ensured the implementation of a structured procedure that facilitated the traceability of the analytical process. The data were coded using precise variables, including author, year of publication, country, type of study, methodological approach, main results, and identified barriers, which enabled consistent classification and control of the consulted sources. The information was organised into pivot tables that facilitated comparative analysis and the generation of descriptive graphs to visualise trends. The findings were grouped into four thematic areas, namely cultural barriers, transformation strategies, entrepreneurial education, and women’s leadership, which facilitated the identification of recurring patterns, knowledge gaps, and emerging lines of research related to women’s participation in entrepreneurship and rural leadership processes.

Coding and thematic synthesis followed a combined deductive and inductive procedure. Firstly, an initial coding matrix was developed based on the research questions and the main analytical dimensions of the review: leadership models, socio-cultural enabling factors, structural and symbolic barriers, community impacts, and capacity-building programmes. Secondly, the full texts of the selected studies were reviewed to identify recurring concepts, patterns and findings relating to women’s entrepreneurship education. During this stage, additional sub-themes emerged inductively from the evidence, including role models, self-efficacy, institutional constraints, gender stereotypes, empowerment, community resilience and inclusive educational strategies.

To improve consistency, the coding categories were reviewed and refined iteratively throughout the analysis. The coding process was validated by two researchers. Disagreements regarding the classification of studies or the assignment of themes were discussed and resolved by consensus. This procedure ensured consistency between the research questions, the thematic categories and the interpretation of the findings.

The frequencies presented in Figures 2 to 6 were calculated using the study as the unit of analysis. Each study was coded according to the presence or absence of each theme. A single study could be assigned to more than one category when it addressed multiple relevant dimensions. Therefore, the frequencies represent the number of studies in which each theme was identified, rather than the number of textual mentions within the articles.

To ensure reproducibility, each study was recorded in a coding matrix that included bibliographic information, country or context, study design, population or sample, methodological approach, main findings and thematic codes. Each thematic code was operationally defined prior to final classification. For example, ‘structural and symbolic barriers’ included evidence relating to institutional constraints, gender stereotypes, patriarchal norms, educational inequality or limited access to resources, whilst ‘sociocultural facilitating factors’ included evidence relating to role models, family or community support, gender-sensitive policies and empowerment strategies. The final themes were consolidated by merging overlapping codes and retaining those that recurred across the reviewed studies and aligned directly with the research questions.

Although specialised qualitative data analysis software such as ATLAS.ti or NVivo is commonly recommended for coding and thematic synthesis in systematic literature reviews, the present study adopted a structured manual coding approach supported by spreadsheet-based tools. Specifically, pivot tables were used not only for data organisation but also to facilitate systematic categorisation, comparison across studies, and the identification of thematic patterns.

To enhance transparency and replicability, the coding process followed a predefined analytical matrix. Each study was reviewed and coded according to bibliographic information, methodological approach, context, main themes, identified barriers, transformation strategies, leadership dimensions, and key findings. The coding categories were initially defined based on the research questions and were refined iteratively during the review process. Two researchers participated in validating the coding structure, and disagreements were resolved through discussion and consensus. Therefore, although specialised software such as ATLAS.ti or NVivo might have facilitated the management of qualitative data, the structured, spreadsheet-based approach proved appropriate for the objectives of this review, which focused on the systematic comparison of published studies rather than the analysis of primary qualitative interviews or raw textual data.

This approach ensured analytical rigour by applying predefined coding criteria, consistent classification procedures, and iterative validation of categories throughout the review process. Moreover, the use of spreadsheet-based analysis enabled transparent data handling, traceability of coding decisions, and reproducibility of results, as all transformations and categorisations were explicitly documented.

It is important to note that previous systematic reviews have successfully employed similar approaches when dealing with structured bibliographic data, particularly in studies focused on thematic classification and comparative analysis. Therefore, while advanced qualitative software may enhance analytical depth in certain contexts, the selected methodology is appropriate for this study's objectives and ensures sufficient rigour, transparency, and replicability.

The risk of bias was assessed by identifying methodological limitations and potential publication biases in the selected studies. This was achieved by considering transparency of procedures, diversity of sources, geographical balance, and clarity of result presentation. This process enabled the determination of the level of reliability of the analysed evidence. The process incorporated a qualitative evaluation criterion to assess the methodological and theoretical quality of the articles, classifying them as high, medium, or low in reliability based on consistency and analytical rigour. The potential biases arising from the use of specific databases, the selection of keywords, and limitations in the reporting of results were also identified, as these factors can affect the representativeness of the final corpus. The results are summarised in Figure 1, corresponding to the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram.

The analysis of the results indicates that women’s leadership is characterised by a foundation in collaborative, transformational, and inclusive approaches that promote active participation and empowerment in educational and social contexts. This leadership programme has been shown to enhance critical thinking skills, encourage innovation, and foster self-management, all of which are vital to reducing the structural inequalities that persist in the entrepreneurial sphere. In accordance with extant research, entrepreneurial education has been demonstrated to promote gender equality and critical thinking in decision-making (Medina-Vidal et al., 2023), in addition to fostering the development of innovative capacities in culturally diverse environments (Li et al., 2021).

The analysis of the results indicates that sociocultural factors play a pivotal role in women’s entrepreneurial education, promoting empowerment, training, and social support as fundamental elements for enhancing women’s participation. The provision of entrepreneurial education has been demonstrated to engender heightened self-confidence and to foster gender equality through the facilitation of inclusive and collaborative learning environments. These results align with research demonstrating the positive influence of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intent and the creation of initiatives with social impact (Lan et al., 2023), as well as on the adoption of sustainable and equitable practices (Makuya & Changalima, 2024).

The analysis of the results indicates that the primary constraints on women’s engagement in entrepreneurship education are rooted in institutional barriers, educational disparities, and cultural stereotypes that impede access and innovation. The findings of this study demonstrate that social structures and patriarchal norms perpetuate gender disparities in education and leadership. In accordance with recent studies, entrepreneurship education requires the implementation of diversified strategies and inclusive policies with the aim of overcoming structural biases and strengthening women’s self-efficacy (Sun et al., 2025; Wang et al., 2023). Such measures are considered to be conducive to the promotion of equitable and sustainable educational environments.

The analysis of the results indicates that the provision of education in entrepreneurship for female members of the community has a significant impact on the community as a whole, with the effects of this being the strengthening of self-efficacy, economic empowerment, and collective resilience. The aforementioned effects are reflected in local growth, academic inclusion, and the establishment of social support networks. The findings align with research demonstrating that entrepreneurship education promotes economic and social well-being in vulnerable communities (Tingey et al., 2020) and fosters the development of sustainable entrepreneurial intentions in students through university education and role models (Amofah & Saladrigues, 2022), consolidating equitable and participatory ecosystems.

The analysis of the results indicates that programmes and approaches for the enhancement of entrepreneurship education for women prioritise the incorporation of a gender perspective, inclusive policies, and experiential learning. These strategies have been shown to encourage women’s participation, strengthen their self-confidence, and promote practical training in academic and business contexts. The findings align with research showing that entrepreneurial education increases entrepreneurial intention, especially among women and students from urban areas (Deng & Wang, 2023), and strengthens self-efficacy as a determining factor in the decision to become entrepreneurs (Ye & Kang, 2025), thus consolidating equitable and transformative educational environments.

The present study corroborates earlier research by underscoring the impact of structural, symbolic, and community factors on the evolution of female leadership. Moreover, it extends the existing discourse by incorporating entrepreneurial education as a transformative component of social and economic advancement. In contrast to the findings of Wulandari and Ahmad (2025), who emphasised digital and technological access disparities, this analysis focuses on institutional and cultural impediments. In contrast to the focus of Aljohani and Alharbi (2025) on financial self-efficacy, this study emphasises collaborative learning and educational equity. Moreover, it builds upon the contributions of Djatmiko et al. (2025) on digital inclusion by underscoring the pivotal role of social support and community networks in women’s empowerment. In contrast to the analysis of technological innovation by Nazir et al. (2025), this study prioritises education and cultural transformation as cornerstones of sustainability. In accordance with the findings of Deng et al. (2025), it acknowledges the significance of perceived capabilities and gender equity, incorporating a comprehensive educational dimension that links self-efficacy with community leadership.

As illustrated in Figure 7, the proposed conceptual model integrates the determining factors of women’s entrepreneurial education. The framework under discussion articulates the structural, symbolic, sociocultural, and empowerment dimensions, reflecting their interaction in shaping women’s leadership. Entrepreneurial education is presented as a mediating force that transforms institutional and cultural barriers into opportunities for empowerment, equity, and sustainability, driving a continuous process of social transformation based on training, innovation, and community collaboration.

Building upon the systematic literature review, this study proposes a set of conceptual propositions that articulate the relationships between the key dimensions identified in female entrepreneurial education. These propositions are grounded in the qualitative synthesis of prior research and aim to provide a structured theoretical basis for the proposed conceptual framework. The conceptual framework is complemented by a set of propositions (P1–P5), which are visually represented in the model to illustrate the relationships between the identified dimensions.

These propositions clarify the conceptual logic of the proposed framework and show how the dimensions identified in the systematic review are interrelated. They also provide a theoretical basis for future empirical studies that may analyze the relationships among cultural barriers, women’s perceptions, educational strategies, institutional support, and empowerment outcomes.

4.4.1 Theoretical Implications

This study contributes to the literature on entrepreneurial education by addressing critical gaps in the understanding of cultural, gender, and institutional barriers that shape women’s entrepreneurial intentions. Previous research has often focused on individual psychological factors or institutional constraints in isolation, but this study integrates these elements into a unified framework. The findings extend the Theory of Planned Behavior by emphasizing the role of cultural and gendered social norms in mediating the influence of entrepreneurial education on women’s intentions. Furthermore, this research contributes to the growing body of literature on gender and entrepreneurship, highlighting how education can serve as a transformative force to challenge entrenched cultural biases and promote gender equality in entrepreneurial ecosystems.

4.4.2 Methodological Implications

From a methodological perspective, this study introduces a novel approach to the analysis of entrepreneurial education by combining qualitative data synthesis with a conceptual framework that integrates cultural and gender-related factors. The use of structured thematic coding, despite not relying on specialised software, ensured transparency, replicability, and rigorous analysis. This study demonstrates that manual coding combined with systematic pivot table analysis is a valid methodological approach for mapping complex educational phenomena, and can be replicated in other contexts, particularly in studies involving gender-sensitive education. Additionally, integrating cultural perspectives into the study of entrepreneurship education offers a valuable methodological tool for researchers interested in exploring the intersection of education, culture, and gender.

4.4.3 Practical Implications

The practical implications of this study are significant for educational policymakers, institutions, and practitioners aiming to foster more inclusive entrepreneurial ecosystems. The findings suggest that women’s participation in entrepreneurial education can be enhanced through gender-sensitive curricula and inclusive policies that address both institutional and cultural barriers. This study also highlights the importance of integrating collaborative learning, experiential education, and social support networks into entrepreneurial programs. These insights provide actionable recommendations for universities, particularly in regions with significant gender disparities, to create educational environments that empower women and equip them with the skills and confidence necessary for entrepreneurial success. Furthermore, the findings underscore the need for institutional reforms that promote gender equity and cultural transformation, offering valuable guidance for stakeholders in both the educational and entrepreneurial sectors.

While this study makes significant contributions to understanding women’s entrepreneurial education, several limitations warrant consideration. First, the study’s focus on university students limits the generalizability of its findings to broader populations, particularly to early-stage entrepreneurial ventures or to individuals with prior entrepreneurial experience. Future research could address this gap by including participants from various entrepreneurial stages, such as nascent entrepreneurs or women leading established businesses, to provide a more comprehensive view of the factors influencing entrepreneurial intentions.

Second, while this study examines cultural and gender barriers, it does not fully explore their intersection with other dimensions, such as socioeconomic status, ethnic background, or geographic location. Future studies could integrate these additional variables to examine how multiple social identities shape women’s engagement in entrepreneurial education and practice. The inclusion of diverse populations could help uncover more nuanced insights into the structural challenges faced by different groups of women in entrepreneurial contexts.

Third, although the study employs a robust methodological approach, it relies on self-reported data, which can be subject to biases such as social desirability or respondent interpretation. Future research could complement these findings with mixed-methods approaches, such as qualitative interviews or ethnographic studies, to deepen understanding of women’s lived experiences in entrepreneurial education. This would allow for more in-depth insights into how women navigate educational environments and overcome barriers in practice.

Another limitation lies in the heterogeneity of the studies reviewed. Whilst the manuscript places particular emphasis on rural women and rural leadership, not all of the included studies were conducted in rural contexts. Several articles focused on university students, entrepreneurship training programmes or entrepreneurial intentions in non-rural settings. Consequently, conclusions regarding rural contexts should be interpreted with caution. Future research should include a greater number of studies focusing directly on rural women entrepreneurs, rural leadership and territorial development in Latin America and other underserved regions.

Finally, while the study identifies several strategies for enhancing women’s entrepreneurial education, it does not evaluate the effectiveness of these interventions in real-world settings. Future work could involve longitudinal studies or pilot programs to assess the impact of gender-sensitive and culturally inclusive entrepreneurial education programs on women’s entrepreneurial outcomes. By implementing and evaluating these interventions, researchers can gain a better understanding of how educational reforms can lead to lasting changes in women’s entrepreneurial participation and success.

This study is based on source records retrieved from the Scopus and Web of Science databases, together with screening logs, data extraction tables, and PRISMA documentation generated throughout the review process. These materials support the identification, selection, and synthesis of the studies included in the analysis and ensure transparency in each methodological stage, from the initial search to the final thematic interpretation.

The source records from Scopus and Web of Science are subject to database licensing and copyright restrictions and therefore cannot be considered fully open or reusable datasets under an open license. Although these records were cleaned, coded, and analyzed by the authors, their original source remains protected by the terms of use of the respective databases. For this reason, the full datasets cannot be redistributed freely but are shared exclusively for transparency and verification purposes.

No individual, sensitive, or personal data were collected at any stage of this research, and the study did not involve human participants, interventions, or clinical data. Consequently, ethical approval or review by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) or equivalent ethics committee was not required. All procedures were conducted in accordance with international standards for research integrity and responsible data management.

Aggregated screening counts, the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram, and the completed PRISMA 2020 checklist are publicly available in the Zenodo repository at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18625254 (Valencia-Arias et al., 2025). Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

The authors gratefully acknowledge the funding and support provided by PROCIENCIA for this project. This work was funded by CONCYTEC through the PROCIENCIA program under the call ‘E041-2024-04’, according to Contract No. PE501089002-2024.

•  Abd El Basset F, Bell R, Al Kharusi B: Reducing barriers to female entrepreneurship in Oman: does family matter?. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy. 2024; 18(6): 1241–1260.
•  Ahmed H, Bajwa SU, Nasir S, et al.: Digital empowerment: Exploring the role of digitalization in enhancing opportunities for women entrepreneurs. J. Knowl. Econ. 2025; 1–32.
•  Aljohani HS, Alharbi KM: Investigating the Entrepreneurial and Accounting Factors Influencing Saudi Female Students’ Entrepreneurial Intentions. Sustainability. 2025; 17(8): 3398.
•  Amofah K, Saladrigues R: Impact of attitude towards entrepreneurship education and role models on entrepreneurial intention. J. Innov. Entrep. 2022; 11(1): 36.
•  Asubiaro T, Onaolapo S, Mills D: Regional disparities in Web of Science and Scopus journal coverage. Scientometrics. 2024; 129(3): 1469–1491. Publisher Full Text
•  Atienza-Barba M, del Brío-González J , Mitre-Aranda M, et al.: Gender differences in the impact of ecological awareness on entrepreneurial intent. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. 2025; 21(1): 79. Publisher Full Text
•  Bahaw P, Stephens A, Mack A: Gender-sensitive vocational and entrepreneurship education: addressing poverty for Caribbean women. Discover Global Society. 2025; 3(1): 24.
•  Barba-Sánchez V, Atienza-Sahuquillo C: Entrepreneurial intention among engineering students: The role of entrepreneurship education. European Research on Management and Business Economics. 2018; 24(1): 53–61. Publisher Full Text
•  Berggren C: Entrepreneurship education for women—European policy examples of neoliberal feminism?. Eur. Educ. 2020; 52(4): 312–323.
•  Bjorvatn K, Cappelen AW, Sekei LH, et al.: Teaching through television: Experimental evidence on entrepreneurship education in Tanzania. Manag. Sci. 2020; 66(6): 2308–2325.
•  Bullock C, Richard T, Muldoon J: The Development of Inclusive Agriculture Entrepreneurship Education Ecosystems for Young Entrepreneurs in Uganda. J. Small Bus. Strateg. 2025; 35(3): 1–13.
•  Cardella G, Barba-Sánchez V, Meseguer-Martinez Á, et al.: Analyzing university students’ entrepreneurial intentions under the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. 2024; 20(4): 2567–2590. Publisher Full Text
•  Christodoulou I, Haj Youssef M, Wasim J, et al.: Breaking barriers: unveiling motivations, challenges and policy recommendations for women’s entrepreneurship in Vietnam. J. Asia Bus. Stud. 2024; 18(6): 1541–1566.
•  Deng W, Wang J: The effect of entrepreneurship education on the entrepreneurial intention of different college students: Gender, household registration, school type, and poverty status. PloS one. 2023; 18(7): e0288825. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
•  Deng W, Liang Q, Wang W, et al.: How psychological perceptions and family dynamics shape necessity-and opportunity-based female entrepreneurship: the role of gender equality. Multinatl. Bus. Rev. 2025; 33(1): 170–197.
•  Djatmiko GH, Sinaga O, Pawirosumarto S: Digital transformation and social inclusion in public services: A qualitative analysis of e-government adoption for marginalized communities in sustainable governance. Sustainability. 2025; 17(7): 2908.
•  Guelich U: Gendered Entrepreneurship Education and the Fear of Failure. Int. J. Instr. 2022; 15(3): 719–732.
•  Ilieș GL, Mureșan IC, Arion ID, et al.: The Influence of Economic and Entrepreneurial Education on Perception and Attitudes towards Entrepreneurship. Administrative Sciences. 2023; 13(10): 212.
•  Lan ANT, Lam BQ, Nguyen AQD, et al.: Gender roles in entrepreneurship education to social entrepreneurial intentions in Vietnam. Journal of Eastern European and Central Asian Research (JEECAR). 2023; 10(5): 773–787.
•  Li C, Hu R: How does entrepreneurial curiosity stimulate new venture ideas among Chinese undergraduates? The mediating role of promotion focus and the moderating role of entrepreneurial education. BMC Psychol. 2025; 13(1): 442. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
•  Li M, Wang T, Wu Y: Impact of innovation and entrepreneurship education in a university under personality psychology education concept on talent training and cultural diversity of new entrepreneurs. Front. Psychol. 2021; 12: 696987.
•  Liu Q, An X, Chen W: College students’ entrepreneurship education path and management strategy of start-up enterprises using causal attribution theory. Sci. Rep. 2025; 15(1): 2706. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
•  Makuya V, Changalima IA: Unveiling the role of entrepreneurship education on green entrepreneurial intentions among business students: gender as a moderator. Cogent Education. 2024; 11(1): 2334585.
•  Medina-Vidal A, Buenestado-Fernández M, Molina-Espinosa JM: Financial literacy as a key to entrepreneurship education: a multi-case study exploring diversity and inclusion. Soc. Sci. 2023; 12(11): 626.
•  Miralam MS, Qazi S, Ali IS, et al.: Exploring the Factors Influencing Women Entrepreneurship in Saudi Arabia: A Strategic Plan for Sustainable Entrepreneurial Growth. Sustainability. 2025; 17(3): 1221.
•  Miran B, Gültekin S: Investigating the effects of the challenges faced by women entrepreneurs on their entrepreneurial capabilities and developing effective entrepreneurship strategies. J. Glob. Entrep. Res. 2024; 14(1): 32.
•  Muñoz RM, Salinero Y, Peña I, et al.: Entrepreneurship education and disability: An experience at a Spanish University. Administrative Sciences. 2019; 9(2): 34.
•  Naguib R: Motivations and barriers to female entrepreneurship: Insights from Morocco. J. Afr. Bus. 2024; 25(1): 9–36.
•  Nazir MA, Roomi MA, Khan MR: Entrepreneurial firms in the crypto era: adoption trajectories and innovation dynamics. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 2025; 32(8): 18–53.
•  Nevi G, Ancillai C, Pascucci F, et al.: Investigating female entrepreneurship: a micro-perspective of drivers and barriers for aspiring and experienced women entrepreneurs. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2025; 21(1): 11.
•  Oppedisano J, Laird K: Role modeling as a pedagogical strategy in entrepreneurship education for women and girls: an interactive model of transformational learning. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship. 2006; 9(2): 35–49.
•  Pacheco MADLP, Torres J, Cantillo Padron JC, et al.: Analyzing the role of gender in entrepreneurship education and economic success in developing nations: the case of Colombia. Cogent Economics & Finance. 2025; 13(1): 2457476.
•  Padi A, Dzisi PS, Eshun PJF: Entrepreneurship education in TVET institutions and entrepreneurial intentions of female students in Ghana: the social support factor. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2022; 9(1): 2137954.
•  Padilla-Angulo L, García-Cabrera AM, Lucía-Casademunt AM, et al.: Unpacking Entrepreneurial Education: Learning Activities, Students’ Gender, and Attitude Toward Entrepreneurship. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 2022; 21(4): 532–560.
•  Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al.: The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; 372. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
•  Passarelli M, Bongiorno G:Is it the time to reshape entrepreneurship education? State-of-the-art and further perspectives. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2025; 21(1): 61. Publisher Full Text
•  Pimpa N; Overcoming gender gaps in entrepreneurship education and training. Frontiers in Education. Frontiers Media SA; 2021, December; Vol. 6. : p. 774876.
•  Qu X, Cheng L, Cheng D, et al.: The re-integration of college innovation and entrepreneurship education under young entrepreneurs’ enterprising spirit and professional music education. Front. Psychol. 2022; 13: 892372.
•  Serpente G, Bolzani D, Grimaldi R:Entrepreneurial support organizations as providers of entrepreneurial education and training. J. Technol. Transf. 2025; 50(5): 2412–2442. Publisher Full Text
•  Sheena MS: 28 THE INFLUENCE OF SOCIAL AND CULTURAL FACTORS ON WOMEN’S ENTREPRENEURIAL VENTURES. TRANSDISCIPLINARY THREADS, 250.
•  Stoker S, Wakkee I, Khapova S: Educators and students in entrepreneurship education are challenging the “think entrepreneur–think male” paradigm. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2025; 31(8): 2114–2136.
•  Sun S, Zhang X, Zhao L, et al.: Evaluating the Role of Entrepreneurship Education in Shaping Female College Students’ Career Choices in China: A Multidimensional Analysis. Sustainability. 2025; 17(18): 8104.
•  Suratno S, Ekawarna E, Kusmana A: The analysis of the effect of entrepreneurship education, perceived desirability, and entrepreneurial self-efficacy on university students’ entrepreneurial intention. Univ. J. Educ. Res. 2019; 7(11).
•  Taskin S, Javed A, Kohda Y: Creating shared value in banking by offering entrepreneurship education to female entrepreneurs. Sustainability. 2023; 15(19): 14475.
•  Tingey L, Larzelere F, Goklish N, et al.: Entrepreneurial, economic, and social well-being outcomes from an RCT of a youth entrepreneurship education intervention among Native American adolescents. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2020; 17(7): 2383.
•  Valencia-Arias A, Gallegos A, Valencia J, et al.: PRISMA 2020 materials for: Cultural barriers in women’s entrepreneurial education. Zenodo. 2025. Publisher Full Text
•  Vodă AI, Florea N: Impact of personality traits and entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intentions of business and engineering students. Sustainability. 2019; 11(4): 1192.
•  Vukmirović V: Entrepreneurship education among university students as a predictor of female entrepreneurial undertakings. Journal of women’s entrepreneurship and education. 2019; 3-4: 86–102.
•  Wang XH, You X, Wang HP, et al.: The effect of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intention: Mediation of entrepreneurial self-efficacy and moderating model of psychological capital. Sustainability. 2023; 15(3): 2562.
•  Westhead P, Solesvik MZ: Entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intention: Do female students benefit?. Int. Small Bus. J. 2016; 34(8): 979–1003.
•  Wulandari WR, Ahmad N: The Influence of Women’s Leadership Policy on Challenges and Opportunities in the Digital Age. Journal of Human Rights, Culture and Legal System. 2025; 5(1): 124–157.
•  Xiang X, Wang J, Long Z, et al.: Improving the entrepreneurial competence of college social entrepreneurs: Digital government building, entrepreneurship education, and entrepreneurial cognition. Sustainability. 2022; 15(1): 69.
•  Xie Y, Wang S: Generative artificial intelligence in entrepreneurship education enhances entrepreneurial intention through self-efficacy and university support. Sci. Rep. 2025; 15(1): 24079. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
•  Xu J, Fu Y, Zhang X: Does entrepreneurship education in China develop entrepreneurial intention? the role of self-efficacy and experience. PloS one. 2023; 18(7): e0286090. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
•  Yang Y: Exploration and practice of maker education mode in innovation and entrepreneurship education. Front. Psychol. 2020; 11: 1626.
•  Ye ZM, Kang KW: The Impact of Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy and Entrepreneurship on Entrepreneurial Intention: Entrepreneurial Attitude as a Mediator and Entrepreneurship Education Having a Moderate Effect. Sustainability. 2025; 17(10): 4733.
•  Yi K, Wang X, Wu Y, et al.: Teacher-student empathic relationship shaping: an elimination mechanism for psychological segmentations in entrepreneurship education. BMC Psychol. 2025; 13(1): 292. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
•  Zhang Y, Duysters G, Cloodt M, et al.: The role of entrepreneurship education as a predictor of university students’ entrepreneurial intention. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2014; 10: 623–641.