Innovation and entrepreneurship only play a minor role in research on small and medium-sized towns (SMSTs). As crucial economic development dynamics, innovation and entrepreneurship are mostly associated with large cities (Mayer and Motoyama, 2020). Thus, as scholars and teachers, we are used to pointing to entrepreneurial hotspots like Silicon Valley, Boston and Stuttgart. We utilize theoretical models such as industrial clusters (Porter, 2000), regional innovation systems (Asheim et al., 2019) and entrepreneurial ecosystems (Spigel, 2020) without acknowledging or even recognizing that these conceptual models have been developed in the context of large cities or metropolitan areas. Yet, the large city context is quite different from that of an SMST. While the large city boasts a great number of firms, different types of economic actors such as support organizations, higher education and research organizations, research partners, etc., a medium-sized city or small-town may lack part or all of them. In addition, SMSTs differ in other characteristics necessary for innovation and entrepreneurship to flourish.Most studies of innovation and entrepreneurship in SMSTs make several problematic assumptions. First, there is an implicit 'urban bias' when studying the geography of innovation and entrepreneurship. Shearmur (2017) highlights this and argues that often innovation is identified from data that are urban-related and that dominant theories on innovation and how such dynamics unfold describe creative processes in the economy as an urban phenomenon. Others such as Mayer and Motoyama (2020) add that often the lived experiences of researchers studying entrepreneurial and innovative regions is quite urban and that the small or medium-sized town context is left out simply because we as researchers have not fully experienced the more