Purpose -This article investigates how rural entrepreneurship engages with place and space.It explores the concept of "rural" as a socio-spatial concept in rural entrepreneurship, and illustrates the importance of distinguishing between ideal types of rural entrepreneurship. Design/methodology/approach -The article uses concepts from human geography to develop two ideal types of entrepreneurship in rural areas. Ideal types constitute powerful heuristics for research and are used here to connect and review existing literature on rural entrepreneurship and rural development as well as to develop new research avenue and questions.Findings -Two ideal types are developed (i) entrepreneurship in the rural and (ii) rural entrepreneurship. The former represents entrepreneurial activities that have limited embeddedness and enact a profit-oriented and mobile logic of space. The latter represents entrepreneurial activities that leverage local resources to re-connect place to space. While both types contribute to local development, the latter holds the potential for an optimized use of the resources in the rural area, and these ventures are unlikely to relocate even if economic rationality would suggest it.Research limitations/implications -The conceptual distinction allows for engaging more deeply with the diversity of entrepreneurial activities in rural areas. It increases our understanding of entrepreneurial processes and their impact on local economic development.Originality/value -This study contributes to the understanding of the localized processes of entrepreneurship and how these processes are enabled and constrained by the immediate context or "place". The paper weaves space and place in order to show the importance of context for entrepreneurship, which responds to the recent calls for contextualizing entrepreneurship research and theories. In addition ideal types can be a useful device for further research and serve as a platform for developing rural policy.

No abstract

Adopting the perspective of ‘entrepreneurship as an everyday practice’ in education, the authors conceptualize opportunities as arising from the everyday practice of individuals. Opportunities are thus seen as emanating from the individual entrepreneur's ability to disclose anomalies and disharmonies in their personal life. The paper illustrates how opportunities unfold depending on regional differences, local heritage and gender, to show how entrepreneurship education must take into account differences in context, culture and circumstance. Rather than perceiving entrepreneurship education as universalistic and searching for a generally applicable teaching approach, the authors argue that there is a need to tailor entrepreneurship education to the particular. They therefore propose that the pedagogy of entrepreneurship education should be personalized and they build a conceptual framework that contrasts two opposing views of entrepreneurship education: ‘universalistic’ and ‘idiosyncratic’. Following this distinction, they explore how different elements of entrepreneurship education may be fitted to the particular needs of each individual learner. This insight is relevant for didactic reflections on single entrepreneurship courses and for the construction of an entrepreneurship education curriculum.

No abstract

Balancing dual missions for social venture growth: