Women Entrepreneurs: Moving Front and Center: An Overview of Research and Theory

Full text

Women Entrepreneurs: Moving Front and Center
Women Entrepreneurs: Moving Front and Center:
An Overview of Research and Theory
Patricia G. Greene, University of Missouri – Kansas City
Myra M. Hart, Harvard Business School
Elizabeth J. Gatewood, Indiana University
Candida G. Brush, Boston University
Nancy M. Carter, University of St. Thomas
INTRODUCTION
Unless your name was Knight or Schumpeter, getting a paper on entrepreneurship published in a
scholarly journal was next to impossible before 1976 – the year when the American Journal of
Small Business and the Journal of Small Business Management were officially launched. That is
why it was so remarkable that the Journal of Contemporary Business selected Eleanor
Schwartz’s “Entrepreneurship: A New Female Frontier” for publication in 1976. While her
article was not the first academic paper on entrepreneurship, it was groundbreaking in that it was
the first focused on women entrepreneurs. At the time there were approximately 700,000
women-owned businesses in the United States generating $41.5 million in revenues (U.S.
Bureau of the Census, 1977). According to the Bureau of Census, in 1972 only 4.6% of all US
businesses were women-owned. However, those numbers soon began to increase. A Bureau of
Labor report showed that the number of self-employed women increased from 1.5 million in
1972 to 2.1 million in 1979 and climbed to 3.5 million in 1984. (Hisrich & Brush, 1986)
By 1999, the numbers were quite different. There were 9.1 million women-owned businesses,
employing 27.5 million workers with reported revenues of almost $3.6 trillion (Center for
Women’s Business Research 1999) From 1997 to 2002, women formed new businesses at twice
the national rate (Center for Women’s Business Research, 2002). By 2003 women were
recognized as clearly a driving force in the U.S. economy, whether measured by the number of
businesses owned, the revenues generated, or the number of people employed. Female
entrepreneurs are increasingly prominent as employers, customers, suppliers, and competitors in
the US and in the global community. However, the research and dissemination of information
about female entrepreneurship has not kept pace with the impact these women and their
enterprises have had on the economy.
To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, “An entrepreneur is an entrepreneur is an entrepreneur,” and it
should not matter what size, shape, color, or sex the entrepreneur might be. If so, good research
on entrepreneurs should generate theory applicable to all. While research shows similarities in
the personal demographics of men and women entrepreneurs, there are differences in business
and industry choices, financing strategies, growth patterns, and governance structures of female-
led ventures.

2
These differences provide compelling reasons to study female entrepreneurship – looking
specifically at women founders, their ventures, and their entrepreneurial behaviors as a unique
subset of entrepreneurship. Just as we have found that clinical trials conducted on an all-male
population do not necessarily provide accurate information about the diagnosis or treatment of
female patients, we see that scholarly research focused only on male entrepreneurial ventures
leaves many questions unanswered for their female counterparts. We argue that it is important to
look at female entrepreneurs who, though they share many characteristics with their male
colleagues, are unique in many aspects. Observable differences in their enterprises reflect
underlying differences in their motivations and goals, preparation, organization, strategic
orientation, and access to resources.
Over the past 25 years, exploratory research identified several key areas of entrepreneurship in
which male and female populations are similar, but research was slow to focus on areas of
difference. Consequently, researchers produced descriptive publications that did little more than
clarify the state of female entrepreneurship and identify the key issues to be addressed. Some
research has generated and tested hypotheses, and---where significant challenges or barriers were
identified---research and analyses contributed prescriptive recommendations.
Existing research considers several units of analysis- women founders, their teams, their ventures
and communities. At the individual level, the research provides demographic information
identifying characteristics of women entrepreneurs, their personal goals, as well as their reasons
for selecting business ownership over wage and salary work. (Hagan, Rivchun & Sexton, 1989;
Brush, 1992). Researchers also studied operational descriptions of how women create their
businesses, which builds an understanding of their expectations for their businesses. At the
business unit level, research focuses on organizational structure, financing and growth strategies,
and operations. There are additional research questions about industry choices. A fundamental
understanding of these issues is essential in identifying areas for research that can support and
advance the growth and development of women-owned businesses and the economy (Gatewood,
Carter, Brush, Greene, & Hart, 2003).
The purpose of this paper is to examine the scholarly work published on female entrepreneurship
from 1976 – 2001. We describe the content of that research, identify gaps, and propose directions
for future research, then conclude with recommendations for researchers and educators. The
descriptions, analysis, and conclusions of this overview are based on the annotated bibliography
developed by the Diana Project team in 2002
1
. The complete annotated bibliography provides a
comprehensive review of articles about women’s entrepreneurship, as well as review of
representative articles about venture capital. The bibliography was developed to stimulate and
support rigorous research, which can influence systems, change attitudes, shape opinions, and
instruct practice (Gatewood et al., 2003). The objectives of the annotated bibliography are:
• Develop a comprehensive summary of the literature to provide a base line understanding
of the important issues and the current state of research about women’s entrepreneurship,
business growth, and access to financing
1
The Diana Project is a multi-year, research program focused on women business owners and entrepreneurs.
Though it covers a wide range of topics, its primary emphasis is on financing and growth strategies for women-led
enterprises in the United States.

3
• Identify gaps in current research to be addressed in future studies
• Stimulate new research on women’s entrepreneurship, business growth, and financing by
providing a link between current issues and existing research
• Facilitate and coordinate cross-national research collaboration
• Create a living document that can be updated and expanded as research progresses.
While the published bibliography is comprised of almost 300 articles, this review includes only
that subset of articles (173) that treat women’s entrepreneurship. Sources of articles for this
subset are those select journals that focus on entrepreneurship and small business which were
reviewed from their founding dates through 2001. The journals included Entrepreneurship
Theory & Practice, Journal of Business Venturing, Journal of Small Business Management,
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship,
International Small Business Journal, and Small Business Economics.
In addition, we searched the Journal of Business Ethics because of its tradition of including
publications about women. We also included Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, the
referred proceedings from the annual Babson College/Kauffman Entrepreneurship Research
Conference. And finally, we used the “snowballing” technique, i.e., reviewing bibliographies and
frequent citations to identify other articles of interest not included in the above journals. (See
Table 1 for the journals’ founding dates and number of issues published since their inception.)
---Insert Table 1 Here---
METHODOLOGY
An iterative procedure was used for the review and annotation. We sought articles about women
entrepreneurs and/or their ventures, articles that compared women and men entrepreneurs and
their ventures, and articles that included sex of the respondent as an analytic variable relevant to
the research constructs. Each identified article was read by a research assistant and briefly
abstracted. Each of the selected articles was then read by a member of the Diana research team,
who created the full annotation. The lead investigator coordinating this project then reviewed
the complete set of annotations. Each annotation includes a brief summary of the article and
describes the methodology, research question, proposed theory, sampling frame, data, research
variables, and the findings (Gatewood et al. 2003).
---Insert Exhibit 1 Here ---
Over the past 26 years, The Journal of Small Business Management, Journal of Business
Venturing, and Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research have published more articles related to
female entrepreneurship than have the other six publications. (See Exhibit 1) (Gatewood et al.,
2003). Exhibit 2 illustrates the publication trends over time and shows substantial increase in the
number of articles published during the 1990s. This increase is, at least in part, a function of the
increasing number of journals (and total volumes) published in succeeding years. However,
while the increasing attention to the field is clear, both the absolute and the relative numbers of
articles devoted to female entrepreneurship remain small. With the exception of the Journal of
Developmental Entrepreneurship, less than 30 percent of the journal issues published contain an
article about female entrepreneurship. Some have less than seven percent.

4
---Insert Exhibit 2 Here---
Approximately 93 percent of the articles published were empirically based. The remaining
articles used a conceptual approach or were literature reviews. (Gatewood et al. 2003). The
distribution of the methodologies used in the articles published—theoretical, conceptual or
literature review—are shown in Exhibit 3.
---Insert Exhibit 3 Here---
We conducted a preliminary content analysis of the annotations using N6, a version of the Nudist
qualitative software tool, and after comparing the results with previous literature reviews adopted
ten categories to organize the existing field of research and discussion topics. They are:
• Gender (feminist theory, sex roles)
• Entrepreneurs’ personal attributes
o Human capital (education and experience)
o Demographics (age, marital status, children)
• Motivations (aspirations and goals)
• Founding strategies (strategies and management teams)
• Initial capital resources (debt, equity, financing)
• Investment process (structure, stage)
• Networks (family and social)
• Inhibiting factors (barriers and obstacles)
• International (countries, international comparisons)
• Public Policy/Government
These topics can be aggregated by unit of analysis:
Entrepreneur
Personal attributes
Motivations
Business unit
Founding strategies, for example, industry choice
Initial capital resources
Investment process
Context
Social networks
Inhibiting factors – barriers and obstacles
International setting
Public policy issues
Research Perspective
Feminist theory, sex roles

5
To illustrate the development of knowledge about female entrepreneurship across time, we
organized the literature review by era: (1) 1980s; and (2) 1990 – 2001. Exhibit 2 shows a
marked increase in articles published during the latter time frame. Within each era we organize
the literature by units of analyses and by specific category of investigation. This organization
highlights the introduction of new topics of inquiry and focuses on the development of themes.
LAYING THE GROUNDWORK: MAJOR ISSUES RAISED IN THE 1980’s
The first notable article on women’s entrepreneurship appeared in the mid-1970’s. Eleanor
Brantley Schwartz’s (1976) pioneering article, “Entrepreneurship, A New Female Frontier” was
based on interviews with 20 female entrepreneurs. She combined exploratory and descriptive
research in her efforts to identify individual characteristics, motivations, and attitudes that these
women had in common. She concluded that the primary motivators for the women in this
sample were the “need to achieve,” job satisfaction, economic payoffs and independence, the
same motivators found for male entrepreneurs (Collins & Moore, 1964). However, unlike their
male counterparts, women entrepreneurs reported experiencing credit discrimination during the
capital formation stage. Given that the Equal Credit Act was not enacted until 1975, this was a
sign of the times. Comparing her own findings to the existing body of literature on male
entrepreneurs, Schwartz concluded there were few differences in the personal attributes of male
and female entrepreneurs (Schwartz, 1976).
Schwartz’s article on female entrepreneurship stood alone for five years. . During the 1980s, a
few more researchers turned their attention to the subject. Thirty-one (31) additional articles
addressing issues related to women entrepreneurs were published from 1980 - 1989. These
studies were mostly descriptive, which was is a necessary first step in an emerging field in
which the population was not well understood. At the time, there were no national listings of
women entrepreneurs, and only two national organizations from which to draw samples. The
basic themes discussed in the first wave of research were characteristics of the business owner,
industry/business choice, and barriers to success (with a particular emphasis on access to
capital). Many of the research questions were similar and researchers often used the same
questionnaires to validate and replicate findings (Hisrich & Brush, 1986). The body of
knowledge was expanded through the use of new samples across states, industries and stages of
business development, and replication of earlier studies in different geographic and business
stages of development. New qualitative and quantitative methodologies were also introduced.
Conflicting findings prompted researchers to refine both the questions and their techniques.
Just as the majority of research on men was rooted in early trait psychology and centered on
personal characteristics (McClelland, 1961; Collins & Moore, 1964; Cooper, 1981), the
overwhelming majority of early research about women entrepreneurs focused on individual
aspects. The most frequently studied topics were human capital--- particularly education,
business experience, specific skills sets---and psychological profiles including motivations and
risk taking propensity. This concern with gendered differences in the characteristics of
entrepreneurs grew out of a longstanding effort to develop a “trait theory” of entrepreneurship
(McClelland, 1961). This effort entailed identification and cataloging of those characteristics

6
that separated entrepreneurs from all others with particular attention paid to psychological
measures.
Personal Attributes
Human Capital. In 1981 Hisrich, Brush, and O’Brien( sometimes working together and
sometimes working separately), launched a stream of descriptive research that details the
characteristics of women entrepreneurs, their businesses, performance, and barriers to enterprise
growth. Hisrich and O’Brien (1981, 1982) described motivations, the nature of women
entrepreneurs and their businesses, and barriers encountered. This research was extended by
Hisrich and Brush (1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987) and summarized by Hisrich (1989), The
combined work of Hisrich, O’Brien, and Brush provided detailed descriptions of female
entrepreneurs that served as a baseline for much of the later work in the field. Drawing from
Schwartz’s work (1976), Hisrich and O’Brien studied a sample of 21 women entrepreneurs to
learn more about their common characteristics and business problems. The findings were also
consistent; the authors concluded that the characteristics of male and female entrepreneurs were
similar. Also similar to Schwartz’s findings, funding for their businesses was an issue at start-up
as most women identified access to credit as a significant barrier. Hisrich and O’Brien probed
beneath the gender issues, postulating that the financial resource problems that women reported
could be a function of the types of businesses they founded rather than a reflection on the
characteristics of female owners. The research also flagged the importance of barriers, reporting
that female entrepreneurs found it difficult to overcome society’s negative beliefs about women
(Hisrich & O’Brien, 1981).
In 1983 Hisrich and Brush launched what was to become the first longitudinal study of women
entrepreneurs ever done in the US. Until this point, no national study had surveyed women
entrepreneurs using the same types of questions and scales previously used to study men., This
research covered the characteristics of the individual women, their motive for start-up, social
support systems, barriers and challenges, and the characteristics, growth and performance of
their businesses (Hisrich & Brush, 1984). The findings from their analysis of 463 women
yielded the first composite description of the “average” women entrepreneur: first born, middle
class, college graduate with a major in liberal arts, married, with children, and a supportive
spouse in a professional or technical occupation. Most of the women had created their
businesses in traditionally female industries (retail, hospitality, services).
This research also provided details of the financing challenges the women faced, including
acquiring knowledge of finance and accounting and gaining access to start-up capital.. Women
reported they had strong idea generation capabilities and well-developed people skills.
Women’s education was most often in the liberal arts area, rather than business or technical
areas, even though women were found to be generally better educated than their male
counterparts. The authors concluded that women should work to gain more education in
financial areas and that they should learn more about the financial needs of their businesses,
including aspects of working with money, banking requirements, loan processes; and how to talk
to bankers. They also concluded that females should be encouraged to study non-traditional
fields such as engineering and science in order to prepare them for a broader range of industry
choices, noting that many of the non-traditional fields offered higher growth potential and greater
rewards.

7
Hisrich and Brush went on to conduct a comparative study of female entrepreneurs and minority
business owners. They reported many similarities between these two populations, particularly in
terms of individual characteristics and motivations. However, they also noted differences in the
areas of class status and specific aspects of motivations. Women entrepreneurs generally came
from a middle- or upper- class families and were motivated by a drive for independence.
Minority entrepreneurs reported middle- or lower- class family backgrounds, and their
motivations were more heavily driven by economic opportunity and job satisfaction (1985).
Other studies of individual characteristics carried out in the 1980sconcentrated on psychological
dimensions of women entrepreneurs, or women students, and compared these women to women
executives as well as to male entrepreneurs and male executives. Sexton and Kent (1981) found
that women entrepreneurs had slightly lower levels of education than female executives. Sexton
and Bowman (1986) expanded this research using psychological instruments to compare female
and male entrepreneurship students on several dimensions including independence, need for
control and risk-taking propensity. Interestingly, the authors found differences between female
students studying entrepreneurship and those studying other areas of business in terms of
conformity, energy level, interpersonal affect, risk-taking, social adroitness, autonomy, change,
harm avoidance, and succorance. Another area of research drawn from the broader field of
entrepreneurship focused on the propensity for risk-taking by entrepreneurs. Masters and Meir’s
replication of the Brockhaus (1980) study of entrepreneurs and managers supported Brockhaus’s
earlier findings of no significant difference between entrepreneurs and managers on risk taking.
The authors also reported no significant difference in risk-taking propensity between male and
female entrepreneurs (Masters & Meier, 1988). However, it is relevant to note that in general the
instruments being used in these studies were developed and tested on male entrepreneurs, which
raised the question of how any differences found should be interpreted.
Motivation. Researchers were also interested in discovering the reasons women had for starting
new business ventures. Scott (1986), building on Hisrich and Brush’s questionnaire, used two
separate surveys to explore “glass ceiling” issues the desire for increased flexibility to handle
family responsibilities as possible motivators for women. She reported gender differences in
reasons for starting a business; men stressed the desire to be their own bosses and women
reported being concerned with personal challenge and satisfaction. Another study found that
motivation differed depending upon age of the woman business owner and the circumstances of
founding: specifically whether the creation of the business represented job transition or a re-entry
into the workforce (Kaplan, 1988).
Business Unit
Founding Strategies. Hisrich and O’Brien (1982) drew a sample from the American
Management Association database to test their hypotheses about the relationship between
industry choice and access to resources. The driving question for this paper was whether women
in businesses considered “traditional” (retail, personal services, food and catering) were different
from those in non-traditional industrial sectors (construction, manufacturing, technology). The
authors found that indeed, there were some differences. The women entrepreneurs in the more
non-traditional areas were older, had more education, and were more likely to have self-
employed parents. While both groups reported using their personal savings to finance their

8
businesses, those in the non-traditional areas were more concerned about the lack of external
financing sources – possibly because their industries required larger capital investments.
Initial Resources. Much of the research conducted in the 1980’s identified business challenges
specific to women entrepreneurs and concluded with recommendations for overcoming these.
Some of the difficulties reported included: obtaining start-up funds, financial management, and
development of effective marketing and advertising (Pellegrino & Reece, 1982). The root causes
of limited financial success were often attributed to early management practices. A pair of
studies examining women’s access to capital employed an experimental design methodology to
determine whether women faced obstacles in obtaining bank loans. This research found that
lending institutions perceived women business owners to be less successful than men, (Buttner &
Rosen, 1988), but that lending officers did not perceive any differences in the quality of the plans
prepared by men and women (Buttner & Rosen, 1989).
In 1987, Hisrich and Brush added a longitudinal dimension to their research by returning to their
original respondents. This study examined growth and performance patterns, strategies of
ventures, goals and future plans. Hisrich and Brush found that the majority of the businesses
were moderately successful with revenue increases of approximately 7 percent per year, which
was slightly less than the average for male-owned ventures. However, compared to the national
average where 60-70 percent of the businesses were reported as closed or failed within five
years, this study found that only 30-40 of women-owned businesses were likely to quit or fail. .
Researchers concluded that education and experience were significant factors in predicting
financial success. Other studies reported that the level of task delegation had a positive
correlation with enterprise success (Cuba, Decenzo, & Anish, 1983).
Hisrich summarized work in this area in a chapter in Hagen, Rivchin, and Sexton’s book,
Women-Owned Businesses (1989), and offered five prescriptions for success. He advised female
entrepreneurs to: 1) establish credible, relevant track records by obtaining management and/or
technical knowledge as an employee, 2) compensate for specific educational and experience
gaps through continuing education and the use of outside experts when appropriate, 3) assess
family needs prior to launching the businesses, 4) establish a strong support system of family and
friends, 5) approach entrepreneurship with both determination and professionalism.
Context
Social Networks. Another important topic was introduced in the late 1980s: the social networks
of women entrepreneurs (Aldrich, 1989; Aldrich, Reese, Dubini, Rosen, & Woodward, 1989).
While noting the positive effects of utilizing appropriate networks on rates of business formation,
survival, and growth, Aldrich et al. made important distinctions between the content and
relevance of men’s and women’s networks. They described women’s networks as organized
around spheres of work, family, and social life. Women’s networks were largely similar to
men’s networks in terms of activity and density. However, men reported that their networks
included very few women while women were more likely to include men in their networks
(Aldrich, 1989). In a related study, women were found to be more likely to use other women as
information sources (Smeltzer & Fann, 1989).

9
Inhibiting Factors. Access to capital was identified as a major challenge to female
entrepreneurship by the earlier researchers. During the 1980s, obtaining start-up capital (bank
financing, informal loans and private equity) was a recurring theme. The challenges associated
with accessing start-up and growth capital triggered an exploration of bank loan officer’s
perceptions of male and female loan applicants, and successful entrepreneurs. This study probed
the affect of gendered stereotypes through the use of an experimental research design analyzing
lenders’ evaluation of business plans and plan presentations. The research findings supported the
existence of stereotypes (lender preconceptions that women did not possess the characteristics
necessary for successful entrepreneurship) (Buttner & Rosen, 1988).However, the study found
no evidence that these stereotypes influenced the lenders’ funding decisions (Buttner & Rosen,
1989). Brophy’s work (1989) examined the financing activities and challenges throughout the
life cycle of the firm. He also continued the discussion initiated by Hisrich and O’Brien in 1982,
focusing on the relationship between the type of business selected and the implications for
financing choice.
International Studies. Although the majority of the articles reviewed were published in U.S.
journals, several articles focused on female entrepreneurs in other countries. The issues
addressed and the findings were remarkably similar across geographic boundaries. Personal
attributes and motivations were studied in both the UK and Sweden. British women business
owners had educational and experiential levels similar to British male business owners (Watkins
& Watkins, 1983; Birley, Moss, & Saunders, 1987), but were found to have very different
cumulative educational and work experience patterns (Watkins & Watkins, 1983).
In Sweden, Holmquist and Sundin (1988) used patterned their questionnaire on Hisrich and
Brush’s earlier work, using it to identify characteristics of women entrepreneurs in that country.
They found, many similarities among men and women entrepreneurs, but also uncovered gender-
based differences. They found that women entrepreneurs were similar to men in their pursuit of
economic goals, but the women also valued other goals, including customer satisfaction. and
personal flexibility. Studies in the UK concluded that women there were more likely to start a
business in a “traditional” industrial field. A study comparing social networks of entrepreneurs
in the U.S. and Italy found similar results in each country (Aldrich et al., 1983). An overarching
concern raised in all the research was whether (or not) systematic or random biases existed and
worked against women business owners (Watkins & Watkins, 1983).
Public Policy Issues. The implications from this early research were twofold; first, the early
work drew attention to the fact that there was a significant population of women entrepreneurs
starting ventures in all sectors and organizing a large variety of ventures. This early research
highlighted areas where women differed from their male counterparts both in terms of both
personal attributes and in the start-up process itself. Education was most often in the social
sciences while experience was predominantly in the services and retail areas. Research in all
countries, the identified ability to gain access to credit, start-up capital or loans was the most
pressing problem. This early stream of research raised the awareness of the need for training,
workshops, and other mechanisms to educate women about financing and business start-up
processes (Watkins & Watkins, 1983; Hisrich & Brush, 1986). In the U.S., several government
initiates were designed to support women and minority business owners. For example, the
Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) put pressure on commercial banks to make larger pools of

10
debt capital available to women and encouraged banks to review their lending criteria. Small
Business Investment Companies were also supported by government-backed leverage. These, in
turn, made more equity capital available to women and minorities.
A Feminist Perspective
The fundamental question driving the research on female entrepreneurs was:” Does theory that is
developed from research on male-led ventures hold true for women and minority entrepreneurs?”
(Stevenson, 1986). The first and perhaps most radical study was done in the UK by Geoffee and
Scase in 1983. They proposed a typology of women entrepreneurs based on their motives and
choices of both industry and type of business organization. Other researchers examined
individual characteristics, motivations, venture types, industry selection, and specific business
problems in an effort to determine if maleness or femaleness was salient in predicting success.
For example, Smith, McCain, and Warren (1982) proposed patterns of entrepreneurial types
based upon the manner in which the firm is operated. In a comparison of male and female
entrepreneurial typologies, women were reported as being more opportunistic. However,
Pellegrino and Reece (1982) found that the start-up problems and the challenges women business
owners faced were common to anyone who starting a business. Studies of gendered differences
in management style questioned whether the “entrepreneurial” management style was gender
neutral or if there was a particularly “feminine” management style preferred by women
entrepreneurs (Chaganti, 1986). For example, Neider reported that women-owned businesses
were more likely to be informally structured (Neider, 1987).
Another concern introduced during the 1980s was work-family balance. Early studies examined
this as an issue of concern for both male and female business owners (Honig-Haftel & Martin,
1986; Geoffee & Scase, 1983), but the topic quickly became relegated to a “woman’s issue.”
One of the more unique research approaches examined time use patterns and the use of
household help by self-employed women, suggesting that increased responsibility for family can
provide some explanation for the lower profitability of women’s firms (Longstreth, Stafford, &
Mauldin, 1987).
By the end of the 1980s, women were starting businesses in increasing numbers but, for the
most part, the chose traditionally female industry sectors and aspired to smaller than average
business size.(Evans & Leighton, 1989). Researchers in the field of entrepreneurship raised
many questions about gender differences, but, at the close of the decade, there were no definitive
answers and the debates continued into the 1990s. Only one of the papers reviewed for this
study considered gender, race, and ethnicity (Hisrich & Brush, 1985) and only a handful offered
a conceptual approach to advance theory development (Stevenson, 1986; Birley, 1989; Brophy,
1989; Aldrich, 1989).
A DEVELOPING RESEARCH AGENDA: THEMES EMERGING IN THE 1990s
Female Entrepreneurs: Personal attributes and motivations
In 1989 Gartner challenged the heavy emphasis on the traits of the entrepreneur as »the wrong
question. While research on traits and demographics of female entrepreneurs continued into the

11
1990s, other questions gained prominence. Studies of characteristics were only one aspect of a
broader-based research program.
Motivation. “Why do some women choose entrepreneurship while others do not?” was one
important question driving much of the research. In a paper published in the 80’s, Birley (1989)
proposed the application of Cooper’s model of entrepreneurial antecedents in a conceptual paper.
Brush and Hisrich (1991), using longitudinal data, tested the model empirically along three
dimensions: individual characteristics, incubator experience, and environmental factors. They
found experience, business skills, and personal factors were related to growth. They also found
that the traditional socialization of women influenced the type of businesses started, the
availability of start-up capital, and the management skills and experiences of the woman business
owner. But the question still remained as to why women are motivated to start their ventures.
Business Unit
Growth and performance of new business ventures are dependent upon strategic direction, access
to resources, and execution of strategic and tactical decisions. In the 1990’s a number of papers
addressed just such issues.
Strategic Choice. Carter, Williams, and Reynolds (1997) argued that strategic choice is shaped
by experiences to which individuals are subjected and that females and males have
fundamentally different socialization experiences. Assuming that a different socialization
experience would result in the development of unique capabilities that could compensate for a
deficient set of founding resources, they investigated performance differences of men and
women-owned businesses.. The authors found that women-owned firms had higher odds of
discontinuing, fewer resources at start-up (including industry specific experience in retail), and
were launched on a smaller scale. They reported equal access to credit from formal lending
institutions for men and women. Their findings supported the hypothesis that women used
unique strategies to offset initial resources limitations. Another study of strategy found that
women were more likely than men to develop strategies that emphasized product quality and less
likely to emphasize customization or cost efficiency (Chaganti & Parasuraman, 1996). Women
also used a relational strategy when working with employees and clients, focusing on creation
and development of teams, mutual empowering, achievement, and perseverance. Relational
theory evidenced potential as a framework for identifying and explicating women entrepreneurs’
interactive style in their own businesses (Buttner, 2001).
Self-efficacy offered another possible explanation for women’s choice of smaller retail and
service (traditional) businesses rather than those in high technology, construction, and
manufacturing (nontraditional). Anna, Chandler, Jansen, and Mero (2000) proposed a model
combining venture efficacy, career expectations, and individual context as determinants of
industry selection. Women in traditional businesses had higher venture efficacy for opportunity
recognition and higher career expectations of life balance and security and placed more
importance on the financial support received from others. Non-traditional owners had higher
venture efficacy for planning and higher career expectations for money or wealth. Barrett (1995)
reported that men were more likely to choose businesses with a female image than were women
to found a business with a male image.

12
Several articles explored the impact of industry choice on growth, financing, and performance.
One study took that looked within a particular industry to observe gender-based differences. In a
study of entrepreneurial accounting firms, the authors found that male-owned practices
projected a higher ratio of profits to revenues than did women-owned counterparts, but they also
found that these differences were mediated by differences of intentionality. Female accountants
were more likely to report establishing the practice to attain greater flexibility in work time and
place. Higher profitability projections were associated with the founders’ achievement and
income goals (Fasci & Valdez, 1998). Women who had a positive view of their initial prospects
later viewed the experience of business ownership more favorably, expressing satisfaction
regardless of subsequent performance (contrary to discrepancy theory) (Cooper & Artz, 1995).
Different business outcomes had long been a point of concern. Kalleberg and Leicht (1991)
conducted a study analyzing the relationship between the owner’s gender and personal
characteristics, choice of industry, choice of organizational structure, and the survival and
success of the business., The authors found that women-led businesses were no more likely to go
out of business or be less successful than those led by men and there were no gender differences
in earnings growth (1991). This study stands in contrast to those showing women-owned
businesses had lower sales volumes and lower incomes as a result of positioning in less
profitable industries, as well as lack of access to capital, and inability to secure government
contracts (Loscosso & Robinson, 1991; Loscosso, Robinson, Hall, & Allen, 1991). Another
study found women business owners to have smaller annual sales and employment growth but no
gender differences in return on assets (Chaganti & Parasuraman, 1996).
Initial resources. Several researchers examined the impact of human capital, risk preferences,
and characteristics of the firm’s operations on the capital structure of small firms, looking
specifically at the ratio of debt to total capitalization. Male owners were found to use
significantly more debt. The authors offered both supply and demand side explanations for this
finding. They postulated that lenders may discriminate or that female entrepreneurs may be
more risk averse (Scherr, Sugrue, & Ward, 1993). Coleman (2000) reported that lenders did
indeed discriminate, but on the basis of firm size, preferring to lend to larger and more
established firms, thereby limiting their involvement with women-owned firms which were
generally smaller.
Female owners tended to prefer internal sources to external financing. However the owner’s sex
was not an issue in predicting the choice of equity versus debt financing (Chaganti, DeCarolis, &
Deeds, 1995). No difference was found by gender in the use of financial management services
(Cole & Wolken, 1995),but, using data from Britain, Carter and Rosa (1998) found several
significant gender differences in business financing. Men used larger amounts of capital at start-
up. Women were less likely to use financial instruments such as overdrafts, bank loans, and
supplier credit. Coleman (2000), in a comparative study of men and women utilizing bank debt,
found that access to financing did not differ by sex.
Another study found that women-led businesses that used bank loans as a primary source of
start-up capital outperformed those that used alternative funding sources. The authors stressed
the importance of having a relationship with a bank in place at the time of the business launch
(Haynes & Helms, 2000). Indeed, women were more likely to use their banks for a source of

13
advice, but men were more likely to respond to that advice. In addition, 12.5 percent of the
women business owners reported that they believed they had experienced gender related
discrimination in their banking relationship (Read, 1994).
Investment Process & Growth. Growth of the firm has been an extremely important issue in the
study of entrepreneurship, yet the relationship between gender and growth has rarely been
studied in the field. Carter and Allen (1997) investigated whether women’s businesses were
smaller due to the owner’s lifestyle intentions and choices or due to the level of resources
controlled. They found strong support that having access to financial resources and emphasizing
the financial aspects of the business had stronger effects on growth than did intention or choice.
A qualitative study using a focus group methodology found that gaining start-up capital was not
nearly as difficult as acquiring growth capital (Brush, 1997). Successful women entrepreneurs
believed they were perceived as “riskier” loan prospects, and less credit worthy than their male
counterparts, despite having a business track record of solid sales and profits.
Gundry and Welsch (2001) compared women-owned businesses that exhibited high levels of
growth with low or no growth businesses in order to understand the relationship between
strategic choices paths and the firms’ growth orientation. High-growth women entrepreneurs
differed from low-growth women entrepreneurs along the following dimensions: selection of
strategies that focused on market expansion and new technologies, greater intensity of
commitment to business ownership, and willingness to incur greater opportunity costs for the
success of their firms. High-growth women entrepreneurs provided more organization structure;
planned earlier for growth;, used a team-based approach to the business;, were concerned about
reputation and quality; had adequate capitalization; and used a wider range of financing services
for business growth (Gundry & Welsch, 2001).
Cliff (1998) however, found that personal considerations appeared to override economic
consideration in the business expansion decision. Canadian female entrepreneurs were more
likely to establish maximum business sizes and these sizes were smaller than those set by their
male counterparts. Female entrepreneurs were just as likely to want to grow their businesses,
but, they reported more concerns about the risks associated with fast growth and generally
preferred to adopt a slower and steady rate.
While the body of literature concerning women and debt capital is quite robust, the first article to
focus specifically on women and venture capital appeared only recently (Greene, Brush, Hart, &
Saparito, 2001). Using 30 years of data from the Venture Capital Association and coding by
gender, they found that women-led firms received only 2.4 percent of all equity investments in
the US. Their research reported a positive and increasing trend in the late 1990’s. Women-led
firms received 4.1 percent of venture capital in 1998. Three explanations were proposed for why
women received so little equity capital: institutional or network barriers, lack of appropriate
human capital including leadership skills, background, and strategic choices of growth, product,
and markets.

14
Context
Social Networks. Though the importance of social networks was introduced during the 1980s,
few studies of this issue were published in the reviewed journals during the 1990s. One article
that did explore the network effects found that having a high proportion of kin and homogeneity
in the network created critical disadvantages for small business owners (Renzulli, Aldrich, &
Moody, 2000).
Inhibiting Factors. While discussion of barriers and challenges were included in much of the
research during the 1980s and 1990s, Brush (1997) applied a broader perspective to her study of
factors that facilitated as well as those that inhibited growth. She identified several obstacles,
including: women not being taken seriously; child and dependent care responsibilities; lack of
growth and expansion capital; and lack of entrepreneurial education and training. On the other
hand, she found that opportunities for women entrepreneurs improved with the use of
technology, and that management style, and employee policies could also be positive
contributors to growth(Brush, 1997).
The consideration of access to debt capital revolved around three main questions.
1. Was credit, particularly through banks, sought by and accessible to women?
2. Was the credit available on the same terms as those offered to male entrepreneurs?
3. Were any differences in the availability of debt capital attributable to discrimination?
Several researchers undertook reviews of banking practices to determine whether or not women
business owners faced discrimination in the lending process. Findings were mixed. After
accounting for structural differences between male and female-owned businesses, one study
found no differences in the rate of loan rejections (or any other objective measures of terms of
credit) (Fabowale, Orser, & Riding, 1995). However, when comparing access to capital for men
and women-owned businesses, the research indicated that women-owned businesses were
smaller, newer, and less likely to use external financing as a source of capital than those owned
by men. Haynes and Haynes (1999) used The National Survey of Small Business Finance to
examine the women’s access to institutional and non-institutional lenders in 1987 and 1993.
While women-owned small businesses showed a higher probability of borrowing from family
and friends, the results suggested that women-owned small businesses had gained access to line-
of-credit loans from commercial banks on a par with the men-owned small business in the same
period of time.
Building on the studies by Riding and Swift (1990) and Swift and Riding (1998), McKechnie,
Ennew, and Read (1998) used men and women business owners who were similar in a host of
structural characteristics to explore whether gendered differences existed in the terms and
conditions of bank financing, the level of the service provision, and the overall quality of the
banking relationship. Few differences were found except that females secured larger loans than
males, yet were charged higher interest rates than males. Higher interest rates (Coleman, 2000)
and higher collateral requirements (Coleman, 2000; Riding & Swift, 1990) were a recurring
theme. Females reported using bank overdraft facilities and loans to a greater degree than males
for both start-up and subsequent growth and development. Females also seemed to put more
importance on bank managers’ advice and understanding of their marketplace. There did appear

15
to be some evidence of discriminatory behaviors in the personal interactions between female
business owners and bank managers (McKechnie, Ennew, & Read, 1998).
Other researchers investigated the possibility of discrimination as a factor in the refusal of credit
for men and women entrepreneurs. Both men and women entrepreneurs were refused credit but
the reasons for the refusals differed: men were more likely to be refused credit on the basis of
their companies’ business sector and their own lack of educational attainment. Women were
more likely to be refused credit on the basis of their lack of business experience and their
domestic circumstances (Carter & Rosa, 1998). Buttner and Rosen (1992) concluded that
women were more likely to attribute the denial of a bank loan to gender bias than were men, but
there was evidence that some of the differences were based on the gender stereotypes held by the
capital providers. Women business owners were also significantly more likely to perceive
disrespectful treatment by lending officers (Fabowale, Orser, & Riding, 1995).
International Studies. The 1990s saw a dramatic increase in research on female entrepreneurship
around the world. The topics addressed internationally often mirrored those studied in the U.S.,
but the Intensified global interest advanced the understanding of the phenomenon dramatically.
Personal Attributes. Descriptive studies of human capital and business characteristics
generally anchored the research agenda in a country. Several descriptive studies were conducted
of women entrepreneurs in Canada (Belcourt, 1990; Collerette & Aubrey, 1990). An additional
descriptive study of Quebec area female entrepreneurs provided the basis for a model of “small
and stable business” as a preferred method of operation (Lee-Gosselin & Grise, 1990). A
descriptive study of female business owners in Singapore reported characteristics similar to those
of other studies from around the world. Women were reported as motivated by the desire to
become their own bosses. They were educated, had prior work experience, and desired freedom
and flexibility to meet the combined responsibilities of work and family. They owned small
service and retail businesses that they had started largely with personal capital and loans from
family and friends (Cooper & Goby, 1999).
A study of personal characteristics in Poland found that female entrepreneurs were more highly
educated than the male entrepreneurs and had equal or better levels of business experience. The
same study found no gendered differences in personality attributes, but female entrepreneurs
were more likely to consider innovation as an important success factor and report a commitment
to long-term capital accumulation and investment than were the males (Zapalska, 1997). In a
study of technology-based companies in the U.K., Westhead and Cowling (1995) found no
impact of any gender-based effects of individual or business characteristics on the firm’s
potential to achieve significant growth. And finally, a comparison of the entrepreneurial activities
of academics in Sweden and Ireland found no gender differences (Klofsten & Jones-Evans, 2000).
Motivation. Women’s motivations for starting a business were remarkably similar across
countries. In Norway, an exploration of gender differences of entrepreneurs in the start-up
process concluded that women emphasized independence as a reason for start-up and also
perceived a high degree of social support during the process. Women in the study believed that
they possessed greater entrepreneurial abilities than men (Ljunggren & Kolvereid, 1996).
Personal freedom, security, and satisfaction were the primary goals in Pakistan (Shabbir &

16
D’Gregorio, 1996). And in an industry specific study of self-employed workers in the British
book publishing industry, the authors suggested a typology of entrepreneurs based on their
motivations. These included: 1) refugees, 2) trade-offs, 3) missionaries, and 4) converts.
Women were more likely to be in the trade-off group, combining work and family
responsibilities. Women also were more likely to be in the missionary group, voluntarily
leaving employment situations seen as undesirable. Men and women were equally like to be in
the converts group, that is, they entered self-employment as a temporary strategy but later
showed no interest in leaving self-employment (Stanworth & Stanworth, 1997).
Strategic Choice. A descriptive profile of enterprises in Java, Indonesia showed that
female-operated businesses there, as in most countries of the world, were concentrated in
traditionally female industrial sectors as well as in the low-income informal sectors. Employment
growth of female-owned firms was significantly lower than that of male-owned businesses. The
authors concluded that women started their enterprises with different business objectives than did
the men and, therefore, programs and policies need to be gender-differentiated (Singh, Reynolds,
& Muhammad, 2001). Similar findings in the U.K. suggested that women were less likely to own
more than one business (Rosa & Hamilton, 1994) and when women did plan to grow their
company selected different expansion strategies (Rosa, Carter, & Hamilton, 1996). In
Scandinavia, In Scandinavia, women also were found to be less likely than men to write a
business plan and, if choosing to write a plan, more likely to postpone it to later in the start-up
process. More similarities than differences were found between male and female entrepreneurs
in Norway, which prompted the authors to question the need for separate and focused programs
to stimulate female entrepreneurship (Alsos & Ljunggren, 1998). However, the concern was
raised as to the importance of understanding similarities and differences in the context of the
country (Spilling & Berg, 2000).
Performance and growth issues of women businesses owners received international attention
(Rosa, Carter, & Hamilton, 1996). In Sweden, Du Reitz and Henrekson (2000) analyzed sales,
profitability, employment, and orders to conclude that women-owned firms were smaller and had
a smaller customer base. Only the underperformance in sales was supported. The conclusion
was that women-owned businesses were only “underperforming” only because the growth
preferences of women were lower than those of men. In Finland, a gender-based difference in
growth probabilities of the firms was also supported. One important difference identified
Kanasharju (2000) was that during economic fluctuations, particularly recession, the growth
probability for firms run by males increased, but for firms run by females, growth became more
limited. Firms owned by males recovered from recession more quickly than firms owned by
females, but no explanation was offered as to why this occurred (Kangasharju, 2000).
Social Networks. Research in Israel demonstrated that network affiliation, human capital,
and motivation theories have greater explanatory power for performance than do social learning
or environmental perspectives (Lerner, Brush, & Hisrich, 1995). This study found that
membership in an association or network of businesswomen had a highly significant effect on
profitability. A Hong Kong based study found that reliance on the immediate network or
channel for information was more important to women business-owners than it was to men
business owners (Chan & Foster, 2001). Other researchers continued to build on the network

17
research of the 1980s by studying the size, diversity, density, and effectiveness of networks of
male and female entrepreneurs in Northern Ireland. Findings supported those early studies in that
there were few gendered differences in networks. The exception was that females tended to rely
heavily upon a male colleague as their prime contact but revert to other women for other
purposes while men relied almost entirely on other men for advice (Cromie & Birley, 1992).
Inhibiting Factors. Barriers encountered were also found to be similar around the world.
In Canada, barriers reported included lack of business management training and experience,
access to financial support and information networks, hostile environments, and negative affects
on personal and family relationships. However, the most significant gender-based barriers were
those of negative self-perceptions (Shragg, Yacuk, & Glass, 1992). In another Canadian study of
the impact of gender on the relationship between bank lenders and small business borrowers,
Haines, Orser, and Riding (1999) found no differences to suggest lending discrimination when
controlling for business size and industrial sector. A similar study in New Zealand, using a
Goldberg approach to test for discrimination found significant gender differences for university
educated applicants. Education was considered a more important factor for female applicants
than for males. In the same study female applicants with a high school education were more
likely to be granted a loan than male applicants (Fay & Williams, 1993).
Dutch entrepreneurs reported encountering some barriers that they believed were gender specific.
Female entrepreneurs in the study reported a smaller amount of start-up capital but used similar
sources of capital. There were no significant gendered differences in the proportion of debt and
equity capital in the businesses (Verheul & Thurik, 2001).
A more gender-specific study in the U.K considered gendered effects on the way men and
women small business owners feel about their entrepreneurial experiences. Marlow (1997)
outlined gender-specific feelings that women entrepreneurs might hold: thwarted in their careers,
having credibility problems based upon gender, ambitions based upon a different socialization
model, and the pursuit of self-employment as a solution to dual domains of work and family.
The author felt that these feelings are “tainted by patriarchal expectations”.
In some instances, country context has a significant effect on entrepreneurship. For example, in
South Africa, the conversation about entrepreneurship has been intermingled with societal issues
of socioeconomic reparation. Entrepreneurial development was increasingly recognized as a
functional tool for tackling South African’s socioeconomic challenges. Ahwireng-Obeng (1993)
suggested a mainstream assistance program attentive to gender in order to negate institutional
discrimination. Political issues were thought to play a role in entrepreneurial development in
other countries as well. A study of male and female entrepreneurs in Great Britain, Norway, and
New Zealand explored whether female entrepreneurs perceptions of the business start-up
environment differed from those of their male counterparts. The most significant gender
difference was perceived environmental hostility and uncertainty, with female entrepreneurs
perceiving higher political uncertainty than their male counterparts.
Another study indicated that differences between male and female entrepreneurs were often
country-specific, suggesting that the differences derived from the social and political contexts
rather than from fundamental differences between the sexes (Kolvereid, Shane & Westhead,

18
1993). In Poland, the transition from a centrally planned economy to political pluralism and
economic transformation was seen as a platform for increasing numbers of women
entrepreneurs. In addition, a study of the establishment of the Polish Association of Women
Entrepreneurs concluded that the understanding of the social and economic impact on women of
a planned economy and the unique needs of female entrepreneurs in the transition to capitalism
were keys to developing effective support organizations (Bliss & Garratt, 2001).
Country Comparisons. Only a few studies provided comparative analysis of female
entrepreneurship in more than one country. In one review of women’s entrepreneurship in 23
OECD countries, similarities appeared across countries in terms of education level, focus and
type of experience (Brush, 1990). Another interesting approach to international entrepreneurship
research was developed by the Society of Associated Researchers in International
Entrepreneurship (SARIE) in one of their early studies exploring reasons for start-ups. While
independence, recognition, learning, and roles are four robust reasons for starting a business, the
researchers found a variety of significant differences by country, gender, and the country-gender
interaction. The only career reason that applied across gender and countries was the ability to
develop one’s approach to work (Shane, Kolvereid, & Westhead, 1991). And finally, in a
longitudinal study comparing the movement of young people in and out of self-employment in
the US and Australia, the conclusions provided differing explanatory factors in each of the two
countries. While previous earnings predicted the transition to entrepreneurship in both countries,
additional education had a positive relationship with self-employment in the U.S. but not in
Australia (Blanchflower & Meyer, 1992).
Roles. Cultural differences between and within countries add another dimension to the
consideration of personal and professional roles. In examining the relationships between
business and family roles of the female married entrepreneur in Turkey, respondents reported
role conflict in their personal and professional lives. Being an entrepreneur had a negative
impact on their family life but a positive affect on their social, economic, and individual lives
(Ufuk & Ozgen, 2001).
In sum, the international research suggests many similarities in personal and business
characteristics and venture strategy. Barriers also are similar, but the country context is a
mitigating factor. One can conclude that given the impact of country, entrepreneurship theory
and findings derived from research in developed countries needs to be to be carefully considered
before being applied to developing countries (Singh, Reynolds, & Muhammad, 2001).
Feminist Theory and Sex roles
Many of the issues raised in the 1980s warranted continued investigation, but the 1990s also
brought a more explicit call for a feminist theory of entrepreneurship (Stevenson, 1990; Hurley,
1991). Feminist theory, a specific area of social theory, addresses issues of political, economic,
and social rights. This theoretical approach also provides a rich tradition of analyzing relations of
gender and of class, making it useful for researching the economic activity of women and men
(Greer & Greene, Forthcoming). In addition, several researchers continued to raise important
questions about the methodological bias inherent in conducting research on women
entrepreneurs using research designs, scales, and interpretations based entirely on a male model

19
(Brush, 1992; Fischer, Reuber & Dyke, 1993). These researchers also noted biases stemming
from an over-reliance on structured, quantitative research approaches and the possibility of
sexual imperialism in interpretation of the results. They argued for the development of more
robust data sets and the application of more sophisticated statistical techniques (Moore, 1990).
Brush (1992) reviewed the state of the field and offered an “integrative” approach that allowed
for the consideration of a woman’s professional and family life. This perspective focused on a
woman business owner as embedded in an environment of networked work, family, and society
relationships. In addition to providing a useful framework, the article paved the way for the
application of feminist theories in the field.
Fischer, Reuber, and Dyke (1993) applied both liberal and social feminist theories in their
exploration of gender differences, finding few differences between male and female
entrepreneurs in motivations or educational levels (despite the fact that the female entrepreneurs
in the sample had less experience managing employees and also operated smaller businesses
with less revenue growth). Barrett (1995) also used a feminist perspective to investigate learning
experiences and needs of male and female business owners in Australia, finding that men were
more likely to participate in businesses with a female image than women were to cross over and
participate in “male” businesses. Men were also significantly more likely to have participated in
more than one start-up whereas most women had not.
Gendered differences in learning styles also emerged. Women reported a greater variety of
sources of learning as useful to them, while men found learning derived from a major setback in
the current firm to be significantly more useful. Barrett raised a challenge to those in the field to
develop a theoretical framework that would integrate women’s entrepreneurship and feminist
theory (Barrett, 1995). And finally, in a unique approach, Gunnerud introduced a feminist
geography perspective questioning gendered differences in conceptions of place and the
intersection of place, gender, and entrepreneurship. She concluded that place was important in
situating gender relations and entrepreneurship (Gunnerud, 1997).
Applications of feminist perspectives to entrepreneurship suggested new links between social
stratification and business ownership, organizational structure, and industry choice. Researchers
who took a feminist point of view noted that women had historically been excluded from the
entrepreneurship literature and argued for the need to understand entrepreneurship as a gendered
activity. They focused on two issues: the construction of the category of “the female
entrepreneur” and exploration of the unique ways in which the connections among gender,
occupation, and organizational structure affect female and male business owners (Mirchandani,
1999).

20
Gender-based perceptions and stereotypes. While not explicitly applying feminist theory, several
researchers developed models based on sex-role socialization and occupational role viewpoints.
While the study of values was also pursued (Gagperson, 1993), few found gender-based
differences in fundamental values. There were a few notable exceptions: women valued equality
more highly and men valued family security more than did women. There were, however, more
marked differences found were between entrepreneurs and managers in the sample. The authors
concluded that male and female entrepreneurs were more similar to each other than to their
same-sex managerial counterparts (Fagenson, 1993).
One question that came to the fore in this area of research focused on whether gendered
stereotypes of successful entrepreneurs caused women to perceive a mismatch between
entrepreneurial venturing and feminine traits (Fagenson and Marcus, 1991). In tests to determine
whether these perceptions differed if women worked in organizations headed by women rather
than by men, the hypothesis that entrepreneurship might be perceived as “unfeminine” was not
supported. However, both men and women assigned more weight to masculine attributes in
projecting the profile of a successful entrepreneur. Other researchers asked, “Are there gender-
based differences in personal values and business strategies that could have an impact on
entrepreneurial activities and outcomes?” Some findings suggested that women working in male-
dominated industries allowed the pressure of external factors to dictate their strategies, regardless
of their personal values, while males felt free to develop strategies that mirrored their personal
values (Olson & Currie, 1992). This approach was taken in a slightly different direction in a
study conducted in North Ireland that used Identity Structure Analysis to examine the process of
change in women’s values and beliefs as a result of business start-up. It concluded that women
did not display “classic” entrepreneurial values, in particular rejecting risk taking and profit
motivation (MacNabb, McCoy, Weinreich, & Northover, 1993).
Gendered differences in psychological profiles continued to be a point of interest. One study of
women and men entrepreneurs and employees investigated whether psychological profiles varied
along gender and/or employment lines, but found few differences (Sexton, Bowman-Upton,
1990). However, within group differences proved to be interesting in that the degree of internal
locus of control was found to differ between those with moderate success and those with far
greater levels of success (Nelson, 1991). Women also reported more internal/stable attributions
as reasons for getting into business while men reported more external/stable attributions
(Gatewood, Shaver, & Gartner, 1995).
A longitudinal study assessed the relationship between psychological characteristics and business
organizing activities, using measures of achievement motivation, locus of control, risk
perception, and creativity. The most significant difference between men and women
entrepreneurs was found in scores on innovation and achievement/activity (Shaver, Gartner,
Gatewood, & Vos, 1996). A surprising finding emerged through an adaptation of Miner’s model
that allowed for the consideration of attributional styles. These results showed female
entrepreneurs and managers were more likely to take risks than their male counterparts. The
authors suggested that women may be more willing to accept entrepreneurial risk because they
face a more hostile and prejudicial work environment (Bellu, 1993).

21
Gender stereotypes also appeared in research examining motivations and definitions of success.
Using data from the National Foundation for Women Business Owners, Romano (1994) probed
how entrepreneurs define and achieve success. The findings showed specific gender differences
in definitions of success. Women reported success was having control over their own destinies,
building ongoing relationships with clients, and doing something fulfilling. Men described
success in terms of achieving goals (Romano, 1994). However, another study reported that
women chose self-fulfillment and goal achievement as primary measures of success rather than
financial profitability (Buttner & Moore, 1997). And still others found that women business
owners under-performed on both survival and growth dimensions, which raised the critical
question of whether initial goals for the business influenced financial outcomes (Srinivasan,
Woo, and Cooper, 1994).
Social roles. The studies of gender and roles extended beyond the entrepreneurial venture into
other areas of women’s lives, beginning with issues related to career choices and running
through spousal and family relationships. Early social learning experiences were related to
career decisions. These foundations were explored in the context of entrepreneurial careers with
the authors concluding that males have a higher preference for entrepreneurship (Mathews &
Moser, 1996), largely because of their levels of self-efficacy and expectations (Scherer,
Brodzinski, & Wiebe, 1990). As women have taken on additional life roles,, the questions have
became even more complex. Holliday and Letherby (1993) conducted a study of how women
integrate the business and social lives.. The authors drew heavily on sociological theory to
interpret women’s roles in small businesses, particularly those roles related to authority. Using
an ethnographic approach, they found examples of both compassion and support for women, but
also evidence of sexual harassment. The relationship between work-family connections and
economic success confirmed support for gender similarity rather than for a gender difference
model. However, the research uncovered vestiges of traditional gender roles consistent with a
gender difference model – primarily in the context of marriage (Loscocco & Leicht, 1993). Role
models, self-assurance, and marriage were positively related to the supply of female
entrepreneurs while education and experience were negatively correlated with entrepreneurship
but positively correlated with entrepreneurial performance (Schiller & Crewson, 1997).
The pull between family and work and the multiple other social roles that women play can be
seen in how role conflict is experienced – regardless of family structure or time spent at work.
This conflict was found to be more prevalent in owners with lower self-esteem or self-worth
(Stoner, Hartman, & Arora, 1990). One study found the relationship between time commitment to
work and time commitment to family mediated the effect of role demands (Parasuraman, Purohit,
Godshal, & Beutell, 1996). As part of the consideration of these roles, the contribution of both
expressive and instrumental support from the spouses was often provided anecdotally (Greene,
1993). In a study of 48 attendees at an entrepreneurship education program, Birley, Moss, and
Saunders (1986) found that men received support from their spouses in their business enterprises
more often than did women. Biggart’s Charismatic Capitalism (1988) includes many incidences of
women involved in direct selling activities, who were required to work around their spouses, rather
than receiving support from them. In the U.K, contribution of a spouse’s labor was seen as a vital
resource (Baines & Wheelock, 1998). Ownership structures were found to be important with
husband/wife partnerships having low growth aspirations (a finding supported by Chell & Baines,
1998) while owners with business partners other than a spouse were more likely to be growth-

22
oriented(Baines & Wheelock, 1998). Another study, also in the UK, explored the “integrated”
approach that women used in the dual spheres of work and family and examined how that approach
differed for men. The authors’ findings did not, however, support different and distinctive
orientations of men and women toward their businesses.
Role flexibility potentially provided by financial and human resources available in the
household, also motivated self-employment (Caputo & Dolinsky, 1998). Higher levels of
husbands’ earnings from self-employment were positively correlated with their wives self-
employment status. However, the same relationship did not hold true with a husband’s earnings
from wages. Other positive contributions to female entrepreneurship were access to the
husband’s knowledge and experience regarding start-up activities and help from the husband in
providing child care (Caputo & Dolinsky, 1998).
Public Policy
Assistance Programs
Much of the conversation in public policy arenas has been focused on how to stimulate and
support entrepreneurship. A fundamental question is, “How can government entities assist in the
growth and development of women owned businesses?” A number of studies have examined
assistance programs and offered suggestions for both the entrepreneurs and the programs. In a
study of assistance received from outside advisors and the value of the consulting, there were no
gendered differences found in either the amount or assessment of the value of the consulting
(Chrisman, Carsrud, DeCastro, & Heron, 1990). Weinstein, Nicholls, and Seaton (1992)
conducted an assessment of SBI marketing consulting and found no gender differences for client
satisfaction or their business characteristics.
Gender-based assistance programs have provided social training programs with the
empowerment of women to manage their lives within the constraints of the new economy as the
desired outcome (Servon, 1996). Though some efforts have been focused on micro-enterprise
training, there has been concern that such programs reinforce industrial segregation and channel
women into businesses areas that are small, home-based, under-capitalized and labor-intensive.
Ehlers and Main (1998) argued that micro-enterprise training programs have discounted the
socio-cultural conditions women bring with them and instead have emphasized the personal
growth of individuals. They maintain that these policies have resulted in maintaining women
entrepreneurs’ economic vulnerability and have supported social peripheralization rather than
moving women into the mainstream economic world. Other research argued that programs were
needed to focus on the skills and behaviors that could facilitate growth, specifically in the
financial management arena (Carter & Allen, 1997).
An evaluation of the programs themselves was also a major research concern. In an evaluation
of a microenterprise training program, it was found that attendance and the effort spent in
completing homework assignments were related to graduation (Cook, Belliveau, & Von Seggern,
2001). Another analysis of a microenterprise training program for low income women
concluded that the training empowered participants to achieve economic self-sufficiency, helped
them to build strong businesses, and contributed to the development of life management skills.

23
The ultimate goal of the programs was to contribute to the growth of locally owned controlled
businesses that would create new jobs in the inner city neighborhoods (Dumas, 2001).
The assistance providers themselves were also studied from a gendered perspective. The study
found that women were more likely to have smaller businesses and they chose to be more active
at local rather than state levels (Andre, 1992). Women’s integration into private sector economic
development organizations in the U.S. reflected the composition of their communities and,
proceeding slowly, was not impeded by any institutional barriers to their participation (Andre,
1995). A constructive environment, including a positive attitude towards women business
owners from business and political leaders, was found to be critical to the development of a
strong female entrepreneurial community (Burr and Strickland, 1992). Other programs targeted
specific communities defined by criteria such as geographic location or race or ethnicity. For
rural women, local support was reported as crucial to the business (Sullivan, Halbrendt, Wang &
Scannel, 1997). Programs to encourage black women to enter entrepreneurship included
government actions to underwrite commercial banks and to develop credit unions, micro-loan
funds, and other programs to make start-up capital more readily available (Dolinsky & Caputo,
1994).
Using the theoretical aspects of gender-based public policy programs specifically designed to
increase the number of women creating and developing new ventures, Walker and Joyner (1999)
proposed a conceptual framework of four kinds of gender discrimination based upon access to
capital: pure, institutional, statistical, and economic. The authors conclude that SBA sponsored
programs have the potential to both decrease discrimination in their programs but also to be a
source of discrimination due to resentment of targeted programs
Special Topics
There are a number of studies that explore issues unique to women business owners but that don’t
fit neatly into any of the designated categories. Some relate to different aspects of the women
entrepreneurs. Others relate to the entrepreneurial process, and some focus on the broader concepts
of entrepreneurship itself, while some address methodological issues.
There are very few gendered studies that carefully consider definitional aspects or
conceptualizations of entrepreneurship. However, one study combined ideas from entrepreneurship
and linguistics to examine definitions of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs. Respondents from
Finland, Sweden, Norway, Ireland, Canada, and Australia viewed the concepts as equivalents
(Hyrsky, 1999). Five components of the entrepreneurship concept were identified: work
commitment and energy, economic values and results, innovativeness and risk-taking, ambition and
achievement, and egotistic features. Three factors were used to define the concept of an
entrepreneur: agent of change, self-serving individualist, and hard worker. An analysis of
metaphorical expressions for the concepts generated by the participants were grouped into semantic
categories consisting of machinery and other physical objects, warfare and adventure, sports and
games, creativity and activity, nature, disease, food items and special features. The study concluded
that entrepreneurs had more positive attitudes towards entrepreneurial traits and behaviors than did
other respondents and that females tended to perceive the concepts even more positively than males

24
did. These results were even more powerful in the Scandinavian countries where the respondents
held the most favorable views of the concepts (Hyrsky, 1999).
How a society thinks about entrepreneurship may influence the pool of potential entrepreneurs.
While the nascent entrepreneur, one who is in the start-up process, is considered in some research,
rarely are potential entrepreneurs studied. One project assessed knowledge and attitudes of high
school students toward entrepreneurship (Kourisky & Walstad, 1998). The authors found many
similarities between males and females in areas of both knowledge and opinions, with everyone
showing a low level of entrepreneurship knowledge. Differences were found in that females were
more aware of their knowledge deficiency in this area. And, while interested, were less interested
than males in tone day starting a new business. However, both females and males indicated they
wanted to give back to the community (Kourisky & Walstad, 1998). This issue of social
responsibility was linked to ethics as well. Using a stakeholder perspective of ethical attitudes and
standards to predict entrepreneurial situational reactions regarding ethnical standards, Bucar and
Hisrich (2001) found few ethical differences between entrepreneurs and managers. However,
female entrepreneurs and managers were slightly more ethical in certain situations than their male
counterparts.
Very few studies addressed women in unique business or geographic settings. Only one paper
studied women in franchising. Women were found less likely to use a franchising route to business
ownership. The authors speculated that women may be less aware of or attracted to the franchising
option because of their relative inexperience and historically lower exposure to franchising (Dant,
Brush, & Iniesta, 1996). More studies were dedicated to the rural/urban divide. Rural women
reported start-up motivations of flexibility in work hours and location, economic necessity, and
the lack of job security (Sullivan, Halbrendt, Wang, & Scannell, 1997). Another study analyzed
how motives for starting their businesses affected rural women entrepreneurs’ management
styles. Drawing on projection theory, the authors found that the women placed great importance
on relationships and created and maintained company cultures with minimal interpersonal
conflict among employees (Robinson, 2001). And yet another pair of researchers proposed a
model of entrepreneurial marketing for rural women, using strategies of opportunity seeking,
information collection, and innovation and marketing strategies. The distinguishing feature was
one of local groundedness developed through informal social networks developed at the
grassroots level (Mankelow & Merrilees, 2001).
One of the fundamental premises of this paper is that not enough research has been devoted to
the study of women and their entrepreneurial behaviors. A similar premise prompted a study
exploring the extent of the coverage of women entrepreneurs in both the popular and scholarly
press (Baker, Aldrich, & Liou, 1997). The authors pointed out that the coverage of women
business owners actually declined between 1982 and 1995, with more than 85% of
entrepreneurship articles published in that time period making no mention of women. They
concluded that: 1) the media no longer considers women’s businesses to be “news”; 2) scholars
are not interested in women’s firms because they are predominantly small and therefore
unimportant; 3) there are few documented differences between men and women owners and
consequently reporters and scholars no longer search for them. However, there are dissenting
voices. They indicate that 1) small but significant gender differences were found in studies of
social behavior and leadership; 2) women owners possess unique entrepreneurial skills and

25
advantages that merit better understanding. Why haven’t these voices been heard? The authors
argued that androcentrism has clouded perceptions of gender differences and blinded journalists
and academics in two ways. First, women’s distinctive contributions have been muted as female
entrepreneurs have adapted to the gendered institutions of businesses; 2) the search for
distinctive contributions by women owners has been sidetracked by the assumption that
traditional ways of doing business are “natural.”
Secondary Data Analysis
The vast majority of the papers reviewed here are empirical. Almost all report findings based on
primary research in which the sample frame was determined and often created by the
researcher(s). However, there are a few studies that have used large, federal data sets to provide
categorical descriptions and to highlight entrepreneurial propensities. Dolinsky, Caputo,
Pasumarty, and Quazi (1993) and Dolinsky and Caputo (1994) used longitudinal census data
from the National Longitudinal Survey of Labor Market Experience to discover the importance
of self-employment to social and economic mobility, focusing on specific effects of
entrepreneurship on the improvement of the status of the lesser educated and economic
disadvantaged individuals. . They also used the data set to track differences in the rates at which
black and white populations choose self-employment. These authors found the racial differences
to be due primarily to black women’s limited propensity for entrepreneurship. In another study,
the same authors explored the relationship between financial and human capital in the household
and a woman’s choice to become self-employed (Dolinsky & Caputo, 1998).
Devine (1994) used the Current Population Survey Census Data (CPS) to explore characteristics
of self-employed women. She reported that the “average self-employed woman” is older,
married, under someone else’s health care policy, and has more than a high school education.
Boden (1996) used the Characteristics of Business Owners (CBO) to show that gender inequality
in wage and salary earnings may positively influence some women’s decision to leave wage
employment for self-employment. Boden and Nucci (1997) used both the CPS and the CPO for
1982-1987 to compare sex, age, education, marital status, percent income from self-employment,
industry, and region. Gender was found to be a major explanatory variable for differing rates of
self-employment (Boden & Nucci, 1997). The flow of people in and out of self-employment
was also studied using the Revenue Canada Longitudinal data from Survey of Labor and Income
Dynamics. Lin, Picot, and Compton (2000) found that while having a self-employed spouse
increased the likelihood of the other spouse being self-employed, women’s self-employment was
more responsive than men’s to the national unemployment rate.
Boden also used the CPS to further explore gender inequality in wage earnings and women’s
decisions to become self-employed, reporting that women’s lower wage returns to observed
worker characteristics had a positive and significant affect on women’s decisions to move to self-
employment (1999
a
). Women were also more likely to cite flexibility of schedule and family-
related reasons for becoming self-employed while men’s reasons showed little association with
their parental status (1999
b
). And finally, Boden & Nucci (2000) used census data to examine
the relationship between owner and business characteristics and business survival for the years
1982 and 1987. When considering only sole proprietorships in retail and service industries,
survival rates were affected by owner experience for both males and females, but the survival

26
rate for male-owned businesses was higher by six percent. The authors concluded that women
were disadvantaged in terms of previous managerial experiences and wage opportunities and,
therefore, had less human and financial capital for business ownership.
Capital stocks and flows were also studied using the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID).
The data revealed that the presence of a self-employed husband enabled intra-family flows of
financial and human capital and encouraged females to become self-employed (Bruce, 1999).
Another analysis using PSID data showed that the number of men and women making the
transition to self-employment was almost equal but that men were more likely to move upward
in earnings distribution (Holtz-Eaken, Rosen, & Weathers, 2000).
Another large data set, the General Social Survey, was used to analyze differences in human and
social capital of women business owners (Greene & Johnson, 1995) as well as the incidence of
social networking and the differences in the level of networking between women entrepreneurs,
male entrepreneurs, and female salaried managers (Katz & Williams, 1997). This study allowed
for a secondary analysis of weak-tie network linkage in formal organizations and concluded that
entrepreneurs’ weak-tie network efforts are lower than those of managers and that female
entrepreneur engage in less weak-tie networking than salaried male managers (Katz & Williams,
1997).
National data sets have been used in several other countries.. In Britain, the Household Panel
Survey was used to identify differences in the personal and demographic characteristics of men
and women. Cowling & Taylor (2001) found that women entrepreneurs were better educated
than their male counterparts and less likely to move in and out of entrepreneurship. However,
male entrepreneurs were three times more likely to expand their ventures from single self-
employed operation to a job creating venture employing others. The authors concluded that
mature males with more life experience have accumulated more of the human capital necessary
for business survival and growth
These varied topics and different methodologies do not fit neatly into our organizing categories,
but they raise issues of particular note or concern and bring new analytic tools to the inquiry.
CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH
Researchers from around the world have been studying women’s entrepreneurship for
approximately 25 years. While our knowledge of the phenomena has increased dramatically,
there are still many questions unanswered. The purpose of this review is to organize and
synthesize the work that has already been done and to identify the questions yet to be addressed.
These may be organized (condensing several of our previous categories) into three primary
areas: human capital, strategic choice at both the personal and business level, and structural
barriers in the environment.
Human Capital. Research about human capital factors in women’s entrepreneurship is more
than 35 years old, with nearly 50% of all studies including these dimensions. However, the vast
majority of the research relies on a narrow set of theories (e.g. trait psychology, motivational
theory), and measures (e.g. experience, education, and other demographics). Future studies of

27
the role of human capital in women’s entrepreneurship should draw from leadership and career
theories to examine questions of vision and aspirations for the entrepreneur’s future, and
introduce social learning theory to examine how entrepreneurs learn over the life cycle of their
career and venture. Interesting questions for the future include:
• How do women develop entrepreneurial competencies during the new venture creation and
growth process?
• What is the role of leadership vision in the growth and development of women’s
entrepreneurial ventures?
• Does women’s socialization influence their success in acquiring resources and in particular,
growth capital?
• Do women entrepreneurs manage their entrepreneurial careers in the same way as their male
counterparts? What are the cycles, transitions and challenges and how do they overcome
these?
Strategic Choice. The existing research has not yet developed a clear understanding of the
aspirations and strategies of women entrepreneurs. A significant portion of the research draws
from previous instruments developed for and about men and much of the research on women is
not theoretically grounded. We believe that research about the strategic choices women make –
from the type of business, to the sector, to the growth strategy should be explored in greater
depth. In particular, research addressing women and men’s product/market strategies, goals,
and approaches for competing might suggest whether or not the choice of industry, sector or
growth goals determines subsequent acquisition of resources, team building, growth and
performance, or even personal satisfaction. Some interesting research questions might be:
• What factors influence the growth strategies for women-led ventures?
• What role does the strategic choice of sector and firm type play in the growth of women led
ventures?
• What are patterns of financing for women-led ventures and how do these compare to men-led
ventures?
• How do women approach resource acquisition and do their approaches influence growth and
performance of their ventures?
Structural Barriers. Past research has concentrated on objective barriers, in particular, access
to credit and financing. More recent research examines women’s access to equity capital,
although this work is relatively sparse, However, many other resources are needed to start and
grow a venture, yet potential barriers to acquiring equipment, technology, or gaining access to
distribution channels, expertise, information and other resources is often ignored. In addition,
the subtle barriers inhibiting women’s ability to grow and expand their ventures are examined in
some research, but not studied in depth. Future research might consider whether draw from
institutional or social network theory to examine whether or not institutional norms or network
configurations influence women’s ability to acquire resources, or grow their ventures. In
particular, the extent to which barriers exist and influence successful capital acquisition and
subsequent growth would shed light on reasons for the “equity funding gap”. Alternatively,
resource based theories might be the basis of exploring how women-led venture develop

28
capabilities leading to competitive advantages. Interesting questions in this area of research
include:
• What are the institutional norms in the different industries, and how do these influence
women’s ability to acquire resources at start-up and during growth of their ventures?
• What is the role of industry beliefs, practices and norms in determining whether women
are successful in acquiring equity capital?
IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATORS
Though the extant research suggests many similarities among male and female entrepreneurs,
there are sufficient differences to warrant discussion and special attention in the classroom.
Some of the most salient issues that young women need to be better informed about include:
• the need for business-relevant education and the importance business and managerial
experience.
• the fact that personal decisions about timing and commitment to the business currently play a
greater role in women’s entrepreneurial choices than they do for men. So too, do issues of
work and family balance.
• the relationship between personal considerations and women’s choices of industry, growth
aspirations, access to capital, and long-term financial success.
It is important to raise these issues early and to present them as choices rather than destiny. The
use of teaching materials that feature women entrepreneurs in a greater variety of industries and
with high growth aspirations can expand the horizons and stimulate aspirations of women
students while broadening the perspectives of their male colleagues who are likely to be their
future spouses, bankers, investors, and employees. Multiple ways to expand business
experiences can also be considered, including programs of personal coaching and mentoring.
Training programs to address specific tasks and skills can address not only increased expertise,
but also enhance levels of self-confidence. A broader education can also help young women
understand their unique situation regarding historical, economic, ethnic, legal and religious
contexts (Oppedisano, 2003).
As the enrollment of women in business schools continue to increase, we can provide these
young women with the tools and skills so important to success in entrepreneurial venturing. The
payoffs will come at the individual, the firm, and the community levels.

29
Reference List
Ahwireng-Obeng, F. (1993). Gender, entrepreneurship and socioeconomic reparation in South
Africa. Review of Black Political Economy, 22 (2), 151-165.
Aldrich, H. (1989). Networking among women entrepreneurs. In O. Hagan, C. Rivchun, & D.
Sexton (Eds), Women-owned businesses (pp. 103-132). New York: Praeger.
Aldrich, H., Reese, P. R., Dubini, P., Rosen, B., & Woodward, B. (1989). Women on the verge
of a breakthrough?: Networking among entrepreneurs in the United States and Italy. In R.
H. Brockhaus, Sr., N. C. Churchill, J. A. Katz, B. A. Kirchhoff, K. H. Vesper, & W. E.
Wetzel, Jr. (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneurial research (pp. 560-574). Boston, MA:
Babson College.
Alsos, G. A., & Ljunggren, E. (1998). Does the business start-up process differ by gender? A
longitudinal study of nascent entrepreneurs. In P. D. Reynolds, W. D. Bygrave, S.
Manigart, C. M. Mason, G. D. Meyer, N.M. Carter, & K. G. Shaver (Eds.), Frontiers of
entrepreneurial research (pp. 137-151). Boston, MA: Babson College.
Andre, R. (1992). A national profile of women’s participation in networks of small business
leaders. Journal of Small Business Management, 30 (1), 66-73.
Andre, R. (1995). Diversity in executive networks: A national study of women’s representation
in private sector economic development. Journal of Managerial Issues, 7 (3), 306-322.
Anna, A. L., Chandler, G. N., Jansen, E. & Mero, N.P. (2000). Women business owners in
traditional and non-traditional industries. Journal of Business Venturing, 15 (3), 279-303.
Baines, S., & Wheelock, J. 1998. Working for each other: Gender, the household, and micro-
business survival and growth. International Small Business Journal, 17 (1), 16-35.
Baker, T., Aldrich, H. E., & Liou, N. (1997). Invisible entrepreneurs: The neglect of women
business owners by mass media and scholarly journals in the U.S.A. Entrepreneurship
and Regional Development, 9, 221-238.
Barrett, M. (1995). Feminist perspectives on learning for entrepreneurship: The view from small
business. In W. D. Bygrave, B. J, Bird, S. Birley, N. C. Churchill, M. Hay, R. H. Keeley,
& W. E. Wetzel, Jr. (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneurial research (pp. 323-336). Boston,
MA: Babson College.
Belcourt, M. (1990). A family portrait of Canada’s most successful female entrepreneurs.
Journal of Business Ethics, 9 (4/5), 435-438.
Bellu, R. R. (1993). Task role motivation and attributional style as predictors of entrepreneurial
performance: Female sample findings. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 5,
331-344.

30
Biggart, N.1988. Charismatic Capitalism. University of Chicago Press.
Bird, B.J. & Brush ,C.G. (2003) A gendered perspective on organizational creation:
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 26 (3), 41-65.
Birley, S. (1989). Female entrepreneurs: Are they really any different? Journal of Small Business
Management, 27 (1), 32-37.
Birley, S., Moss, C., & Saunders, P. (1987). Do women entrepreneurs require different training?
American Journal of Small Business, 12 (1), 27-35.
Blanchflower, D., & Meyer, B. (1992). A longitudinal analysis of the young self-employed in
Australia and the United States. Small Business Economics, 6 (1), 1-20.
Bliss, R. T., & Garratt, N. L. (2001). Supporting women entrepreneurs in transitioning
economies. Journal of Small Business Management, 39 (4), 336-344.
Boden, R. J. (1996). Gender and self-employment selection: An empirical assessment. Journal of
Socio-Economics, 25 (6), 671-682.
Boden Jr., R.J. (1999
a
). Gender inequality in wage earnings and female self-employment
selection. Journal of Socio-Economics, 28 (3), 351-364.
Boden Jr., R.J. (1999
b
). Flexible working hours, family responsibilities, and female self-
employment: Gender differences in self-employment selection. American Journal of
Economics and Sociology, 58 (1), 71-84.
Boden, R. J., & Nucci, A. R. (1997). Counting the self-employed using household and business
sample data. Small Business Economics, 9 (5), 427-436.
Boden, R. J., Jr., & Nucci, A. R. (2000). On the survival prospects of men’s and women’s new
business ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 15 (4), 347-362.
Brockhaus, R. H. (1980). Risk-Taking propensity of entrepreneurs. Academy of Management
Journal 23 (3): 509-520.
Brophy, D. J. (1989). Financing women owned entrepreneurial firms. In, O. Hagan, C. Rivchun,
& D. Sexton (Eds.) Women Owned Businesses (pp. 55-76). New York: Praeger.
Bruce, D. (1999). Do husbands matter? Married women entering self-employment. Small
Business Economics, 13 (4), 317-329.
Brush, C.G. 1990. Women and enterprise creation: Barriers and opportunities. In S. Gould & J.
Parzen (eds.) Enterprising women: Local initiatives for job creation. Paris: OECD, 37-
58.

31
Brush, C. G. (1992). Research on women business owners: Past trends, a new perspective and
future directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(4), 5-30.
Brush, C. G. (1997). Women-owned businesses: Obstacles and opportunities. Journal of
Developmental Entrepreneurship, 2 (1), 1-24.
Brush, C. G., & Hisrich, R. D. (1991). Antecedent influences on women-owned businesses.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 6 (2), 9-16.
Bucar, B., & Hisrich, R.D. (2001). Ethics of business managers vs. entrepreneurs. Journal of
Developmental Entrepreneurship, 6 (1), 59-82.
Burr, S. G., & Strickland, M. (1992). Creating a positive business climate for women: An
approach to small business development. Economic Development Review, 10 (1), 63-66.
Buttner, E. H. (1993). Female entrepreneurs: How far have they come? Business Horizons, 36
(2), 59-65.
Buttner, E. H. (2001). Examining female entrepreneurs’ management style: An application of a
relational frame. Journal of Business Ethics, 29 (3), 253-270.
Buttner, E. H., & Moore, D. P. (1997). Women’s organizational exodus to entrepreneurship:
Self-reported motivations and correlates with success. Journal of Small Business
Management, 35 (1), 34-46.
Buttner, E. H., & Rosen, B. (1988). Bank loan officers’ perceptions of characteristics of men,
women and successful entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 3 (3), 249-258.
Buttner, E. H., & Rosen, B. (1989). Funding new business ventures: Are decision makers biased
against women entrepreneurs? Journal of Business Venturing, 4 (4), 249-261.
Buttner, E. H., & Rosen B (1992). Rejection in the loan application process: Male and female
entrepreneurs’ perceptions and subsequent intentions. Journal of Small Business
Management, 30 (1), 58-65.
Caputo, R. K., & Dolinsky, A. (1998). Women’s choice to pursue self-employment: The role of
financial and human capital of household members. Journal of Small Business
Management, 36 (3), 8-17.
Carter, N. M., & Allen, K. R. (1997). Size-determinants of women-owned businesses: Choice or
barriers to resources. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 9 (3), 211-220.
Carter, N. M., Williams, M., & Reynolds P.D. (1997). Discontinuance among new firms in retail:
The influence of initial resources, strategy and gender. Journal of Business Venturing, 12
(2), 125-145.

32
Carter, S., & Rosa, P. (1998). The financing of male and female owned-business.
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 10 (3), 225-241.
Center for Women’s Business Research. 2002. New Analysis Documents Employment and
Revenue Distribution of Women-Owned Firms in 2002., August 27.
www.womensbusinessresearch.org.
Chaganti, R. (1986). Management in women-owned enterprises. Journal of Small Business
Management, 24 (4), 18-29.
Chaganti, R., DeCarolis, D., & Deeds, D. (1995). Predictors of capital structure in small
ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 20 (2), 7-18.
Chaganti, R., & Parasuraman, S. (1996). A study of the impact of gender on business
performance and management patterns in small businesses. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 21 (2), 73-75.
Chan, S. Y & Foster, M. J. (2001). Strategy formulation in small business: The Hong Kong
experience. International Small Business Journal, 19 (3), 56-71.
Chell, E., & Baines, S. (1998). Does gender affect business ‘performance’? A study of micro-
businesses in business services in the U.K. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development,
10 (2), 117-135.
Chrisman, J. J., Carsrud, A. L., DeCastro, J., & Heron, L. (1990). A comparison of assistance
needs of male and female pre-venture entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 5
(4), 235-248.
Cliff, J. E. (1998). Does one size fit all? Exploring the relationship between attitudes towards
growth, gender, and business size. Journal of Business Venturing, 13 (6), 523-542.
Cole, R. A., & Wolken, J. D. (1995). Financial services used by small businesses: Evidence from
the 1993 National Survey of Small Business Finance. Federal Reserve Bulletin, 81 (7),
629-667.
Coleman, S. (2000). Access to capital and terms of credit: A comparison of men- and women-
owned small businesses. Journal of Small Business Management, 38 (3), 37-52.
Collerette, P., & Aubry, P. G. (1990). Socio-economic evolution of women business owners in
Quebec (1987). Journal of Business Ethics, 9 (4/5), 417-422.
Collins, O. F. & Moore, D. G. (1964). The Enterprising Man. East Lansing: Bureau of Business
and Economic Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Michigan State
University.

33
Cook, R. G., Belliveau, P., & VonSeggern, K. L. (2001, December). A case study of
microenterprise training: Beta test findings and suggestions for improvement. Journal of
Developmental Entrepreneurship, 6 (3), 255-267.
Cooper, A.C. (1981). Strategic management: New ventures and small business. Long Range
Planning. 14 (5): 39-46.
Cooper, A. C., & Artz, K. W. (1995). Determinants of satisfaction for entrepreneurs. Journal of
Business Venturing, 10 (6), 439-457.
Cooper Maysami, R., & Goby, V. P. (1999). Female business owners in Singapore and
elsewhere: A review of studies. Journal of Small Business Management, 37 (2), 96-105.
Covin, T. J. (1994). Perceptions of family-owned firms: The impact of gender and educational
level. Journal of Small Business Management, 32 (3), 29-39.
Cowling, M., & Taylor, M. (2001). Entrepreneurial women and men: Two different species?
Small Business Economics, 16 (3), 167-175.
Cromie, S., & Birley, S. (1992). Networking by female business owners in Northern Ireland.
Journal of Business Venturing, 7 (3), 237-251.
Cuba, R., Decenzo D., & Anish, A. (1983). Management practices of successful female business
owners. American Journal of Small Business, 8 (2), 40-45.
Daily, C. M., Certo, S. T., & Dalton, D.R. (1999). Entrepreneurial ventures as an avenue to the
top? Assessing the advancement of female CEOs and directors in the Inc. 100. Journal of
Developmental Entrepreneurship, 4 (1), 19-32.
Dant, R. P., Brush, C. G., & Iniesta, F.P. (1996). Participating patterns of women in franchising.
Journal of Small Business Management, 34 (2), 14-28.
Devine, T. J. (1994). Characteristics of self-employed women in the United States. Monthly
Labor Review, 117 (3), 20-34.
Dolinsky, A. L., Caputo, R. K., Pasumarty, K., & Quazi, H. (1993). The effects of education on
business ownership: A longitudinal study of women. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 18 (1), 43-53.
Dolinsky, A. L., & Caputo, R. K. (1994). Long-term entrepreneurship patterns: A national study
of black and white female entry and stayer status differences. Journal of Small Business
Management, 32 (1), 18-26.
Dumas, C. (2001). Evaluating the outcomes of micro-enterprise Training for low income
women: A case study. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 6 (2), 97-128.

34
Du Reitz, A., & Henrekson, M. (2000). Testing the female underperformance hypothesis. Small
Business Economics, 14, 1-10.
Ehlers, T. B., & Main, K. (1998). Women and false promise of micro-enterprise. Gender and
Society, 12 (4), 424-440.
Evans, E., & Leighton, L. (1989). The determinants of changes in U.S. self-employment, 1968-
1987. Small Business Economics, 1, 111-119.
Fabowale, L., & Orser, B., & Riding, A. (1995). Gender, structural factors, and credit terms
between Canadian small businesses and financial institutions. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 19 (4), 41-65.
Fagenson, E.A. 1993. Personal Value Systems of Men and Women Entrepreneurs Versus
Managers. Journal of Business Venturing 8:409-430.
Fagenson, E. A., & Marcus, E. A. (1991). Perceptions of the sex-role stereotypic characteristics
of entrepreneurs: Women’s evaluations. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 15 (4),
33-47.
Fasci, M. A., & Valdez, J. (1998). A performance contrast of male- and female-owned small
accounting practices. Journal of Small Business Management, 36 (3), 1-7.
Fay, M., & Williams, L. (1993). Gender bias and the availability of business loans. Journal of
Business Venturing, 8 (4), 363-376.
Finnerty, J. F., & Krzystofik, A. T. (1985). Barriers to small business formation. Journal of
Small Business Management, 23 (3), 50-58.
Fischer, E. M., Reuber, A. R., & Dyke, L.S (1993). A theoretical overview and extension of
research on sex, gender, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 8 (2), 151-
168.
Gadenne, D. (1998). Critical success factors for small business: An inter-industry comparison.
International Small Business Journal, 17 (1), 36-57.
Gagperson, E. A. (1993). Personal value systems of men and women entrepreneurs versus
managers. Journal of Business Venturing, 8 (5), 409-430.
Gartner, William B. 1989. "Who is an Entrepreneur?" Is the Wrong Question." Entrepreneurial
Theory and Practice 13 (Summer):47-68.
Gatewood, E., G., Carter, N. M., Brush, C. G., Greene, P. G., & Hart, M. M. 2003. Women
Entrepreneurs, Their Ventures, and the Venture Capital Industry: An Annotated
Bibliography. Stockholm: ESBRI.

35
Gatewood, E. J., Shaver, K. G., & Gartner, W. B. (1995). A longitudinal study of cognitive
factors influencing start-up behaviors and success at venture creation. Journal of Business
Venturing, 10 (5), 371-391.
Geoffee, R. & Scase, R (1983) Business ownership and women’s subordination: A
preliminary study of female proprietors, The Sociology Review, 331:4, 625-648
Green, E., & Cohen, L. (1995). Women’s businesses: Are women entrepreneurs breaking new
ground or simply balancing the demands of ‘women’s work’ in a new way? Journal of
Gender Studies, 4 (3), 297-314.
Greene, P. 1993. The role of ethnic sponsorship of business activities in economic
development: A theoretical review and empirical example. Preparing the Entrepreneur
for 2000 and Beyond. Conference Proceedings of the Eighth Annual National
Conference, United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
Greene, P. G., Brush, C. G., Hart, M.M., & Saparito, P. (2001). Patterns of venture capital
funding: Is gender a factor? Venture Capital: An International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Finance, 3 (1), 63-83.
Greer, M.A. & Greene, P.G. Forthcoming. Feminist Theory and the Study of Entrepreneurship.
Greene, P.G. & Johnson, M.A. 1995. Middleman minority theory: A theoretical consideration
of self- employed women. The National Journal of Sociology 9 (1):59-84.
Gundry, L.K., & Welsch, H.P. (2001). The ambitious entrepreneur: High growth strategies of
women-owned enterprises. Journal of Business Venturing, 16 (5), 453-470.
Gunnerud Berg, N. (1997). Gender, place and entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship and Regional
Development, 9 (3), 259-268.
Hagan, O., Rivchun, C., & Sexton, D. (Eds.) 1989. Women-Owned Businesses. NY: Praeger.
Haines, Jr. G.H., Orser, G. H., & Riding, A.L. (1999). Myths and Realities: An empirical study
of banks and the gender of small business clients. Canadian Journal of Administrative
Sciences, 16 (4), 291-307.
Haynes, G. W., & Haynes, D. C. (1999). The debt structure of small businesses owned by
women in 1987 and 1993. Journal of Small Business Management, 37 (2), 1-19.
Haynes, P. J., & Helms, M. M. (2000). When bank loans launch new ventures: A profile of the
growing female entrepreneur segment. Bank Marketing, 32 (5), 28-36.
Hisrich, R. D. (1989). Women entrepreneurs: Problems and prescriptions for success in the
future. In O. Hagan, C. Rivchin & D. Sexton (Eds.), Women-owned Businesses (pp. 3-
32). New York: Praeger.

36
Hisrich, R. D., & Brush, C. (1983). The woman entrepreneur: Implications of family educational,
and occupational experience. In J. A. Hornaday, J. A. Timmons, & K. H. Vesper (Eds.),
Frontiers of entrepreneurial research (pp. 255-270). Boston, MA: Babson College.
Hisrich, R. D., & Brush, C. (1984). The woman entrepreneur: Management skills and business
problems. Journal of Small Business Management, 22 (1), 30-37.
Hisrich, R. D., & Brush, C. G. (1985). Women and minority entrepreneurs: A comparative
analysis. In J. A. Hornaday, E. B. Shils, J. A. Timmons, & K. H. Vesper (Eds.), Frontiers
of entrepreneurial research (pp. 566-587). Boston, MA: Babson College.
Hisrich, R. D. and Brush, C.G. (1986). The Woman Entrepreneur: Starting, Managing, and
Financing a Successful New Business. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
Hisrich, R. D., & Brush, C. G. (1987). Women entrepreneurs: A longitudinal study. In N. C.
Churchill, J.A. Hornaday, B.A. Kirchhoff, O.J. Krasner, & K.H. Vesper (Eds.), Frontiers
of entrepreneurial research (pp. 187-199). Boston, MA: Babson College.
Hisrich, R. D., & O’Brien, M. (1981). The woman entrepreneur from a business and sociological
perspective. In K.H. Vesper (Ed.), Frontiers of entrepreneurial research (pp. 21-39).
Boston, MA: Babson College.
Hisrich, R. D., &. O’Brien, M. (1982). The woman entrepreneur as a reflection of the type of
business. In K.H. Vesper (Ed.), Frontiers of entrepreneurial research (pp. 54-67).
Boston, MA: Babson College.
Holmquist, C. & Sundin, E. (1988). Women as entrepreneurs in Sweden: Conclusions from A
survey. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research: 626-642.
Holmquist, C., & Sundin, E. (1990). What’s special about highly educated women entrepreneurs.
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 2, 181-193.
Holliday, R., & Letherby, G. (1993). Happy families or poor relations? An exploration of
familial analogies in the small firm. International Small Business Journal, 11 (2), 54-63.
Holtz-Eaken, D., Rosen, H.S., & Weathers, R. (2000). Horatio Alger meets the mobility tables.
Small Business Economics, 14 (4), 243-274.
Honig-Haftel, S., & Martin, L (1986). Is the female entrepreneur at a disadvantage? Thrust, 7
(1,2), 49-65.
Hurley, Amy E. 1991. “Incorporating Feminist Theories into Sociological Theories of
Entrepreneurship.” Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the Academy of
Management, Miami, FL, August.

37
Hyrsky, K. 1999. Entrepreneurial metaphors and concepts: An exploratory study. International
Small Business Journal, 18 (1), 13-34.
Kalleberg, A. L., & Leicht, K. T. (1991). Gender and organizational performance: Determinants
of small business survival and success. Academy of Management Journal, 34 (1), 136-
161.
Kangasharju, A. (2000). Growth of the smallest: Determinants of small firm growth during
strong macroeconomic fluctuations. International Small Business Journal, 19 (1), 28-43.
Kaplan, E. (1988). Women entrepreneurs: Constructing a framework to examine venture success
and failure. In B. A. Kirchhoff, W. A. Long, W. Ed McMullan, K. H. Vesper, & W. E.
Wetzel, Jr. (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneurial research (pp. 643-653). Boston, MA:
Babson College.
Katz, J. A., & Williams, P. M. (1997). Gender, self employment and weak-tie networking
through formal organizations – A secondary analysis approach. Entrepreneurship and
Regional Development, 9 (3), 183-197.
Klofsten, M., & Jones-Evans, D. (2000). Comparing academic entrepreneurship in Europe: The
case of Sweden and Ireland. Small Business Economics, 14 (4), 299-309.
Kolvereid, L., Shane, S., & Westhead, P. (1993). Is it equally difficult for female entrepreneurs
to start businesses in all countries? Journal of Small Business Management, 31 (4), 42-51.
Kourilsky, M. L., & Walstad, W. B. (1998). Entrepreneurship and female youth: Knowledge,
attitudes, gender differences and educational practices. Journal of Business Venturing, 13
(1), 77-88.
Lee-Gosselin, H., & Grise, J. (1990). Are women owner-managers challenging our definitions of
entrepreneurship? An in-depth survey. Journal of Business Ethics, 9 (4/5), 432-433.
Lerner, M., Brush, C. G., & Hisrich, R.D. (1995). Factors affecting performance of Israeli
women entrepreneurs: An examination of alternative perspectives. In W. D. Bygrave, B.
J, Bird, S. Birley, N. C. Churchill, M. Hay, R. H. Keeley, & W. E. Wetzel, Jr. (Eds.),
Frontiers of entrepreneurial research (pp. 308-322). Boston, MA: Babson College.
Lin, Z., Picot, G., & Compton, J. (2000). The entry and exit dynamics of self-employment in
Canada. Small Business Economics, 15 (2), 105-125.
Ljunggren, E., & Kolvereid, L. (1996). New business formation: Does gender make a difference?
Women in Management Review, 11 (4), 3-12.
Longstreth, M., Stafford, K., & Mauldin, T. (1987). Self-employed women and their families:
Time use and socioeconomic characteristics. Journal of Small Business Management, 25
(3), 30-37.

38
Loscocco, K. A., & Leicht, K. T. (1993). Gender, work-family linkages, and economic success
among small business owners. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 55 (4), 875-887.
Loscocco, K. A., Robinson, J., Hall, R.H., & Allen, J.K. (1991). Gender and small business
success: An inquiry into women’s relative disadvantage. Social Forces, 70 (1), 65-85.
Loscosso, K. A., & Robinson, J. (1991). Barriers to women’s small-business success in the
United States. Gender & Society, 5, 511-532.
MacNabb, A., McCoy, J., Weinreich, P., & Northover, M. (1993). Using identity structure
analysis (ISA) to investigate female entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship and Regional
Development, 5 (4), 301-313.
Mankelow, G., & Merrilees, B. (2001). Towards a model of entrepreneurial marketing for rural
women: A case study approach. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 6 (3), 221-
235.
Marlow, S. (1997). Self employed women: New opportunities, old challenges. Entrepreneurship
and Regional Development, 9 (3), 199-210.
Masters, R., & Meier, R. (1988). Sex differences and risk-taking propensity of entrepreneurs.
Journal of Small Business Management, 26 (1), 31-35.
Mathews, C. H., & Moser, S.B. (1996). A longitudinal investigation of the impact of family
background and gender on interest in small firm ownership. Journal of Small Business
Management, 34 (2), 29-43.
McClelland, D. (1961). The Achieving Society. NY: The Free Press.
McKechnie, S.A., Ennew, C. T., & Read, L. H. (1998). The nature of the banking relationship: A
comparison of the experiences of male and female small business owners. International
Small Business Journal, 16 (3), 39-55.
Mirchandani, K. (1999). Feminist insight on gendered work: New directions in research on
women and entrepreneurship. Gender, Work, and Organization, 6 (4), 224-235.
Moore, D. P. (1990). An examination of present research on the female entrepreneur: Suggested
research strategies for the 1990s. Journal of Business Ethics, 9 (4/5), 275-281.
Neider, L. (1987). A preliminary investigation of female entrepreneurs in Florida. Journal of
Small Business Management 25 (3): 22-29.
Nelson, G. (1991). Locus of control for successful female small business proprietors. The Mid-
Atlantic Journal of Business, 27 (3), 213-224.

39
Olson, S. F., & Currie, H. M. (1992). Female entrepreneurs: Personal value systems and business
strategies in a male-dominated industry. Journal of Small Business Management, 30 (1),
49-57.
Oppedisano, J. (2003). The invisible wall: Implications for researching, teaching, &
understanding women’s multidisciplinary entrepreneurship. Paper presented at U.S.
Association of Entrepreneurship and Small Business. Hilton Head, South Carolina.
Parasuraman, S., Purohit, Y. S., Godshalk, V. M., & Beutell, N. J. (1996). Work and family
variables, entrepreneurial career success, and psychological well-being. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 48, 275-300.
Pellegrino, E. T., & Reece, B. L. (1982). Perceived formative and operational problems
encountered by female entrepreneurs in retail and service firms. Journal of Small
Business Management, 20 (2), 15-25.
Read, L. H. (1994). Raising finance from banks: A comparative study of the experiences of male
and female business owners. In W.D. Bygrave, S. Birley, N. C. Churchill, E. Gatewood,
F. Hoy, R. H. Keeley, & W. E. Wetzel, Jr. (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research
(pp. 361-372). Boston, MA: Babson College.
Renzulli, L.A., Aldrich, H., & Moody, J. (2000). Family matters: Gender, networks, and
entrepreneurial outcomes. Social Forces, 79 (2), 523-546.
Riding, A. L., & Swift, C.S. (1990). Women business owners and terms of credit: Some
empirical findings of the Canadian experience. Journal of Business Venturing, 5 (5), 327-
340.
Robinson, S. (2001). An examination of entrepreneurial motives and their influence on the way
rural women small business owners manage their employees. Journal of Developmental
Entrepreneurship, 6 (2), 151-167.
Romano, C. (1994). It looks like men are from Mars, women are from Venus. Management
Review, 83 (10), 7.
Rosa, P., Carter, S., & Hamilton, D. (1996). Gender as a determinant of small business
performance: Insights from a British study. Small Business Economics, 8 (4), 463-478.
Rosa, P., & Hamilton, D. (1994). Gender and ownership in U.K. small firms. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 18 (3), 11-27.
Scherer, R. F., Brodzinski, J. D., & Wiebe, F. A. (1990). Entrepreneur career selection and
gender: A socialization approach. Journal of Small Business Management, 28 (2), 37-44.
Scherr, F. C., Sugrue, T. F., & Ward, J. B. (1993). Financing the small firm start-up:
Determinants of debt use. Journal of Small Business Finance, 3 (1), 17-36.

40
Schiller, B. R., & Crewson, P.E. (1997). Entrepreneurial origins: A longitudinal inquiry.
Economic Inquiry, 35 (3), 523-531.
Schwartz, E. (1976). Entrepreneurship: A new female frontier. Journal of Contemporary
Business, 5 (1), 47-76.
Scott, C. E. (1986). Why more women are becoming entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business
Management, 24 (4), 37-44.
Servon, L. J. (1996). Microenterprise programs and women: Entrepreneurship as individual
empowerment. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 1 (1), 31-55.
Sexton, D. L., & Bowman, N. B. (1986). Validation of a personality index: Comparative
psychological characteristics analysis of female entrepreneurs, managers,
entrepreneurship students and business students. In R. Ronstadt, J. A. Hornaday, R.
Peterson, & K.H. Vesper (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research (pp. 40-51).
Boston, MA: Babson College.
Sexton, D. L., & Bowman-Upton, N. (1990). Female and male entrepreneurs: Psychological
characteristics and their role in gender related discrimination. Journal of Business
Venturing, 5 (1), 29-36.
Sexton, D. L., & Kent, C. A. (1981). Female executives and entrepreneurs: A preliminary
comparison. In K. H. Vesper (Ed.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research (pp 40-55).
Boston, MA: Babson College.
Shabbir, A., & Gregorio, S.Di. (1996). An examination of the relationship between women’s
personal goals and structural factors influencing their decisions to start a business: The
case of Pakistan. Journal of Business Venturing, 11 (6), 507-529.
Shane, S., Kolvereid, L., & Westhead, P. (1991). An exploratory examination of the reasons
leading to new firm formation across country and gender. Journal of Business Venturing,
6 (6), 431-446.
Shaver, K. G., Gartner, W. B., Gatewood, E.J., & Vos, L.H. (1996). Psychological factors in
success at getting into business. In P. D. Reynolds, S. Birley, J. E. Butler, W. D. Bygrave,
P. Davidsson, W. B. Gartner, & P. P. McDougall (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship
research (pp. 77-90). Boston, MA: Babson College.
Shragg, P., Yacuk, L., & Glass, A. (1992). Study of barriers facing Albertan women in business.
Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 9 (4), 40-49.
Singh, S.P., Reynolds, R.G., & Muhammad, S. (2001, April). A gender-based performance
analysis of micro and small enterprises in Java, Indonesia. Journal of Small Business
Management, 39 (2), 174-182.

41
Smeltzer, L. R., & Fann, G. L. (1989). Gender differences in external networks of small business
owner/managers. Journal of Small Business Management, 27 (2), 25-32.
Smith, N. R., McCain, G., & Warren, A. (1982). Women entrepreneurs really are different: A
comparison of constructed ideal types of male and female entrepreneurs. In K.H. Vesper
(Ed.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research (pp. 68-77). Boston, MA: Babson College.
Spilling, O. R., & Berg, N. G. (2000). Gender and small business management: The case of
Norway in the 1990s. International Small Business Journal, 18 (2), 38-59.
Srinivasan, R., Woo, C. Y., & Cooper, A. C. (1994). Performance determinants for male and
female entrepreneurs. In W.D. Bygrave, S. Birley, N.C. Churchill, , E. Gatewood, F.
Hoy, R.H. Kelley, & W. E. Wetzel, Jr. (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research
(pp. 43-56). Boston, MA: Babson College.
Stanworth, C., & Stanworth, J. (1997). Reluctant entrepreneurs and their clients: The case of
self-employed freelance workers in the British book publishing industry. International
Small Business Journal, 16 (1), 58-74.
Stevenson, L. A. (1986). Against all odds: The entrepreneurship of women. Journal of Small
Business Management, 24 (4), 30-36.
Stevenson, L. (1990). Some methodological problems associated with researching women
entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Ethics, 9 (4/5), 439-446.
Stoner, C. R., Hartman, R. I., & Arora, R. (1990). Work-home role conflict in female owners of
small business: An exploratory study. Journal of Small Business Management, 28 (1), 30-
38.
Sullivan, P., Halbrendt, C., Wang, Q., & Scannell, E. (1997). Exploring female entrepreneurship
in rural Vermont and its implications for rural America. Economic Development Review,
15 (3), 37-42.
Ufuk, H., & Ozgen, O. (2001). Interaction between the business and family lives of women
entrepreneurs in Turkey. Journal of Business Ethics, 31 (2), 95-106.
U.S. Bureau of Census. (2001). Women Owned Business. 1997 Economic Census. U.S.
Department of Commerce, 2001
Verheul, I., & Thurik, R. (2001). Start-up capital: Does gender matter? Small Business
Economics, 16 (4), 329-345.
Walker, D., & Joyner, B. E. (1999). Female entrepreneurship and the market process: Gender-
based public policy considerations. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 4 (2),
95-116.

42
Watkins, J. M., & Watkins, D. S. (1983). The female entrepreneur: Her background and
determinants of business choice: Some British data. In J. A. Hornaday, J. A. Timmons, &
K. H. Vesper (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research (pp. 271-288). Boston, MA:
Babson College.
Weinstein, A., Nicholls, J.A.F., & Seaton, B. (1992). An evaluation of SBI marketing consulting:
The entrepreneur’s perspective. Journal of Small Business Management, 30 (4), 62-71.
Westhead, P., & Cowling, M. (1995). Employment change in independent owner-managed high-
technology firms in Great Britain. Small Business Economics, 7 (2), 111-140.
Zapalska, A.M. (1997). A profile of women entrepreneurs and enterprises in Poland. Journal of
Small Business Management, 35 (4), 76-82.

43
Table 1
Journals, Founding Dates and Implications for Articles Published on Female Entrepreneurship
Journal Name Former
Name
Founding
Date
Number
of
Issues/
Year
Total
Number
of Issues
Reviewed
Number of
Articles on
Female
Entrepreneurship
Percentage of
Issues Containing
An Article on
Female
Entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurship
Theory and
Practice
American
Journal of
Small
Business
(1976-
1988)
1976 4 104 7 6.7%
Journal of Small
Business
Management
1976 4 104 31 30%
International
Small Business
Journal
European
Small
Business
Journal
(1981-
1982)
1981 4 84 11 13%
Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship
1981 1 20 18 NA
Journal of
Business Ethics
1982 6 120 7 5.8%
Journal of
Business
Venturing
1985 3-6 87 20 23%
Entrepreneurship
and Regional
Development
1989 4 52 11 21.2%
Small Business
Economics
1989 6 78 14 18%
Journal of
Developmental
Entrepreneurship
1996 2 12 10 83%

44
EXHIBIT 1
2
Total Annotations by Journal - Articles on Women Entrepreneurs
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
FER JBV JSBM SBE ISBJ ETP ERD JDE JBE
FER Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research
JBV Journal of Business Venturing
JSBM Journal of Small Business Management
SBE Small Business Economics
ISBJ International Small Business Journal
ETP Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice
ERD Entrepreneurship & Regional Development
JDE Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship
JBE Journal of Business Ethics
2
Reflects absolute numbers of articles only without reflection of the age of publication, frequency of issues, etc.

45
EXHIBIT 2
ARTICLE PUBLICATION TRENDS ACROSS TIME
3
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
3
Excludes journals identified through snow-ball technique. Does not reflect the number of journals published each
year.

46
EXHIBIT 3
METHODOLOGIES USED TO STUDY FEMALE ENTREPRENEURSHIP
4
Women Entrepreneurs
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Empirical Conceptual Literature Review Rebuttal
Women Entrepreneurs
4
Excludes journals identified through snow-ball technique.

47