Why Research on Women Entrepreneurs Needs New Directions
ABSTRACT Research articles on women's entrepreneurship reveal, in spite of intentions to the contrary and in spite of inconclusive research results, a tendency to recreate the idea of women as being secondary to men and of women's businesses being of less significance or, at best, as being a complement. Based on a discourse analysis, this article discusses what research practices cause these results. It suggests new research directions that do not reproduce women's subordination but capture more and richer aspects of women's entrepreneurship.
- SourceAvailable from: Johann Packendorff[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In most developed economies there exist a clear gap between men and women in terms of prevalence of entrepreneurial activity. The gender gap can be traced back to the general perceptions of gender in society, where entrepreneurial venturing is culturally defined as a masculine activity. In this paper, we analyse how such gendered norms are brought into Triple Helix innovation system models, and identify roles and challenges of NGOs in the alternative conceptualization of Quadruple Helix. Based on an exploratory case study of a Quadruple Helix innovation system project in the tourism industry, we find that NGOs may fill four roles in bridging the gender gap: (1) collaborative platforms for women-led SMEs, (2) legitimating and linking women-led SMEs to governmental and academic actors, (3) developing competences and process innovations related to entrepreneurial venturing outside traditional Triple Helix constellations and (4) carrying individual and societal aspects of entrepreneuring.Journal of the Knowledge Economy 02/2014; 5(1):94-113.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Drawing on the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), the present study explores the effects of entrepreneurial role models on entrepreneurial intention and its antecedents and examines the question of whether the effects vary by gender. Data was collected from a sample of 331 students at seven universities in Iran. Structural equation modelling and bootstrap procedure were used to analyse the data. Consistent with the TPB, our results show entrepreneurial role models to indirectly influence entrepreneurial intentions via the antecedents of intention. No gender differences in the relationship between perceived behaviour control and entrepreneurial intentions was found, but gender did moderate the other relationships within the TPB. Attitude towards entrepreneurship was a weaker predictor and subjective norms a stronger predictor of entrepreneurial intentions for female students than for their male counterparts. Furthermore, perceived behaviour control and attitudes towards entrepreneurship were more strongly influenced by role models for females as opposed to male students. Future studies should go beyond examining the mere fact of knowing entrepreneurial role models to examine the mechanisms underlying the relationship between role models and entrepreneurial intentions. The study contributes to the entrepreneurship literature by incorporating entrepreneurial role models and gender into the TPB and investigating their mediating and moderating effects within the model.European Journal of Training and Development. 01/2014;
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In this paper we investigate the extent to which gender equality disintegrates women's self-employment choice (compared to that for men) and whether this is contingent upon a country's development stage and industries. We rely on symbolic interactionism to argue that employment choices emerge from an interactive conversation between individual and social institutional processes. Using data from 61 countries, we find that overall gender equality is associated with the gender gap in men's and women's self-employment choices and that this association depends upon the country's development stage and industries. Contributions are made to women's entrepreneurship and institutional theory.Journal of Business Venturing 07/2013; 28(4):474–488. · 3.06 Impact Factor