Leona Achtenhagen and Malin Tillmar
The self-archived postprint version of this journal article is available at Linköping
University Institutional Repository (DiVA):
N.B.: When citing this work, cite the original publication.
Tillmar, M., Achtenhagen, L., (2012), With a focus on context - studies on women's entrepreneurship
from Nordic countries and beyond: Editorial, Special Issue guest editors, International Journal of
Gender and Entrepreneurship, 5(1), 4-16. https://doi.org/10.1108/17566261311305184
Original publication available at:
With a focus on context – studies on women’s entrepreneurship from
Nordic countries and beyond
Published in: International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 2013, 5(1), 4-16
Leona Achtenhagen and Malin Tillmar
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to direct attention to (recent) research on women’s
entrepreneurship, with a focus on Nordic countries.
Design/method/approach: The paper encourages research investigating how context on the
micro, meso and macro level is related to women’s entrepreneurship, and acknowledging that
gender is socially constructed.
Findings: This paper finds evidence that recent calls for new directions in women’s
entrepreneurship research are being followed, for example regarding how gender is done and
how context is related to women’s entrepreneurial activities.
Originality/value: This paper assesses trends in research on women’s entrepreneurship,
mainly from the Nordic countries.
Keywords: Gender, women, context, Nordic countries
Paper type: Viewpoint
Guest Editor Biography:
Leona Achtenhagen, PhD, is professor of business administration, with special focus on
entrepreneurship and business development, at Jönköping International Business School in
Sweden. One of her main research areas focuses on entrepreneurial and strategic aspects of
small firm growth, often with a focus on the media industries. Other areas of research concern
the portrayal of (women’s) entrepreneurship in media as well as ethnic minority and
transnational diaspora entrepreneurs. She has published in journals such as Entrepreneurship
Theory & Practice, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development and the International Journal
of Media Management.
Malin Tillmar, PhD, is associate professor in business administration and deputy director of
the Helix Vinn Excellence Centre at Linköping University in Sweden. Her research focuses
on less illuminated kinds of entrepreneurship, often with a gender perspective. In 2002, she
defended her dissertation "Swedish Tribalism and Tanzanian Agency: Preconditions for Trust
and Cooperation in a Small Business Context". Since then, Tillmar has studied (women’s)
entrepreneurship in the area of public sector transformation and societal entrepreneurship. In
2005, she won the FSF-Nutek prize for young entrepreneurship researchers. Her research
results have been published for example in Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, the
International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship and the Scandinavian Journal of
The emergence of the academic topic of women’s entrepreneurship is often traced
back to the 1980s (Goffe and Scace, 1985; Hisrich and Brush, 1986). Since then, the
phenomenon of women’s entrepreneurship has triggered considerable interest, both by policy
makers in many countries worldwide as well as by academic researchers. In Sweden, a
pioneering study on women’s entrepreneurship was conducted by Elisabeth Sundin and Carin
Holmquist (1989, 1991). Provoked by statements that there were no women entrepreneurs,
these researchers traced and studied the total population of women business owners through
empirical groundwork. Their work was ground-breaking for the development of the field in
and beyond (see for example Spilling and Gunnerud Berg, 2000, in
Norway). On the international scene, the Diana-project (initiated in 1997 by the US-based
professors Candida G. Brush, Elisabeth J. Gatewood, Nancy M. Carter, Myra M. Hart, and
Patricia G. Green) has of course played a crucial role for developing the academic field (see
also Holmquist and Carter, 2009) and for creating commitment among researchers. By now, it
has developed into an international research project involving scholars from 23 countries,
including several Nordic countries (see for example Alsos, Jensen and Ljunggren, 2010).
The term ‘Nordic countries’ comprises Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden.
Several scholars have pointed out the relevance of context for studies of entrepreneurship in
general (e.g. Johannisson and Monsted, 1998; Welter, 2011)and women’s entrepreneurship in
particular (Hytti, 2005). This special issue originates from the Nordic context – it is in
Sweden the guest editors work and the conference track
, from which selected papers are
published in this issue, took place. In addition, three of the full papers in this special issues
come from the Nordic countries and the fourth takes a world-wide perspective. Therefore, we
will take this opportunity to focus on research findings from Sweden and other Nordic
countries to set the scene.
Sundin and Holmquist (1989) studied the phenomenon of women’s entrepreneurship
in a country which, according to the Global Gender Gap Report 2011, is characterized by a
comparatively small gender gap (ranking fourth after Iceland, Norway and Finland)
(Hausmann, Tyson and Zahidi, 2011). Sundin and Holmquist’s study found a total of 65,000
women running businesses in Sweden, representing around 25 % of the business owners.
Yet, they concluded that women’s business ownership could be characterized by the three key
terms ‘invisibility’, ‘diversity’, and ‘adjustment’. Namely, they found that despite the
relatively high percentage of women owning and running businesses, these women
entrepreneurs were largely invisible in many contexts. But just as male owned businesses, the
female owned businesses displayed a diversity of characteristics, depending on the industry,
size, legal form and geographical area. Furthermore, female entrepreneurs typically adjusted
their businesses to the family situation. The authors identified clear patterns in how the choice
The track ‘Gender and Entrepreneurship’ at the 2011 annual International Council for Small Business (ICSB)
world conference in Stockholm, see below.
In this review, we have searched for and included articles on women’s entrepreneurship drawing on empirical
material from the context of the Nordic countries and published in the following entrepreneurship journals:
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, International Journal of
Gender and Entrepreneurship, International Small Business Journal, Journal of Business Venturing and Small
Business Economics. In addition, we have included relevant publications on the Nordic context where available
In 2004, women represented 24.8% of all self-employed in both Denmark and Sweden, 32% in Finland and
26.7% in Norway (Arenius and Kovalainen, 2006).
of typical sectors differed between women who were single, married/in a partnership or
running a business together with their partner. This led them to question the common
assumption that women entrepreneurs tend to prefer ‘typical female sectors’ per se, rather
suggesting that women entrepreneurs self-select into those sectors partly because of the
adjustment to the family situation.
Moreover, more recent studies have confirmed that the three key terms still seem
valid 20 years later (Sundin and Tillmar, 2010a). Especially, the invisibility of women’s
entrepreneurship in various practices (Javefors-Grauers, 2002; Tillmar, 2007), discourse
(Pettersson, 2002) and in research (Ahl, 2004) has since the pioneering study by Sundin and
Holmquist (1989) been confirmed and further discussed by Swedish scholars. If women
entrepreneurs are invisible even in a country often praised for its gender equality, it is not
surprising that similar patterns emerge in other countries. For example, Achtenhagen and
Welter (2011) found in a recent study that women entrepreneurs are greatly underrepresented
in German newspaper reporting. Also the multitude of women’s entrepreneurship was
confirmed in international studies, finding that there is nothing like one generic kind of
women entrepreneur (Gatewood et al., 2003). This contradiction between the general image of
gender equality and persisting gender-based (i.e. largely male-dominated) power structures
and discourses might very well have contributed to triggering the great interest in gender
studies and women entrepreneurship present not only in Sweden, but also the other Nordic
countries. This research interest was further fueled by Swedish scholar Helene Ahl (e.g. 2004;
2006), who directed attention to the gendering of entrepreneurship research through her
discourse analysis of international research texts.
In Sweden, Carin Holmquist and Elisabeth Sundin continue to be important drivers
of the research focus on women’s entrepreneurship, i.a. through their ‘Female
Entrepreneurship and Management’ research program, funded by the Swedish Agency for
Economic and Regional Growth. The program engaged around a dozen researchers in the
field, putting Sweden firmly on the women’s entrepreneurship research map (e.g. Sundin and
Holmquist, 1996, 2002). This research program has also worked actively with complementing
(women’s) entrepreneurship theory with gender theory (e.g. Javefors-Grauers, 2002;
Lindgren, 2000; Lindgren and Packendorff, 2006) as well as with policy, practice and support
systems. The continuing tradition at many Nordic universities to write PhD theses in their
respective languages makes a bulk of the highly interesting findings that have emerged from
this research program not accessible for an international audience and thereby limits its
impact on developing the field internationally, though they of course inspire theory-building
efforts in the Nordic countries (e.g. Dareblom, 2005; Javefors-Grauers, 2002; Hedfeldt, 2008;
; Näsman, 2000; Pettersson, 2002).
The Swedish research results led the country’s government to invest (this time via
the Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems ‘Vinnova’), into a large-scale
research program ‘Research on women’s entrepreneurship’ (Forskning om kvinnors
företagande). Between 2007 and early 2011, this research program comprised ten different
research projects conducted at different Swedish universities. The government’s aim with
sponsoring this program was to revitalize research and increase knowledge on women’s
entrepreneurship in order to enable the development of better policy measures and,
eventually, increase the numbers of women entrepreneurs (Government Decision N
2007/5532/ENT). The government was driven by the assumption that there was untapped
potential of increased women’s entrepreneurship in the country and that existing policies to
foster entrepreneurship were oriented to men’s entrepreneurship and men-dominated
industries. Therefore, i.a. the need for research which would unmask (hidden) challenges for
This dissertation contains articles also in English.
women entrepreneurs was identified (ibid). This need is confirmed e.g. by a study comparing
the self-employment preferences among women in the different Nordic countries, which
found that despite the similarity of these countries in terms of gender position differences in
factors influencing women’s involvement in new venture formation exist (Arenius and
Kovalainen, 2006). And while national state support systems exist in all Nordic countries,
these are based on different paradigms and rationales (Pettersson, 2012).
In an anthology presenting findings from the different projects, Blomberg, Hedlund
and Wottle (2011: 31-32) identify and discuss three different dilemmas which politics and
policy-making face related to women’s entrepreneurship.
1. The first dilemma refers to how women entrepreneurship is portrayed as a ‘problem’,
in that it is perceived to be happening too little and in ‘wrong’ industry sectors,
namely those displaying too little growth and creating too few jobs. Men’s
entrepreneurship, in contrast, is rarely portrayed is such terms. Women entrepreneurs
are thus constructed as a ‘problematic’ group in need of specific support and help, and
whose entrepreneurial activities are seen as not innovative and productive enough.
2. The second dilemma refers to gender segregation. While the Swedish government
takes up both the labor market and entrepreneurship in its recent action plan towards
gender equality, it is not questioning the segregated labor market per se. Thus, the
action plan encourages women to become entrepreneurs – but expects these activities
to take place within the ‘traditional’ confines of health and care services, transferring
low-income employed positions into low-income self-employment.
3. The third dilemma refers to women as a ‘means’, e.g. as an available, relatively
‘untapped’ resource to spark economic development through entrepreneurial activities.
While Sweden is characterized by relative gender equality when compared to most
other countries, gender issues remain present in Swedish public debate and are frequently
covered in mass media. Despite the public awareness of the topic which this debate fuels,
power structures (and discourses) in the country continue to be somewhat gendered and
unbalanced. Already in the 1970s, Sweden introduced a number of reforms which made it
easier to be part of the labor market: married couples were no longer taxed jointly, but
individually; maternity leave was changed to parental leave; and childcare facilities were
expanded. Thus, the country already a long time ago got rid of a number of formal
institutional bottlenecks commonly identified in empirical studies as great obstacles for
women’s entrepreneurship (e.g. Holst, 2001; Winn, 2004, 2005). An informal gender system
however remains. The gender segregation on the labor market is still strong and also the
hierarchisation is evident from national statistics (see SCB, 2010). Not only professions but
also industries are gender labeled (Lindgren, 2008). The same applies to entrepreneurship as
such, which continues to be gender-labeled as ‘male’ (Ahl, 2004; Ljunggren and Alsos, 2007;
Sundin, 2002). This labeling continues to be reproduced in media, though women
entrepreneurs contribute to discursive change (see for example Berglund, 2006). Naturally,
the gendered structures and discourses can be assumed to have an impact on the fact that
women entrepreneurs still represent only around 25-30% of business ownership in the Nordic
In an analysis of the Swedish welfare state, Bourne (2010) shows the difficulty of
dealing with issues of hierarchical ordering, where policies which were intended to break
down gender barriers appear to reproduce asymmetrical gender systems and a gendered labor
market structure. The impact of the welfare state on women’s entrepreneurial activities is
complex. Among other things, public childcare and elderly care facilitate women’s
participation in the labor market, and these welfare states have been termed ‘women friendly’
(Hernes, 1987; see also Ahl, 2011). Yet, adjustment to women who are owner/managers has
not been sufficient. For example in the case of Denmark, Neergaard and Thrane (2011)
illustrate how though it had been taken for granted that public childcare would facilitate
increased women’s entrepreneurship, this might not necessarily be the case, as there appears
to be a schism between welfare models that facilitate employment and those that facilitate
In Sweden, women’s entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship in social and health-care
has been supported by the government in a number of ways, for example by the National
Agency for Economic and Regional Growth (see e.g. Berglund, 2006; Tillmar, 2007 for
analyses of such projects from a gender perspective). In the political debate, the deregulation
of the public sector was presented as an opportunity for women, who represent the majority of
employees in welfare sectors. As we know from established research that a majority of
entrepreneurs start businesses related to their previous occupations (Shane, 2000; Sundin and
Thörnqvist, 2006), the hope that women would act on newly emerging entrepreneurial
opportunities was not far-fetched. The process of deregulation has involved outsourcing of
publicly funded education, healthcare and social care, and customer-choice systems are
currently being implemented in many municipalities. In these systems, the user decides on
which organization to deliver the publicly funded service. In an official report of the Swedish
government, it was for example stated that “In those municipalities and county councils that
introduce customer choice, small businesses and in particular female entrepreneurship will
be favored…” (SOU 2008:15). Unfortunately, research results assessing the outcomes are to
date contradictory and inconclusive (cf. Sundin and Tillmar, 2010b). If a fulfillment of the
political ambition described above is the best-case scenario from a gender-equality
perspective, the worst-case scenario is that the gender system is reproduced in business
ownership with a resulting “masculinization” of parts of the health and care operations (i.e.
predominant male ownership of newly founded businesses in the sector). In elderly-care, this
situation seems to be emerging, partly due to economies of scale and competition from
international corporations (Sundin and Tillmar, 2010a). However, an ongoing mapping study
will reveal how women’s entrepreneurship has evolved in different parts of the (previously)
public sector and in different regions of the country (Sköld, forthcoming 2012).
In recent years, a number of new policy-related partnerships have emerged, which
had the potential to address the phenomenon of women’s entrepreneurship. However, this
potential seems to have been largely lost, i.a. as women with power in politics and the
economy did not manage to join forces in these partnerships (which include, among others,
the EU-funded regional Structural Funds), as a study of different Swedish regions showed
(Hedlund, 2011). However, as Hedfeldt (2011: 158) concludes from a study of the
representation of women in regional Structural Funds processes and projects, the question is
whether women interested and/or active in entrepreneurship actually could join forces to
formulate a shared agenda (despite their diversity, cf. Sundin and Holmquist, 1989), and
which issues they would in that case want to raise.
This special issue: background and contributions
In the summer of 2011, the guest editors of this special issue organized a track on
“Gender and Entrepreneurship” at the International Council for Small Business (ICSB)
Annual Conference in Stockholm, Sweden. We received close to 100 contributions, from
many corners of the world, but with a high representation of Swedish and other Nordic
scholars. This large number of submissions confirms the recent claim that the field of
women’s entrepreneurship has left its ‘early childhood stage’ (De Bruin, Brush and Welter,
2006), and rather is ‘at the brink to adolescence’, as Hughes et al. (2012) put forward in the
editorial to a special issue in Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice.
Based on Ahl’s (2006) critical review, these authors summarize three areas of
criticism of the literature on women’s entrepreneurship accumulated through the time of
publication of Ahl’s review. The first criticism states that the popular view on women’s
entrepreneurship as untapped resource for economic growth has triggered much research
documenting and explaining the performance and growth of women’s ventures, while
silencing other types of research questions (including research focusing on other possible
outcomes of entrepreneurial activities) (see also Berglund & Johansson, 2007).
criticism addresses the highly individualistic orientation of entrepreneurship research in
general, and women’s entrepreneurship in particular. Building on Ahl’s (2006: 605-607)
arguments, Hughes et al. (2012: 3) point out how due to this individualistic focus rather little
attention has been paid to, for example, contextual and historical variables, and little explicit
use has been made of feminist perspectives to explain gendered power structures. In result,
there has been a tendency to attribute ‘shortcomings’ of female entrepreneurs to individual
women, rather than social or institutional arrangements (Hughes et al., 2012: 3; Ahl, 2006:
606). The third area of criticism is the objectivist stance, which by presuming the existence of
inherently ‘male’ or ‘female’ attributes and their measurability, contributes to the production
of gender differences.
Ahl (2006: 611) concluded in her review that new directions are needed in research
on women’s entrepreneurship, namely towards an expansion of the research object and a shift
This body of research also contains performance comparisons between men’s and women’s
entrepreneurship, for the Swedish context e.g. regarding self-employment among immigrants (Hammarstedt,
2004) or studies, which employ gender as a control variable (e.g. for a study on effects of unemployment on
firm formation in Finland, see Ritsilä and Tervo, 2002).
in epistemological position. As the author points out, researchers do not necessarily have to
abandon an objectivist perspective, but argues that it would be an improvement to account for
factors ‘outside’ the individual entrepreneur and her business, such as policies, social norms
or legislation. She suggests that internationally-comparative and contingency studies could,
for example, study relationships between family policies and women entrepreneurship as well
as how these are related to different contexts (ibid). A shift in epistemological position would
imply a shift from considering “gender as something that is to gender as something that is
done and from gender as something firmly tied to bodies to gender as tied to anything—
concepts, jobs, industries, language, disciplines—or to businesses” (Ahl, 2006: 612). She
suggests that studies on how institutions are gendered could make important contributions, for
example investigating the institutionalization of support structures for women entrepreneurs.
How do the contributions in this special issue relate to these concerns and which
focus and findings do the articles have? The paper ‘Entrepreneurship within social and health
care – a question of identity, gender and professionalism’ by Anne Kovalainen and Johanna
Österberg investigates how entrepreneurial identity is adopted and how it is constructed
amongst female entrepreneurs in small businesses within social and health care in the Nordic
context of Finland. The authors have managed to conduct an epistemological shift, as called
for by Ahl (2006; see above), towards discussing how gender is ‘done’ by analysing the
emergence of an entrepreneurial identity and position in an occupational group that is
historically and presently embedded in paid employment patterns and practices. Kovalainen
and Österberg make an interesting contribution in elaborating on the interrelatedness of
different levels of context for women entrepreneurs in this specific industry sector. Namely,
the authors discuss the intersectionality of gender, identity and positions in professions and
An earlier version of the paper by Susan Clark Muntean ‘Wind beneath my wings:
Policies promoting high-growth oriented women entrepreneurs’ received the ICSB-IJGE-
NWBC Best Paper Award 2011 (for more information on this award, see Weeks and Duffy,
2011). In this paper, Clark Muntean investigates how countries’ stance towards gender
equality (in terms of women’s legal and social status, institutional presence and economic
empowerment) is related to opportunity-driven women’s entrepreneurship. Analyzing cross-
sectional data across a large number of countries, she finds support for her assumption that
gender equality is positively related to opportunity-driven entrepreneurial activities by
women. Though maintaining a largely objectivist perspective, this paper makes a relevant
contribution by pointing out the systematic impact of contextual factors beyond the influence
of individual female entrepreneurs on women’s entrepreneurships’ performance –
representing one direction of research on women’s entrepreneurship called for by Ahl (2006,
The paper by Maria Bogren, Yvonne von Friedrichs, Øystein Rennemo and Øystein
Widding ‘Networking women entrepreneurs – fruitful for business growth?’ explores the way
how women entrepreneurs in rural areas in two Nordic countries, namely Sweden and
Norway, utilize various kinds of networks is related to their level of ambition to grow. This
paper draws attention to the relevance of the personal context of women for their
entrepreneurial activities and finds that women entrepreneurs in both country-contexts
perceive personal networks as more supportive than business networks for their
The paper ‘Women business ventures in Swedish university incubators’ by Åsa
Lindholm Dahlstrand and Diamanto Politis investigates the role of university incubators for
women's academic entrepreneurship. The authors take the vantage point that it is important to
develop an understanding of how women entrepreneurs in various industries differ. They
attempt to move beyond the individualistic focus discussed above by applying a multilevel
design that takes into consideration the relationship between individual firms and the
incubator environment (cf. de Bruin, Brush and Welter, 2007; Rothaermel, Agung and Jiang,
2007). Their study of academic women entrepreneurs starting up their ventures in incubators
refers to a knowledge-intensive context where men and women entrepreneurs possess fairly
similar levels of human capital, thereby avoiding a typical sampling bias (see Brush, de Bruin
and Welter, 2009). Their analysis, based on 19 Swedish incubators and over 1400 ventures,
out of which 210 ventures with women entrepreneurs, shows that there are large difference
between women’s ventures in the incubators.
Finally, the research note by Sylvain Max and Valérie Ballereau proposes a
promising research method to identify stereotypical thinking, which could be fruitfully
employed to unmask even latent discrimination of women (or other groups of entrepreneurs).
Making use of the research method discussed by these authors could support theory-building
e.g. regarding the question of whether and how female entrepreneurs are discriminated against
by those who might have a say in evaluating their businesses, such as banks (Holmquist,
2008: 16), which is an area where research results to date deliver inconclusive results (Carter
et al., 2007; Eriksson, Katila and Niskanen, 2009; Fay and Williams, 1993).
Recently, Brush et al. (2009) argued for the need to acknowledge that
institutionalized social structures at the micro, meso and macro levels can have a significant
impact on women’s entrepreneurship. The papers included in this special issue clearly
demonstrate that the understanding of entrepreneurial processes and realities of female
entrepreneurs can be enhanced by employing different perspectives, from micro level – e.g.
how individuals make sense of their entrepreneurial identity (captured in Kovalainen and
Österberg’s paper) – to macro level understandings, e.g. showing sensitivity to different
national and institutional contexts (as in Clark Muntean’s contribution). But not the least we
need studies which focus on the meso level (as represented by the role of business networks in
Bogren et al.’s paper as well as that of incubators in Lindholm Dahlstrand and Politis’ paper).
Judging from the range of papers submitted to our conference track mentioned
above, we are not witnessing a revolution towards new directions in research on women’s
entrepreneurship, but rather an evolution. This special issue is attempting to contribute by
further exploring the relevance of context for women entrepreneurs. Thereby, we follow in the
footsteps of a previous special issue published in this journal, which had focused on the role
of context in international studies and comparisons to illuminate the role of context, e.g. in
terms of culture and socio-economic situation (Ashe and Treanor, 2011). The papers in this
special issue also illustrate the multitude of women’s entrepreneurship. This diversity is
contingent not least on the different industry sectors where the entrepreneurs operate as well
as the business models applicable in these contexts. As entrepreneurship theory has to date
dominated over gender perspectives in studies on women as entrepreneurs, there is a risk that
women are squeezed into the theory which has evolved around entrepreneurship (Berglund,
2007). A promising trend for current and future studies is the increase in articles integrating
gender theory with entrepreneurship (Mirchandani, 1999), challenging and contributing to
entrepreneurship theory from a gender perspective (e.g. Achtenhagen and Welter, 2011; Ahl,
2007; Bruni, Gherardi and Poggio, 2004; Calas, Smircich and Bourne, 2009). Research on
women’s entrepreneurship can be further strengthened by employing gender perspectives –
especially following a social constructivist perspective investigating ‘how gender is done’
The authors wish to thank professor Helene Ahl, Dr Karin Berglund, Dr Katarina Pettersson
and professor Elisabeth Sundin for their valuable comments on earlier versions of this paper.
Achtenhagen, L. and Welter, F. (2011): ‘Surfing on the ironing board’ – The representation of
women’s entrepreneurship in German newspapers, Entrepreneurship & Regional
Development, Vol. 23, No. 9-10, pp. 763-786.
Ahl, H. (2004): The scientific reproduction of gender inequality: A discourse analysis of
research texts on women's entrepreneurship. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School
Ahl, H. (2006): Why research on women entrepreneurs needs new directions.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(5), 595–621.
Ahl, H. (2007), Sex business in the toy store: a narrative analysis of a teaching case. Journal
of Business Venturing, 22(5), 673-693.
Ahl, H. (2011), Politik för kvinnors företagande i Sverige och USA, in Blomberg, E.,
Hedlund, G. and Wottle, M. (eds.), Kvinnors företagande – mål eller medel?, SNS Förlag,
Stockholm, pp. 292-322. [Policy-making for women’s entrepreneurship in Sweden and the
Alsos, G.A, Jensen, R.S. and Ljunggren, E. (2010) in Brush, C.G., de Bruin, A., Gatewood,
E.J. and Henry, C. (eds.), Women Entrepreneurs and the Global Environment for Growth,
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Arenius, P. and Kovalainen, A. (2006), Similarities and differences across the factors
associated with women’s self-employment preferences in the Nordic countries, International
Small Business Journal, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 31-59.
Ashe, F. and Treanor, L. (2011), Situating the subject: gender and entrepreneurship in
international contexts, International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 3, No. 3,
Blomberg, E., Hedlund, G. and Wottle, M. (2011) (Eds.), Kvinnors företagande – mål eller
medel?, SNS Förlag, Stockholm. [Women’s entrepreneurship – aim or means?]
Berglund, K. (2006), Discursive diversity in fashioning entrepreneurial identity, in: Hjorth, D.
and Steyaert, C. (eds.) Entrepreneurship as Social Change – A Third Movements in
Entrepreneurship Book, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, pp. 231-250.
Berglund, K. (2007), Kvinnors företagande: En internationall forskningsöversikt, R
2007:007, Östersund, Institutet för Tillväxtpolitiska Studier (ITPS). [Women’s
entrepreneurship: An overview of international research]
Berglund, K. and Johansson, A.W. (2007), The Entrepreneurship Discourse - Outlined from
Diverse Constructions of Entrepreneurship on the Academic Scene, Journal of Enterprising
Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, Vol. 1, No. 1: pp. 77-102.
Bourne, K.A. (2010), The paradox of gender equality: an entrepreneurial case study from
Sweden, International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 10-26.
Bruni, A., Gherardi, S., and Poggio, B. (2004), “Entrepreneur-mentality, gender and the study
of women entrepreneurs”, Organizational Change Management, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 256-268.
Brush, C.G., de Bruin, A. and Welter, F. (2009), A gender-aware framework for women’s
entrepreneurship, International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 8-
Calás, M.B., Smircich, L., and Bourne, K.A. (2009), “Extending the Boundaries: Reframing
‘Entrepreneurship as Social Change’ Through Feminist Perspectives”, The Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 34, No. 3, 552-569.
Carter, S., Shaw, E., Lam, W. and Wilson, F. (2007), “Gender, entrepreneurship, and bank
lending: The criteria and processes used by bank loan officers in assessing applications”,
Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, May, pp. 427-444.
Dareblom, J. (2005), Prat, politik och praktik – Om individers möten med strukturer i en
kommunal satsning på kvinnors företagande, PhD Dissertation, Stockholm School of
Economics. [Talk, politics, and practice – About the meetings of individuals with structures in
a local project on women’s entrepreneurship]
de Bruin, A., Brush, C.G. and Welter F. (2006), Introduction to the Special Issue: Towards
Building Cumulative Knowledge on Women’s Entrepreneruship, Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, September, pp. 1042-2587.
de Bruin, A., Brush, C.G. and Welter, F. (2007), Advancing a framework for coherent
research on women’s entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 31, No.3,
Du Rietz, A. and Henrekson, M. (2000), Testing the female underperforming hypothesis,
Small Business Economics, Vol. 14, pp. 1-10.
Erikson, P., Katila, S. and Niskanen, M. (2009), Gender and sources of finance in Finnish
SMEs: a contextual view, International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 1, No.
3, pp. 176-191.
Fay, M. and Williams, L. (1993), Gender bias and the availability of business loans, Journal
of Business Venturing, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 363-376.
Gatewood, E.G., Carter, N.M., Brush, C.G., Greene, P.G. and Hart, M.M. (2003), Women
entrepreneurs, their ventures, and the venture capital industry: An annotated bibliography.
Stockholm, Sweden, ESBRI.
Goffe, R. and Scace, R. (1985), Women in charge: The experiences of female entrepreneurs,
London and Boston: Allen & Unwin.
Hammarstedt, M. (2004), Self-employment among immigrants in Sweden – An analysis of
intragroup differences, Small Business Economics, Vol. 23, pp. 115-126.
Hausmann, R., Tyson, L.D., and Zahidi, S. (2011), The Global Gender Gap Report 2011,
World Economic Forum, available at: http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-2011/
(accessed 15 March 2012).
Hedfeldt, M. (2008): Företagande kvinnor i bruksort – Arbetsliv och vardagsliv i samspel,
PhD dissertation, Örebro University [Entrepreneurially active women in small industrial
towns – The interaction between work life and everyday life]
Hedfeldt, M. (2011), Verkliga och imaginära företagande kvinnor, in: Blomberg, E., Hedlund,
G. and Wottle, M. (eds.), Kvinnors företagande – mål eller medel?, Stockholm, SNS Förlag,
pp. 139-160. [Real and imagined entrepreneurially-active women]
Hedlund, G. (2011), Partnerskap och genus i den regionala röran, in: Blomberg, E., Hedlund,
G. and Wottle, M. (eds.), Kvinnors företagande – mål eller medel?, Stockholm, SNS Förlag,
pp. 114-138. [Partnership and gender in the regional mess]
Hernes, H. (1987), Welfare state and women power. Essays in state feminism. Oslo,
Norwegian University Press.
Hisrich, R.G. and Brush, C.D. (1986), The women entrepreneur: Starting, financing and
managing a successful new business, Lexington, MA, Lexington Books.
Holmquist, C. (2008), Fältet genus och företagande – introduktion och sammanfattning, in:
Larsson, P., Göranson, U. and Lagerholm, M. (Eds.): Sesam öppnar dig! Forskarperspektiv
på kvinnors företagande, Vinnova Report VR 2008:20, Stockholm, Swedish Governmental
Agency for Innovation System, pp. 7-30. [The area of gender and entrepreneurship –
introduction and summary]
Holmquist, C. and Carter, S. (2009), The Diana project: pioneering women studying
pioneering women, Small Business Economics, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 121-128.
Holmquist, C. and Sundin, E. (1996), Studier av kvinnors företagande – ett
forskningsprogram, R1996:32, Stockholm, Nutek. [Studies of women’s entrepreneurship – a
Holst, E. (2001), Institutionelle Determinanten der Erwerbsarbeit: Zur Notwendigkeit einer
Gender-Perspektive in den Wirtschaftswissenschaften. DIW Diskussionspapier, 237. Berlin:
DIW. [Institutional determinants of gainful employment: The necessity of a gender
perspective in business studies]
Hughes, K.D., Jennings, J.E., Brush, C., Carter, S. and Welter, F. (2012), Extending women’s
entrepreneurship research in new directions, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Special
Issue Editorial, March.
Hytti, U. (2005) New meanings for entrepreneurs: from risk-taking heroes to safe-seeking
professionals, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 18, No. 6, pp. 594 – 611.
Javefors Grauers, E. (2002), Profession, genus och företagarpar: en studie av advokater och
köpmän, PhD Dissertation, Linköping University, Linköping Studies in Management and
Economics. [Profession, gender and enterprising couples: a study of lawyers and retailers]
Johannisson, B. and Mønsted, M. (1998), Contextualizing Entrepreneurial Networking: The
case of Scandinavia. International Studies of Management and Organization, Vol. 27, No. 3,
Lindgren, M. (2000), Kvinnor i friskolor: om kön, entreprenörskap och profession i
identitetsskapandet : rapport från FEM-gruppen, Örebro: Forum för Småföretagsforskning.
[Women in private schools: On gender, entrepreneurship and profession in creating identities]
Lindgren, M. (2008), Maskulint, feminint, entreprenöriellt – könsstämpling av branscher och
professioner, in: Larsson, P., Göranson, U. and Lagerholm, M. (eds.) Sesam, öppna dig!
Forskarperspektiv på kvinnors företagande: pp. 53-65. VR 2008:20. Stockholm: VINNOVA.
[Masculine, feminine, entrepreneurial – gendering of industries and professions]
Lindgren, M. and Packendorff, J. (2006) What's New in New Forms of Organizing? On the
Construction of Gender in Project-Based Work, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43, No.
3, pp. 841-866.
Ljunggren, E. (2003), Entreprenørskap og kjønn - En kunnskapsreise mellom to perspektiver:
fra individ til relasjon, PhD Dissertation, Umeå University [Entrepreneurship and gender – A
knowledge journal between two perspectives: from individual to relationship]
Ljunggren, E. and Alsos, G.A. (2007), Media expressions of entrepreneurs: presentations and
discourses of male and female entrepreneurs in Norway, in: Henry, C. and Johnston, K. (eds.),
Promoting female entrepreneurship: Implications for education, training and policy, London:
Mirchandani, K. (1999), Feminist insight on gendered work: New directions in research on
women and entrepreneurship, Gender, Work and Organization, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp.224-235.
Neergaard, H. and Thrane, C. (2011), The Nordic Welfare Model: barrier or facilitator of
women’s entrepreneurship in Denmark, International Journal of Gender and
Entrepreneurship, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 88-104.
Näsman, B. (2000), Pappas flickor… Entreprenöriella processer i kvinnoföretagandets
tillkomst, PhD dissertation, Stockholm University [Daddy’s girls… Entrepreneurial processes
in women’s entrepreneurship’s establishment]
Pettersson, K. (2002), Företagande män och osynliggjorda kvinnor, PhD dissertation,
Uppsala University [Entrepreneurially active men and women made invisible].
Pettersson, K. (2012), Support for women’s entrepreneurship: a Nordic spectrum,
International Journal for Gender and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 4-19.
Ritsilä, J. and Tervo, H. (2002), Effects of unemployment on new firm formation: Micro-level
panel data evidence from Finland, Small Business Economics, Vol. 19, pp. 31-40.
Rothaermel, F.T., Agung S.D. and Jiang L. (2007), “University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy
of the literature”, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 691-791.
SCB (2010), Statistics Sweden, På tal om kvinnor och män: lathund om jämställdhet, ISBN:
978-91-618-1517-3. [Speaking about women and men: quick guide on equality]
Shane, S. (2000), Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities,
Organization Studies, Vol. 11, No. 4, July-August.
Sköld, B. (forthcoming 2012), Förändring i kvinnors företagande i spåren av offentlig sektors
omvandling, 1993–2008, Licentiate thesis, Linköping University. [Change in women’s
entrepreneurship in result of public sector changes, 1993-2008]
SOU (Official Reports of the Swedish Government) 2008:15. LOV att välja – Lag Om
Valfrihetssystem. Frittvalutredningens betänkande. Stockholm: Fritzes. www.sweden.gov.se.
[Allowed to choose – Law about a customer-choice system]
Spilling, O.R. and Gunnerud Berg, N. (2000), Gender and small business management: The
case of Norway in the 1990s, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 38-59.
Sundin, E. (2002), “Företagandets manliga prägling”, in Sundin, E. and Holmquist, C. (Eds.),
Företagerskan, Om kvinnor och entreprenörskap, Stockholm, SNS Förlag. [The male
imprinting of entrepreneurship]
Sundin, E. and Holmquist, C. (1989), Kvinnor som företagare: Osynlighet, mångfald,
anpassning, Malmö, Liber. [Women as entrepreneurs: Invisibility, diversity, adjustment]
Sundin, E. and Holmquist, C. (1991), The Growth of Women Entrepreneurship - Push or Pull
Factors?, in: Davies, L.G. and Gibb, A.A. (eds.) Recent Research in Entrepreneurship.
Avebury, pp. 106-114.
Sundin, E. and Holmquist, C. (1996), Studier av kvinnors företagande: Ett
forskningsprogram, NUTEK Rapport1996:32, Stockholm, Nutek. [Studies of women’s
entrepreneurship: A research program]
Sundin, E. and Holmquist, C. (Eds.) (2002), Företagerskan, Om kvinnor och
entreprenörskap, Stockholm, SNS Förlag. [The female entrepreneur: About women and
Sundin, E. and Thörnquist A. (Eds.) (2006), När anställda blir företagare: Studier av
företagande i ett strukturomvandlings och arbetsmarknadsperspektiv. Arbetsliv i Omvandling
2006:17, Stockholm, Arbetslivsinstitutet. [When employed become self-employed: Studies of
entrepreneurship from the perspective of structural change and labor market]
Sundin, E. and Tillmar, M. (2010a), “Masculinization of the public sector: Local level studies
of public sector outsourcing in elder care”, International Journal of Gender and
Entrepreneurship, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 49-67.
Sundin, E. and Tillmar, M. (2010b), Varför ska kvinnor starta eget inom vård och omsorg?,
Stockholm, Tillväxtverket. [Why should women found companies within the health and care
Tillmar, M. (2007), Gendered small-business assistance: lessons from a Swedish project,
Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 84-99.
Weeks, J.R. and Duffy, S.G. (2011): Seven years of the ICSB-IJGE-NWBC Best Paper
Award for women’s entrepreneurship research, International Journal of Gender and
Entrepreneurship, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 79-82.
Welter, F. (2011), Contextualizing entrepreneurship – Conceptual challenges and ways
forward, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, January, pp. 165-184.
Winn, J. (2004), ”Entrepreneurship: Not an easy path to top management for women”, Women
in Management Review, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 143-153.
Winn, J. (2005), “Women entrepreneurs: Can we remove the barriers?”, International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 381-397.