State of the art in entrepreneurship research
A systematic academic review of recent research on
entrepreneurship from a gender perspective
This report is developed by René Chester Goduscheit* and Maria
Theresa Norn**, and commissioned by the Programme on
Entrepreneur Research (MER) under the Research Council of Norway,
February 2011.
* Institut for Marketing & Management, Syddansk Universitet,
Campusvej 55, 5230 Odense M, Denmark.
** DAMVAD a/s, Badstuestræde 20, 1209 Copenhagen, Denmark
1
Contents
Abstract 3
1
Introduction 4
2
Previous literature reviews of female entrepreneurship 5
2.1
3
Methodology 6
The evidence base 9
3.1
Methodological approaches 9
3.2
Research methods 10
3.3
Levels of analysis 11
4
Discussion of collected data 15
5
Conclusion 16
6
References 17
Appendices 20
Appendix A – List of variables 20
Appendix B – List of the 20 journals with most papers in the total sample (n=364) 21
Appendix C – Publication date of papers in the total sample (n=364) 21
Appendix D – List of the journals in Sample 2 (n=121) 22
Appendix E – Number (n) and Percentage (%) of the coded variables in the total sample (n=364) 23
2
Abstract
This paper presents a systematic literature review of female entrepreneurship. The purpose is to identify
common themes in the literature on gender entrepreneurship and research methodology. Through searches in
three of the leading databases for academic publications, 364 papers are identified, coded and categorized. The
journals, from which the papers come, are both top journals and lower ranking journals. The analysis illustrates
that the top journals are publishing significantly more quantitative and fewer qualitative studies than the lower
ranking journals. The analysis also indicates that only a small portion of the published papers employ a
combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods. Moreover, the analysis identifies a tendency to
publish papers that focus on the micro- and meso-level aspects of female entrepreneurship and to neglect
macro-level, policy-oriented papers. The paper concludes on some potential avenues for future research. It is
suggested that the studies aimed at female entrepreneurship employ a combination of qualitative and
quantitative research methods in order to include new and potentially insightful aspects as part of the field.
Future research could also benefit from exploring the role of policy and regulation on the field of female
entrepreneurs.
Keywords: Entrepreneurship, gender, literature review, methodology.
3
1 Introduction
Throughout the last decades there has been a dramatic increase in the number of female entrepreneurs (de
Bruin, A., Brush, C. G., & Welter, F. 2007). However, relatively little attention has been paid to women’s
propensity toward entrepreneurship (Langowitz, N. & Minniti, M. 2007) and female entrepreneurship remains
the area with the largest discrepancy among perceived research importance (in terms of number and extent of
projects, researchers and publications on the subject) and social and economic importance (in terms of numbers
and extent of the phenomenon) (Holmquist, C. & Carter, S. 2009). These short-comings have manifested
themselves in a selective empirical focus, a lack of theoretical grounding, the neglect of structural, historical, and
cultural factors, the use of male-gendered measuring instruments, absence of a power perspective, and the lack
of explicit feminist analysis (Ahl, H. 2006). The inadequacy of the current research leads to both a need to cover
the neglected aspects of the research on female entrepreneurs through new studies and research designs, and a
need to get a detailed overview of the research in the area in order to qualify the assertion that some elements
have been neglected. This paper seeks to explore the latter of these needs through a systemic review of the
literature on female entrepreneurs.
A literature review can help the researcher to map and to assess the existing body of research, and to develop
road maps for future research within a given research area. Literature reviews that intend to give an overview of
a field can be divided into two kinds: Either they are systematic, i.e. performed via documented search terms
and analyzed on the basis of an explicit coding, or they are based on the researchers’ general perspective on the
field and of a more narrative nature (Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. 2003). Each approach has its
advantages, depending on the purpose of the research. In order to get a large-scale overview of the
methodological issues in entrepreneurship over a given time period, it is suitable to conduct a systematic
literature review. In this way the reader knows a) which databases and journals have been searched, b) which
search strings have been applied and c) how the papers have been coded.
Female entrepreneurship has been subject to a number of literature reviews (Ahl, H. 2006;Bird, B. & Brush, C.
2002;Carter, S., Anderson, S., & Shaw, E. 2001;Cooper Maysami, R. & Goby, V. P. 1999;de Bruin, A., Brush, C. G.,
& Welter, F. 2006;de Bruin, A., Brush, C. G., & Welter, F. 2007;Dorado, S. 2006;Gundry, L. K., Ben-Yoseph, M., &
Posig, M. 2002;van der Sluis, J., van Praag, M., & Vijverberg, W. 2008). The only systematic literature review,
which has been carried out, is presented by Carter, Anderson & Shaw (2001). Due to the nature of the review,
which was carried out as a report to the UK Small Business Service, the descriptions of the methodological
choices of the literature review (search process, exclusion of irrelevant papers, coding, categorization, data
analysis etc.) are not thorough. With the exception of the reviews by de Bruin, Brush & Welter (2006; 2007),
which were based on paper submissions to a special issue of Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, all the
literature reviews on female entrepreneurship have employed a narrative approach to the literature reviews.
This bias towards narrative literature reviews is typical for management research and has been criticized for
being descriptive accounts of the contributions made by researchers in the field, and for being a result of a
selection procedure that should support the perspective of the researcher, who carries out the review (Tranfield,
D. et al. 2003).
The purpose of this paper is to explore the overall themes and research methodology of research on female
entrepreneurship through a systematic review of the academic literature on the topic. Based on this exploration
of themes, the paper seeks to point to potential avenues for future research on female entrepreneurship.
Firstly, the paper presents some of the previous literature reviews of female entrepreneurship. Secondly, the
methodological approach and phases of the systematic literature review is presented. Thirdly, the evidence base
of the literature review is outlined. Hereafter, the results of the review is discussed in terms of themes of the
papers, the methodological approaches and potential understudied topics. Finally the paper is concluded with
some considerations on limitations of the present study and the implications for future research. Avenues for
future research are outlined in this last part of the paper.
4
2 Previous literature reviews of female entrepreneurship
As mentioned above, a number of papers have presented primarily narrative literature reviews of female
entrepreneurship. This section will introduce some of the most prominent reviews.
On the basis of paper submissions to a special issue of Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice de Bruin, Brush, &
Welter (2007) outline the most prevalent topics in research on female entrepreneurship. The three topics, which
were mostly addressed in the paper submissions, were 1) financing, 2) networks/social capital, and 3)
growth/performance) of the female entrepreneurs. Other major topics were aimed at the individual micro-level
of female entrepreneurs such as self-efficacy, intentions and motivations, decision models, and perceptions.
Only few studies among the paper submissions were aimed at the macro-level of female entrepreneurship such
as country studies, regional environments, sector contexts and institutional environments. Moreover, the review
of the paper submissions identifies three groups of research themes: The annuals (studies wherein additional
research is not likely to contribute to new knowledge), the perennials (recurrent topics that are always “in
fashion”) and the saplings (new and emerging topics which have taken root but where it remains to be seen
whether they will continue to grow and flourish). The first group of papers includes descriptive studies that
confirm already documented phenomena like the fact that women tend to start up their business with lower
start-up capital than men. The perennials include the three most prominent topics in the paper submissions,
financing, networks/social capital and growth/performance. Another example of a perennial is the analysis of
the effect of resources on start-up and growth of female entrepreneurs. Within the saplings, one of the
potentially upcoming topics was a focus on normative and societal environments influencing entrepreneurship,
opportunity recognition and decision making styles.
De Bruin, Brush, & Welter (2006) seek to describe why only 6-7 % of all publications in the top entrepreneurship
journals are addressing female entrepreneurship despite the fact that this group of entrepreneurs is one of the
fastest growing populations of entrepreneurs. The authors describe three reasons why female entrepreneurship
is understudied. The first reason is the researcher perception. The underlying perception of the researcher is
heavily influenced by the fact that entrepreneurship theories were developed on samples of men, by men, and
ultimately tested primarily on samples of men and therefore they do not fully capture women’s entrepreneurial
traits and behavior. The second reason is that social perceptions about women and their businesses tend to
hinder focus on women entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship is in and of itself perceived as a male mentality and
experience, and this means that researchers and society in general are more likely to associate entrepreneurial
actions with men. The norms of the educational institutions constitute the third reason. If the researcher is
interested in studying “women’s entrepreneurship,” (or a subarea of a subarea) the institutional support and
even funding for such will generally be less than for other topics. In a similar vein, Bird & Brush (2002) describe
the fact that the male-derived emphasis not only pervades the entrepreneur definitions and descriptions but
also underpins the expected process of new venture creation, which is generally conceived as sequential, profit
maximizing, and strategically and competitively focused.
Moore (1990) states that at the time of her literature review there were only a few well-structured, scholarly
studies on the female entrepreneur. She describes how instruments developed to measure male entrepreneurial
trends may compound errors in measurement when applied to female entrepreneurs. On the basis of the
literature review, Moore makes a case for developing the foundation of research on female entrepreneurs. The
sample data collected by questionnaires should be supplemented by case studies, which should employ
observation and interviewing techniques to be sure that the instruments in quantitative research are measuring
what they are intended and expected to measure.
Carter, Anderson, & Shaw (2001) identify six main themes in academic literature on female entrepreneurship: 1)
characteristics and motivations of women entrepreneurs, 2) start-up: patterns, resources and constraints, 3)
management of female owned firms, 4) finance and related Issues, 5) business networks, and 6) business
performance and growth. The study concludes that there is no real shortage of research studies investigating
5
women and business ownership. However, most of the studies that have been carried out have been descriptive,
and there has been a lack of cumulative knowledge and a failure to adequately theorize about research findings.
In conclusion, the literature reviews address a number of themes within the research on female entrepreneurs.
The various themes operate on three levels: the micro-, meso- and macro-level (Terjesen, S., Sealy, R., & Singh,
V. 2009). Potential barriers and enablers are found on each level. The micro-level is aimed at the characteristics,
traits and behavior of the individual. The psychology and the self-schemas of the entrepreneur are central terms
on the micro-level, and aspects like gender differences in roles, norms, values, and beliefs are essential in
understanding the phenomenon (Konrad, A. M., Ritchie, J. E., Lieb, P., & Corrigall, E. 2000). Other factors on the
individual level are age and ethnicity. On the meso-level the analysis is considering the relations, in which the
entrepreneur is engaged. Aspects like the family relations, social networks and social norms are relevant on this
level (Terjesen, S., Sealy, R., & Singh, V. 2009). Finally, on the macro-level societal and institutional factors
influence female entrepreneurship. These factors can be derived from policy initiatives, occupational patterns
etc.
In addition to the various themes on the micro-, meso- and macro-level, some of the literature reviews describe
the methodological challenges of research on female entrepreneurs. The research methods tend to have a bias
towards a masculine perspective on entrepreneurship.
2.1 Methodology
The literature review is carried out on the basis of a number of stages designed to provide a systematic and
explicit method for the review. The steps follow the process outlined by Pittaway et al. and Tranfield, Denyer &
Smart (Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D., & Neely, A. 2004; Tranfield, D. et al. 2003).
In the first phase of the literature review, the authors identified keywords on the topic female entrepreneurship
based on prior literature reviews within the area. These keywords included ‘entrepreneurs’; ‘entrepreneurship’,
‘female’, ‘businesswomen’, ‘Women industrialists’,’ women-owned business enterprises’, and ‘gender’. The
keywords were combined into a basic search string that was expected to be a perfect subset of the long list of
keywords. The basic Boolean search string was: entrepreneur? AND (women OR gender).
The second phase was aimed at a first validation of the search string. An initial search of ISI Web of Science was
carried out using the basic search string in order to identify potential additional keywords. The results were
exported into Reference Manager and a list of keywords was generated in order to identify additional themes
for the analysis. One additional keyword, venture/ventures, was common in a large number of the papers’
keywords, and the Boolean “Venture*” was added in order to identify additional relevant papers. In addition, a
substantial number of the papers used the keyword female, and this was also included in the search string.
In the third phase, the revised basic search string, (entrepreneur* OR venture*) AND (female OR women OR
gender), was used in some of the leading academic databases in order to get a sense of the number of papers
that could be identified. This first search was aimed at all the data of the papers in the databases (not for the
keywords, abstracts etc.) in order to catch all the papers that to some extent were dealing with the topic. The
databases were: ScienceDirect (31167 hits), EBSCOHost Business Source Complete (4728), Sage Journals (7417),
Wiley-Blackwell Interscience (42166), JSTOR (87005) and ISI Web of Science (1009).
In the fourth phase, three of the academic databases were chosen on the basis of two criteria: 1) Number of hits
on the basic search string and 2) A crosscheck of whether the databases covered all the leading journals within
entrepreneurship (Ahl, H. 2006), The three chosen databases were: ScienceDirect, EBSCOHost Business Source
Complete and JSTOR. One of the leading entrepreneurship journals, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development, was not covered by the three databases and in order to include the papers of this journal, a
separate search in the journal was carried out.
6
The fifth phase was aimed at exclusion of the papers which presented only a marginal relevance and a limited
quality. As a means to exclude these papers, the basic search string was applied to the abstract of the papers.
This significantly narrowed the number of papers. This could be due to the fact that some of the papers that
were identified on the basis of the overall search in the third phase were only sporadically dealing with the
gender issues of entrepreneurship. However, it could also be an issue that a large part of the papers in the
various databases do not have an abstract. Despite the risk of excluding relevant papers, the abstract search
approach was chosen. All the leading academic journals (including the leading journals within entrepreneurship)
are using abstracts and are thus not excluded as a consequence of the focus on abstracts. The number of papers
after this exclusion was: ScienceDirect (163 papers), EBSCOHost Business Source Complete (501) and JSTOR
(123). The search in Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development resulted in nine papers. Out of the
796 papers, 48 did not have an author name and were excluded. Out of the 748 papers, 29 were duplicates (due
to overlap in the covered journals by the databases). The total number of papers in the database thus mounted
to 719.
In the sixth phase the 719 papers were reviewed qualitatively in order to exclude papers that were of limited
interest to the present study. The sorts of papers that were excluded in this phase were:
a) Local or national studies of entrepreneurship with limited applicability to other locations – for instance
third world countries and entrepreneurship in post-Cold War transition economy.
b) Historical studies with limited relevance for the current discussion of entrepreneurship.
c) Older studies of entrepreneurship. The present study sets up a cut-off date on 1 January 1995.
d) Sector/industry-specific studies with limited application to other sectors/industries (for instance
medical, it etc.).
e) Non-English papers.
f)
Editorials, book reviews, introductions to special issues etc.
This exclusion brought the number of papers from 719 to 311.
The seventh phase consisted of a peer review of the search process so far. Hence, the process and the outcome
were presented at a workshop, at which about 30 colleagues participated. The colleagues provided feedback and
suggestions for additional, relevant papers. It was suggested to add start-up/start-ups (Boolean start-up*) to the
basic search string. The revised search chain was now (entrepreneur* OR Venture*OR “start-up*”) AND (female
OR women OR gender). The additional list of papers, which was the result of the revised search string, was
subject to the same exclusion procedure as outlined above. The number of papers after this process was 364.
During the eighth phase the 364 papers were coded. The coding was carried out in the text analysis software
program NVivo, which is a common tool for qualitative text analysis (Vlaar, P. W. L., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., &
Volberda, H. W. 2007). At the outset the coding was a deductive process, which was aimed at some predefined
variables from the prior research on female entrepreneurship. During the coding process, however, a number of
additional variables grew out of the data. This inductive add-on to the deductive outset is seen in other
systematic literature reviews (Oliver, A. L. & Ebers, M. 1998). The final list of variables is indicated in table 1.
7
Table 1. List of variables
1) Is the paper empirical or conceptual?
2) Which methodology is applied – quantitative, qualitative, conceptual or literature review?
3) Which level of female entrepreneurship is analyzed – micro, meso or macro?
4) Is the study descriptive or normative?
5) Does the study address gender discrimination?
6) Does the study address motivation of the female entrepreneurs?
7) Does the study address access to funding or financing for the female entrepreneurs?
8) Does the study address social and cultural norms in the analysis of the female entrepreneurs?
9) Does the study address education or competencies of the female entrepreneurs?
10) Does the study address the social networks or social capital of the female entrepreneurs?
11) Does the study address ethnicity?
12) Does the study address age?
13) Does the study address marriage?
14) Does the study address the importance of previous experience of the female entrepreneurs?
15) Does the study address the center/periphery element?
16) Does the study address the female entrepreneurs as part of a family business?
17) Does the study address the female entrepreneurs as part of a founding team?
18) Does the study address the female entrepreneurs from a university spin-off perspective or the link to
academia?
19) Does the study address the female entrepreneurs’ perception of risks in entrepreneurship?
20) Does the study address the performance of the female entrepreneurs?
The ninth and final phase was aimed at an identification of the papers from top-ranked journals. Two
approaches for identifying these papers were employed:
1) Entrepreneurship journals that are perceived as leading and ‘authorized’ within the area (Ahl, H. 2006):
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Journal of Business Venturing, The Journal of Small Business
Management and Entrepreneurship and Regional Development.
2)
Papers from the journals that are generally accepted by the research community as high-ranking. The
means for identifying the high-ranking journals is the Norwegian database for statistics on higher
education (Norwegian Social Science Data Service 2010). This database divides journals into three
categories: The most high-ranking journals are denoted with a 2, the recognized but not high-ranking
journals are denoted with a 1, while the papers that are not on the list are denoted 0 (Norwegian Social
Science Data Service 2010). The papers from the journals with the score 2 were chosen for the list of
high-ranking papers.
The high-ranking papers consisted of 121 papers and are labeled Sample 2, while the rest of the papers from
lower ranking journals are labeled Sample 1.
8
3 The evidence base
In the following section, the major findings from the literature review will be outlined.
3.1 Methodological approaches
As indicated in table 2, the bulk of the papers in the total sample are empirical. Only 25 papers in the total
sample can be categorized as conceptual. The conceptual papers are based on discourse analyses of existing
research on female entrepreneurs (Ahl, H. 2006), comparative discussions of overall theoretical streams within
female entrepreneurship research (Bird, B. & Brush, C. 2002; Godwin, L. N., Stevens, C. E., & Brenner, N. L. 2006;
Jennings, J. E. & McDougald, M. S. 2007), and comparative analyses of prior studies of female entrepreneurs
carried out by de Bruin, Brush & Welter (2006; 2007). These studies address the question of how the research on
female entrepreneurship should be carried out and how the female entrepreneurs can overcome the masculine
dominance within the business area.
Hence, the vast majority of the papers are employing a descriptive/explanatory perspective on female
entrepreneurship. However, some papers are descriptive but have some (more or less subtle) normative
elements (Werhane, P. H. 1994). These papers are criticizing the fact that studies are imbued with underlying
masculine perceptions of entrepreneurship (Bird, B. et al. 2002;Linstead, A. & Brewis, J. 2004), and others are
suggesting that future research should be aimed at new, feminist perspectives on entrepreneurship
(Mirchandani, K. 1999).
Table 2. Perspectives in sample 1 (n=364)
Perspective
n
%
Descriptive
339
93.1
Normative
25
6.9
Total
364
100%
9
3.2 Research methods
Another distinction, which can be made in terms of the methodology, can be drawn between the research
methods employed in the studies. Table 3 presents the distribution of the papers on the basis of the research
methods.
Table 3. Methodological approaches in total sample (n=364)
Overall methodology
Specific methodology
N
%
Qualitative
Discourse
3
0.8%
Multiple cases
50
13.7%
Single case
67
18.4%
Combination
Qualitative/quantitative
7
1.9%
Quantitative
Experiment
9
2.5%
Register data
11
3.0%
Sample
166
45.6%
Conceptual
40
11.0%
Literature review
11
3.0%
Total
364
100%
The papers that employ a quantitative approach are divided into sample-based studies (166 papers, for instance
(Allen, S. D., Link, A. N., & Rosenbaum, D. T. 2007;Alsos, G. A., Isaksen, E. J., & Ljunggren, E. 2006;Greve, A. &
Salaff, J. W. 2003;Hsu, D. H., Roberts, E. B., & Eesley, C. E. 2007), and a few experiment-based (Gatewood, E. J.,
Shaver, K. G., Powers, J. B., & Gartner, W. B. 2002;Jack, S. J. & Ronan, K. R. 1998;Pickering, A. D., Diaz, A., & Gray,
J. A. 1995) and register data-based (Falk, M. & Leoni, T. 2009;Holly Buttner, E. 2003) quantitative studies . The
experiment-based studies are primarily seeking to understand the psychological aspects of female
entrepreneurship.
120 papers are categorized as qualitative. 67 papers present single case studies. These single case studies are
primarily looking at individual entrepreneurs and their enterprises, for instance (Amatucci, F. M. & Coleman, S.
2007; Terjesen, S. 2007; Widerberg, K. 2000; Winn, J. 2006), while a few analyze the specific case of a new
regulation (Blackmore, J. & Sachs, J. 2003; Reese, E. 1996). 50 papers employ a multiple case approach, while
three papers are carrying out discourse analyses of the research on female entrepreneurs (Ahl, H.
2006;Fältholm, Y., Abrahamsson, L., & Källhammer, E. 2010) and of the female perception of risk (Robertson, A.
2000).
10
Table 4 is presenting the research methods that are employed in sample 1 and 2. A Chi-square test shows that
there is a significant difference (on a 0.01-level) between the distributions of research methods in the two
samples. Sample 2, which is the sample for the high-ranking journals, includes fewer papers with a qualitative
research method than sample 1, which is sample with papers from lower ranking journals. On the other hand,
the papers in sample 2 use quantitative methods significantly more than the papers in sample 1. The number of
papers that are employing a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods is low in both samples.
Table 4. Methodological differences between sample 1 and sample 2
Sample 1
Sample 2
Total
Qualitative
Quantitative
Combination
Conceptual
Total
93
110
4
36
243
38.3%
45.3%
1.6%
14.8%
100%
27
76
3
15
121
22.3%
62.8%
2.5%
12.4%
100%
120
186
7
51
364
33.0%
51.1%
1.9%
14.0%
100%
Note: The difference between sample 1 and sample 2 is significant at the 0.01 level (Chi Square tested)
3.3 Levels of analysis
Table 5 presents the categorization of the papers in the total sample in terms of the level of analysis. Two thirds
of the papers seek to explain or understand the female entrepreneurs from a meso-perspective while the microand macro-level studies represent 15.1% and 12.4% respectively. A smaller proportion of papers are analyzing
female entrepreneurship on the basis of a hybrid approach to the level of analyses.
Table 5. Level of analysis in sample 1 (n=364)
Level of analysis
n
%
Micro
55
15.1%
Micro/meso
9
2.5%
242
66.5%
Meso/macro
9
2.5%
Macro
45
12.4%
Micro/meso/macro
4
1.1%
364
100%
Meso
Total
The following sections will present the contributions of the papers on each of the three levels of analysis.
11
3.3.1 Micro-level of analysis
A number of papers are aimed at the micro-level of understanding female entrepreneurs. They are seeking to
describe the personal traits, characteristics, and psychology of the entrepreneurs (Langan-Fox, J. 1995; Zhang, Z.,
Zyphur, M. J., Narayanan, J., Arvey, R. D., Chaturvedi, S., Avolio, B. J. et al. 2009). Other papers describe the
propensity to become entrepreneurs as a dependent variable with a number of genetic factors as the
independent variables (Nicolaou, N. & Shane, S. 2010).
A substantial number (94) of the papers are specifically trying to understand the motivation of female
entrepreneurs. Some of the papers are discussing the extent, to which women have other motivations than men
for starting up their own business (Halaby, C. N. 2003; Langan-Fox, J. 1995; Langan-Fox, J. & Grant, S. 2007;
Wellington, A. J. 2006), while others are employing more generic motivational patterns of entrepreneurs
(Brocke, B., Beauducel, A., & Tasche, K. G. 1999; DeTienne, D. R. & Chandler, G. N. 2007).
Another major stream of research on the micro-level is considering the significance of attitude towards risk. The
papers that touch upon risk aversion aspects of female entrepreneurship are concerned with various elements
of risk aversion. Some of the papers are seeking to describe personal traits and characteristics of the female
entrepreneurs and the effect on the propensity to start a business (Brocke, B., Beauducel, A., & Tasche, K. G.
1999; Freixanet, M. 2001; Jack, S. J. & Ronan, K. R. 1998; Langan-Fox, J. 1995; Pickering, A. D., Diaz, A., & Gray, J.
A. 1995). A study by Carter et al. (2007) documents that female entrepreneurs generally have lower capital when
starting up their business and that this is partly due to their risk aversion in terms of debt. Halaby (2003)
identifies a link between resources (in terms of family background, schooling, cognitive skills etc.) and the
willingness to take a risk in becoming an entrepreneur. Hao, Seibert, and Hills (2005) detect a link between risk
propensity and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Finally, Parker (2008) describes the marriage of female
entrepreneurs as a means to risk diversification together with their spouses.
An essential part of the resources of business start-ups is the previous experience of the entrepreneur. Bennett
and Dann (2000) document the fact that the majority of the female entrepreneurs in their sample indicate
previous experience from their work-life as essential in starting their business. In an analysis of the social
network of entrepreneurs, Greve and Salaff (2003) find a difference in the structure of the network depending
on the previous experiences of the entrepreneur. Hao, Seibert & Hills (2005) explore and identify a positive
relation between previous experience and entrepreneurial self-efficacy.
30 papers are including the ethnicity perspective on female entrepreneurship. Some papers are looking at
specific minority groups and their entrepreneurial characteristics (Harvey, A. M. 2005), while others are
employing a cultural diversity (both gender and racial) perspective on firm performance (Richard, O. C., Barnett,
T., Dwyer, S., & Chadwick, K. 2004).
Most quantitative studies include age as a control variable. However, only few researchers address the effect of
age of female entrepreneurs. Allen, Link, and Rosenbaum (2007) analyze the effect of age on entrepreneurial
activity among university faculty staff and find a positive relation. Bennett and Dann (2000) show that female
entrepreneurs are significantly older than male entrepreneurs.
12
3.3.2 Meso-level of analysis
A large portion of the papers in the total sample (242 or 66.5%) are employing a meso-level perspective on
female entrepreneurship. These papers encompass subjects such as the effect of family patterns, the essence of
entrepreneurship education and the role of social network for the female entrepreneurs.
A substantial number of papers (55) describe social and cultural norms in female entrepreneurship. Some papers
document the effect of norms within family and marriage(Baines, S. & Wheelock, J. 2000;Godwin, L. N., Stevens,
C. E., & Brenner, N. L. 2006), other papers seek to understand social and cultural norms on institutional levels
such as the education system (Blackmore, J. & Sachs, J. 2003), while a third group of papers describe norms that
are (re-)produced on societal level(Baughn, C. C., Chua, B. L., & Neupert, K. E. 2006). Finally, some papers look at
norms on several levels (Hughes, K. D. 2003).
Another large group of papers (86) analyze the role of education and competencies in relation to female
entrepreneurs. Some papers look at the general effect of the educational level on the propensity to become an
entrepreneur (Wellington, A. J. 2006;Wilson, F., Kickul, J., & Marlino, D. 2007), while others document the effect
of specific educations as opposed to others (Bennett, R. & Dann, S. 2000;Hao, Z., Seibert, S. E., & Hills, G. E.
2005;Ranson, G. 2003). A recent review (van der Sluis, J., van Praag, M., & Vijverberg, W. 2008) provides a
detailed overview and meta-analysis of almost one hundred empirical studies of the impact of formal schooling
on entrepreneurship selection and performance in industrial countries. However, the gender variable is merely
one of many independent variables in models that can explain the effect of education on the propensity to
become an entrepreneur and/or the success of the entrepreneur.
In continuation of the education and competence aspect of female entrepreneurship, some studies analyze the
role of academia in female entrepreneurship. Hao, Seibert & Hills (2005) look at students’ possibilities to
become entrepreneurs as a consequence of specific courses, and Wilson, Kickul, & Marlino (2007) seek to
illustrate the importance of entrepreneurship programs on entrepreneurial self-efficacy. A third study on the
role of academia (Allen, S. D., Link, A. N., & Rosenbaum, D. T. 2007) analyzes the empirical evidence of the
relationship between faculty entrepreneurial activity and faculty tenure and age, and find that there is a positive
relationship between tenure and externality in terms of entrepreneurship and that female faculty are less likely
to patent in collaboration with industry than male faculty.
Some (45) papers seek to understand the role of social networks and social capital in their analysis of female
entrepreneurs. A study by DeTienne et al. (2007) focuses on social network as a means to identify business
opportunities and find limited differences between female and male entrepreneurs. Another study by Greve &
Salaff (Greve, A. & Salaff, J. W. 2003) describes the network structure of female entrepreneurs in four countries
(Italy, Norway, Sweden and the USA) through three phases of establishing a firm and finds that entrepreneurs’
networks (as defined by the number of discussion partners and time spent networking) vary with the phase of
entrepreneurship. However, Greve & Salaff do not explicitly focus on female entrepreneurs but merely include
gender as one of several independent variables.
A prevalent theme in the literature on female entrepreneurs (103 papers) is the access to funding. Some of the
papers document a gap between female and male entrepreneurs in terms of access to funding (Alsos, G. A. et al.
2006; Marlow, S. & Patton, D. 2005), while others point to the fact that women entrepreneurs generally start up
their businesses with lower levels of capitalization (Carter, S., Shaw, E., Lam, W., & Wilson, F. 2007; Chaganti, R.,
Decarolis, D., & Deeds, D. 1995).
A smaller portion of papers (10 papers) look at the role of marriage for female entrepreneurs. Baines and
Wheelock (2000) discuss the sharing of professional and management tasks in enterprises with co-owning
couples. Both Nelson (1999) and Parker (2008) use a sample of married couples to illustrate internal gendered
dynamics of the household and knowledge sharing between the male and female spouses, respectively.
Wellington (2006) seeks to illuminate whether work-life balance considerations can explain the choice of women
to become entrepreneurs.
13
A few papers address the case of the family as a part of the analysis of female entrepreneurs. Amatucci &
Coleman (2007) describe the challenges of the female entrepreneur who took over a company after the death of
her husband, and Baines and Wheelock (2000) describe female entrepreneurs that are embedded in the “family
economic unit”, in which all family members have a role to fill.
The topic of founding teams for establishing start-ups is not common in literature on female entrepreneurship.
Only nine papers describe this issue. Godwin, L. N. et al. (2006) outline a proposition that states that female
entrepreneurs can benefit from establishing a mixed-sex entrepreneurial founding team in male-dominated
cultures and industries. Based on a sample of ICT companies O'Connor et al. (O'Connor, V., Hamouda, A.,
McKeon, H., & Johnston, K. 2006) find evidence for a positive relationship between complementary skills in the
co-entrepreneurial, mixed-gender founding teams and exploration of new business opportunities.
A substantial portion (50) of the papers, addressing the meso-level of female entrepreneurship, analyzes the
effect of the meso-level variables on the performance of the entrepreneur. Powell and Eddleston (2008)
illustrate that male business owners are more successful than female business owners measured on elements
like performance compared to competitors and sales. But they also find that gender did not predict satisfaction
with doing business. Orser et al. (2010) delve into the link between female entrepreneurs and the level of
export, and find that female majority-owned firms were significantly less likely to export than firms owned by
men. Lastly, Williams (2004) explores the effect of childcare in relation to success of female entrepreneurs and
finds that caring for children significantly reduces the duration of self-employment ventures. The paper by
Williams also has implications on the macro-level of policies and regulations, which will be described below.
3.3.3 Macro-level of analysis
45 papers are concerned with the macro-level of female entrepreneurship. These papers analyze the effect of
policies and government regulation (Reese, E. 1996; Williams, D. R. 2004), while some papers look at overall
tendencies of the society and the effects of these tendencies on female entrepreneurship (Hiatt, S. R., Sine, W.
D., & Tolbert, P. S. 2009; Ramirez, H. & Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. 2009).
Some papers analyze the geographical aspects of female entrepreneurship. Hanson and Blake (2009), for
instance, describe the strategic advantages that dense urban areas give to networks of entrepreneurs. Another
study (Nelson, M. K. 1999) portrays the gender patterns in supplemental economic activities among white, rural
families.
One stream of literature on the macro-level focuses on the performance of female entrepreneurs. Baughn,
Chua, and Neupert (2006) document that when economies become more prosperous, the rate of selfemployment tends to decrease, and a country’s relative proportion of female entrepreneurship is negatively
related to its level of economic development.
14
4 Discussion of collected data
The analysis clearly illustrates that there is a substantial and growing body of research on female entrepreneurs.
As indicated in appendix C the rate of growth has been increasing throughout the period from 1995 to now.
While all the papers address the gender topic on entrepreneurship (which is why they are included into the total
paper sample), only a smaller portion of the papers exclusively analyze female entrepreneurs. Gender is merely
one of many independent variables in a sample that typically includes both men and women. There are
exceptions to this tendency. For instance the work of Buttner & Moore (1997) on women executives and
professionals that leave large organizations to become entrepreneurs, Leaptrott‘s (2009) study on family role
conflict and start-up decision-making processes, and Morris et al. (2006) on venture size choices. However, the
quantitative, sample-based studies generally use samples with both women and men. The immanent challenge
in these sorts of samplings is the fact that the female entrepreneurs are being measured and evaluated on the
basis of the general entrepreneurship theory, which is largely a male-dominated domain that does not fully
incorporate the specific female entrepreneurship characteristics (Bird, B. & Brush, C. 2002;de Bruin, A., Brush, C.
G., & Welter, F. 2006).
De Bruin, Brush & Welter (2007) call for new and innovative perspectives on female entrepreneurship. Rather
than just the annuals (descriptive studies that confirm already documented phenomena), they want to see more
saplings providing new research agendas and perspectives to female entrepreneurship. Table 5 describes a
significant difference between the top journals and the lower-ranking journals in terms of publishing papers
based on qualitative vs. quantitative research methodology. The high-ranking journals are publishing
significantly more papers that employ quantitative research methods than the lower ranking journals. The
analysis does not seek to document whether the papers that are using a quantitative research method can be
categorized as annuals. Neither does the analysis address the issue of the (inherent) risk of idiosyncrasies, low
generalizability and case-specificity of qualitative studies. However, the significant bias of the top-journals to
publish quantitative studies could perhaps lead to some considerations about a need to identify new
perspectives in research on female entrepreneurship. Methodological triangulation (Jick, T. D. 1979) combining
qualitative and quantitative approaches might help in the identification of the saplings. Perhaps an explorative,
qualitative pre-phase could generate some new and insightful perspectives on the study of female
entrepreneurs. These perspectives could then be translated into hypotheses and tested quantitatively. Table 5
illustrates that this combination of methodology is not very common in the papers that published so far and
perhaps the combinational research design could be a way forward.
The identification of saplings could potentially also include some insights from the more normative approaches
to female entrepreneurship. For instance Mirchandani (1999) suggests that rather than just applying the ‘male
logic’ of entrepreneurship, future research should include other forms of stratification, such as those along the
lines of class, sexuality, race or age.
The analysis demonstrates that the prime focus of the studies published so far have covered a lot of themes on
the micro- and meso-level. These perspectives depart from the assumption that it is the personal traits,
resources and characteristics or the social capital, norms, networks etc. respectively that explain the propensity
to become and to thrive as an entrepreneur. However, the analysis illustrates that the number of papers that
thoroughly analyze the impact of the policies and regulations on the macro-level is limited. With a few
exceptions (for instance the noteworthy analysis presented by Williams (2004) on the effect of child care policies
on female entrepreneurship) the impact of policies tend to be neglected. Perhaps this neglect is due to the
substantial time lag between initiative and effect (Carter, S., Anderson, S., & Shaw, E. 2001) and hence the
difficulty of isolating the effect of policies.
15
5 Conclusion
The purpose of this paper was to take stock of the themes and research methodology within the field of female
entrepreneurship. The literature review identified a substantial body of literature on various aspects of female
entrepreneurship – both in terms of level of analysis and in terms of research methodology. The search in three
of the leading academic databases resulted in a total sample of 364 papers from a variety of academic journals in
the period from 1995 to today. On the basis of the richness of literature on the topic, female entrepreneurship
does not seem to be understudied as stated by De Bruin, Brush & Welter (2006).
The paper has sought to illustrate that some themes of female entrepreneurship have been subject to less
interest than others. Generally, research on the macro-level has been limited, and specifically research on the
effect of policy initiatives to increase the propensity of women to become entrepreneurs. Nevertheless, the
macro-level seems to have imperative significance on both the meso-level (for instance the family patterns,
education etc.) and the micro-level (for instance the motivation to become an entrepreneur), and this part of the
research on female entrepreneurs should not be neglected.
In addition to an enhanced focus on studies on macro-level, the paper has pointed to the potential of getting
new insights from combining research methods. Methodological triangulation of qualitative and quantitative
approaches could potentially lead to new insights into the field. An explorative, qualitative pre-phase to a
quantitative study could potentially bring the understanding of female entrepreneurship beyond the descriptive
level and perhaps help to identify the particularities of female entrepreneurs.
A number of limitations apply to the results of the systematic literature review that is presented in this paper. As
stated by Tranfield et al. (2003) systematic literature reviews have traditionally been criticized for being of a
positivistic tradition. A more interpretivist approach to the literature on female entrepreneurship would
question the fact that the systematic literature review merely focuses on the research that is being published
and not seeking to understand the underlying tendencies and streams within the literature. The present study
has sought to meet this critique by thoroughly analyzing the papers and using a fairly open approach to coding
the content of the papers. Hence, the approach to the analysis has had both deductive and inductive elements.
Nevertheless, the literature review presented in this paper should be seen as a supplement rather than an
alternative to the more narrative reviews on the topic.
This literature review has not touched upon the various theoretical perspectives that the studies have employed.
Hence, an avenue for future research could be an analysis of the development of the theoretical viewpoint that
is taken in the published papers. This analysis could illustrate whether some journals (for instance the top
journals) are more prone to publish papers within a given theoretical paradigm.
The inherent challenge of literature reviews is the fact that they are already outdated once they are published.
Due to need for a cut-off date, they need to be updated on a continuous basis. Thus, this paper should be seen
as a work-in-progress document that should be revised on a regular basis so that new trends and tendencies are
included into the analysis.
The present paper merely focuses on papers that have been published in academic journals. As it becomes clear
from the section on previous literature reviews of female entrepreneurship, some high-quality publications are
not included into the systematic literature review. For instance the thorough and insightful analysis of Carter,
Anderson and Shaw (2001), which is published in a policy report provide useful perspectives on female
entrepreneurship. Future research could potentially benefit from including material that is not published in
academic databases.
16
6 References
Ahl, H. 2006. Why Research on Women Entrepreneurs Needs New Directions. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 30(5): 595-
621.
Allen, S. D., Link, A. N., & Rosenbaum, D. T. 2007. Entrepreneurship and Human Capital: Evidence of Patenting Activity from the
Academic Sector. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 31(6): 937-951.
Alsos, G. A., Isaksen, E. J., & Ljunggren, E. 2006. New Venture Financing and Subsequent Business Growth in Men- and Women-Led
Businesses. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 30(5): 667-686.
Amatucci, F. M. & Coleman, S. 2007. Radha Jalan and ElectroChem, Inc.: Energy for a Clean Planet. Entrepreneurship: Theory &
Practice, 31(6): 971-989.
Baines, S. & Wheelock, J. 2000. Work and Employment in Small Businesses: Perpetuating and Challenging Gender Traditions.
Gender, Work & Organization, 7(1): 45-56.
Baughn, C. C., Chua, B. L., & Neupert, K. E. 2006. The Normative Context for Women's Participation in Entrepreneruship: A
Multicountry Study. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 30(5): 687-708.
Bennett, R. & Dann, S. 2000. The Changing Experience of Australian Female Entrepreneurs. Gender, Work & Organization, 7(2): 7583.
Bird, B. & Brush, C. 2002. A Gendered Perspective on Organizational Creation. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 26(3): 41-65.
Blackmore, J. & Sachs, J. 2003. ’Zealotry or Nostalgic Regret’ Women Leaders in Technical and Further Education in Australia:
Agents of Change, Entrepreneurial Educators or Corporate Citizens? Gender, Work & Organization, 10(4): 478-503.
Brocke, B., Beauducel, A., & Tasche, K. G. 1999. Biopsychological bases and behavioral correlates of sensation seeking:
contributions to a multilevel validation. Personality and Individual Differences, 26(6): 1103-1123.
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.
Carter, S., Shaw, E., Lam, W., & Wilson, F. 2007. Gender, Entrepreneurship, and Bank Lending: The Criteria and Processes Used by
Bank Loan Officers in Assessing Applications. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 31(3): 427-444.
Carter, Sara, Anderson, Susan, and Shaw, Eleanor. 2001. Women's Business Ownership: A Review of the Academic, Popular and
Internet Literature. Report to the Small Business Service.
Chaganti, R., Decarolis, D., & Deeds, D. 1995. Predictors of Capital Structure in Small Ventures. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice,
20(2): 7.
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.
de Bruin, A., Brush, C. G., & Welter, F. 2006. Introduction to the Special Issue: Towards Building Cumulative Knowledge on Women's
Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 30(5): 585-593.
de Bruin, A., Brush, C. G., & Welter, F. 2007. Advancing a Framework for Coherent Research on Women's Entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 31(3): 323-339.
DeTienne, D. R. & Chandler, G. N. 2007. The Role of Gender in Opportunity Identification. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice,
31(3): 365-386.
Dorado, S. 2006. Social Entrepreneurial Ventures: Different Values So Different Process of Creation, No? Journal of Developmental
Entrepreneurship, 11(4): 319-343.
Elgstrom, O. 2000. Norm negotiations. The construction of new norms regarding gender and development in EU foreign aid policy.
Journal of European Public Policy, 7(3): 457-476.
Falk, M. & Leoni, T. 2009. Characteristics of self-employment among university graduates. Applied Economics Letters, 16(10): 10651071.
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.
Freixanet, M. 2001. Prosocial and antisocial aspects of personality in women: a replication study. Personality and Individual
Differences, 30(8): 1401-1411.
Fältholm, Y., Abrahamsson, L., & Källhammer, E. 2010. Academic Entrepreneurship -- Gendered Discourses and Ghettos. Journal of
Technology Management & Innovation, 5(1): 51-63.
Gatewood, E. J., Shaver, K. G., Powers, J. B., & Gartner, W. B. 2002. Entrepreneurial Expectancy, Task Effort, and Performance.
Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 27(2): 187.
Godwin, L. N., Stevens, C. E., & Brenner, N. L. 2006. Forced to Play by the Rules? Theorizing How Mixed-Sex Founding Teams Benefit
Women Entrepreneurs in Male-Dominated Contexts. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 30(5): 623-642.
Greve, A. & Salaff, J. W. 2003. Social Networks and Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 28(1): 1-22.
17
Gundry, L. K., Ben-Yoseph, M., & Posig, M. 2002. Contemporary Perspectives on Women’s Entrepreneurship: A Review and
Strategic Recommendations. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 10(1): 67.
Halaby, C. N. 2003. Where Job Values Come from: Family and Schooling Background, Cognitive Ability, and Gender. American
Sociological Review, 68(2): 251-278.
Hanson, S. & Blake, M. 2009. Gender and Entrepreneurial Networks. Regional Studies, 43(1): 135-149.
Hanson, S. 2009. Changing Places Through Women's Entrepreneurship. Economic Geography, 85(3): 245-267.
Hao, Z., Seibert, S. E., & Hills, G. E. 2005. The Mediating Role of Self-Efficacy in the Development of Entrepreneurial Intentions.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6): 1265-1272.
Harrison, R. T. & Mason, C. M. 2007. Does Gender Matter? Women Business Angels and the Supply of Entrepreneurial Finance.
Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 31(3): 445-472.
Harvey, A. M. 2005. Becoming Entrepreneurs: Intersections of Race, Class, and Gender at the Black Beauty Salon. Gender and
Society, 19(6): 789-808.
Hiatt, S. R., Sine, W. D., & Tolbert, P. S. 2009. From Pabst to Pepsi: The Deinstitutionalization of Social Practices and the Creation of
Entrepreneurial Opportunities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(4): 635-667.
Holly Buttner, E. 2003. Female entrepreneurs: How far have they come? Business Horizons, 36(2): 59-65.
Holmquist, C. & Carter, S. 2009. The Diana Project: pioneering women studying pioneering women. Small Business Economics,
32(2): 121-128.
Hsu, D. H., Roberts, E. B., & Eesley, C. E. 2007. Entrepreneurs from technology-based universities: Evidence from MIT. Research
Policy, 36(5): 768-788.
Hughes, K. D. 2003. Pushed or Pulled? Women's Entry into Self-Employment and Small Business Ownership. Gender, Work &
Organization, 10(4): 433-454.
Jack, S. J. & Ronan, K. R. 1998. Sensation seeking among high- and low-risk sports participants. Personality and Individual
Differences, 25(6): 1063-1083.
Jennings, J. E. & McDougald, M. S. 2007. Work-Family Interface Experiences and Coping Strategies: Implications for
Entrepreneurship Research and Practice. Academy of Management Review, 32(3): 747-760.
Jick, T. D. 1979. Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4): 602611.
Konrad, A. M., Ritchie, J. E., Lieb, P., & Corrigall, E. 2000. Sex differences and similarities in job attribute preferences: A metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126(4): 593-641.
Langan-Fox, J. & Grant, S. 2007. The Effectiveness of Sentence Cues in Measuring the Big Three Motives. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 89(2): 105-115.
Langan-Fox, J. 1995. Achievement motivation and female entrepreneurs. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology,
68(3): 209-218.
Langowitz, N. & Minniti, M. 2007. The Entrepreneurial Propensity of Women. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 31(3): 341-364.
Leaptrott, J. 2009. The Effect of Work - Family Role Conflict on Business Startup Decision-Making Processes. Journal of Behavioral
Studies in Business, 1: 1-17.
Linstead, Alison and Brewis, Joanna. Editorial: Beyond Boundaries: Towards Fluidity in Theorizing and Practice. Gender, Work &
Organization 11[4], 355-362.
Marlow, S. & Patton, D. 2005. All Credit to Men? Entrepreneurship, Finance, and Gender. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice,
29(6): 717-735.
Mirchandani, K. 1999. Feminist Insight on Gendered Work: New Directions in Research on Women and Entrepreneurship. Gender,
Work & Organization, 6(4): 224-235.
Moore, D. P. 1990. An Examination of Present Research on the Female Entrepreneur: Suggested Research Strategies for the 1990's.
Journal of Business Ethics, 9(4/5): 275-281.
Morris, M. H., Miyasaki, N. N., Watters, C. E., & Coombes, S. M. 2006. The Dilemma of Growth: Understanding Venture Size Choices
of Women Entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business Management, 44(2): 221-244.
Muravyev, A., Talavera, O., & Schäfer, D. 2009. Entrepreneurs' gender and financial constraints: Evidence from international data.
Journal of Comparative Economics, 37(2): 270-286.
Nelson, M. K. 1999. Between Paid and Unpaid Work: Gender Patterns in Supplemental Economic Activities among White, Rural
Families. Gender and Society, 13(4): 518-539.
Nicolaou, N. & Shane, S. 2010. Entrepreneurship and occupational choice: Genetic and environmental influences. Journal of
Economic Behavior & Organization, 76(1): 3-14.
Norwegian Social Science Data Service. Scientific Journals, Series and Publishers - Documentation.
http://dbh.nsd.uib.no/kanaler/hjelp.do . 2010.
18
O'Connor, V., Hamouda, A., McKeon, H., & Johnston, K. 2006. Co-entrepreneurial ventures: A study of mixed gender founders of ICT
companies in Ireland. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 13(4): 600-619.
Oliver, A. L. & Ebers, M. 1998. Networking network studies: An analysis of conceptual configurations in the study of interorganizational relationships. Organization Studies, 19(4): 549-583.
Orser, B. J., Riding, A. L., & Manley, K. 2006. Women Entrepreneurs and Financial Capital. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice,
30(5): 643-665.
Orser, B., Spence, M., Riding, A., & Carrington, C. A. 2010. Gender and Export Propensity. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice,
34(5): 933-957.
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(3): 275-300.
Parker, S. C. 2008. Entrepreneurship among married couples in the United States: A simultaneous probit approach. Labour
Economics, 15(3): 459-481.
Pickering, A. D., Diaz, A., & Gray, J. A. 1995. Personality and reinforcement: An exploration using a maze-learning task. Personality
and Individual Differences, 18(4): 541-558.
Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D., & Neely, A. 2004. Networking and innovation: a systematic review of the
evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5/6(3/4): 137-168.
Powell, G. N. & Eddleston, K. A. 2008. The paradox of the contented female business owner. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(1):
24-36.
Ramirez, H. & Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. 2009. Mexican Immigrant Gardeners: Entrepreneurs or Exploited Workers? Social Problems,
56(1): 70-88.
Ranson, G. 2003. Beyond ’Gender Differences’: A Canadian Study of Women’s and Men’s Careers in Engineering. Gender, Work &
Organization, 10(1): 22-41.
Reese, E. 1996. Maternalism and Political Mobilization: How California's Postwar Child Care Campaign Was Won. Gender and
Society, 10(5): 566-589.
Richard, O. C., Barnett, T., Dwyer, S., & Chadwick, K. 2004. Cultural Diversity in Management, Firm Performance, and the
Moderating Role of Entrepreneurial Orientation Dimensions. The Academy of Management Journal, 47(2): 255-266.
Robertson, A. 2000. Embodying risk, embodying political rationality: women's accounts of risks for breast cancer. Health, Risk &
Society, 2(2): 219-235.
Terjesen, S. 2007. Building a Better Rat Trap: Technological Innovation, Human Capital, and the Irula. Entrepreneurship: Theory &
Practice, 31(6): 953-963.
Terjesen, S., Sealy, R., & Singh, V. 2009. Women Directors on Corporate Boards: A Review and Research Agenda. Corporate
Governance: An International Review, 17(3): 320-337.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. 2003. Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by
Means of Systematic Review. British Journal of Management, 14(3): 207-222.
van der Sluis, J., van Praag, M., & Vijverberg, W. 2008. Education and Entrepreneurship Selection and Performance: A Review of the
Empirical Literature. Journal of Economic Surveys, 22(5): 795-841.
Vlaar, P. W. L., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. 2007. Towards a Dialectic Perspective on Formalization in
Interorganizational Relationships: How Alliance Managers Capitalize on the Duality Inherent in Contracts, Rules and Procedures.
Organization Studies, 28(4): 437.
Wellington, A. J. 2006. Self-employment: the new solution for balancing family and career? Labour Economics, 13(3): 357-386.
Werhane, P. H. 1994. The Normative/Descriptive Distinction in Methodologies of Business Ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(2):
175-180.
Widerberg, K. 2000. Harriet Holter: A Pioneer in Gender Studies and Sociology. Acta Sociologica (Taylor & Francis Ltd), 43(4): 413420.
Williams, D. R. 2004. Effects of Childcare Activities on the Duration of Self-Employment in Europe. Entrepreneurship: Theory &
Practice, 28(5): 467-485.
Wilson, F., Kickul, J., & Marlino, D. 2007. Gender, Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy, and Entrepreneurial Career Intentions: Implications
for Entrepreneurship Education. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 31(3): 387-406.
Winn, J. 2006. Monika Forejtová, Attorney at Law. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 30(5): 709-713.
Zhang, Z., Zyphur, M. J., Narayanan, J., Arvey, R. D., Chaturvedi, S., Avolio, B. J., Lichtenstein, P., & Larsson, G. 2009. The genetic
basis of entrepreneurship: Effects of gender and personality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110(2): 93107.
19
Appendices
Appendix A – List of variables

Empirical/conceptual: Is the paper based on data or is it conceptual?

Qualitative (single case/multiple case)/quantitative (sample-based/register-based/experiment): Is the
paper employing a qualitative approach (single case or multiple case) or is it employing a quantitative
approach (sample, register or experiment)?

Descriptive/normative: Is the paper descriptive or normative in its analysis of female entrepreneurs?

Level of analysis: Does the paper employ a micro-perspective (trying to understand the individual
entrepreneur and her perceptions, motivations etc.), a macro-perspective (looking at the policy-level, the
society, the overall industry etc.), or a meso-perspective (seeking to understand entrepreneurship from the
family perspective, the social network of the entrepreneurs etc.)

Discrimination: Is the issue of discrimination addressed in the paper?

Motivation: Is the issue of motivation by the entrepreneur addressed in the paper?

Access to funding: Is the issue of access to funding or financing of the start-up addressed in the paper?

Social and cultural norms: Are social and cultural norms addressed in the paper?

Education and competencies: Are educational elements or competencies addressed in the paper?

Social networks and social capital: Are the social networks and social capital addressed in the paper?

Ethnicity: Is the issue of ethnicity (for instant immigrants, immigration, expats etc.) addressed in the paper?

Age: Is the age of the entrepreneurs addressed in the paper?

Marriage: Is marriage and/or marital status addressed in the paper?

Previous experience: Is the previous experience of the entrepreneur influencing the propensity to become
an entrepreneur – and/or the success of the entrepreneur?

Centre/periphery, geography: Is the question of centre vs. periphery and/or geographical perspectives
addressed in the paper?

Family business: Is the aspect of family business (for instance entire families or couples doing start-ups)
addressed in the paper?

Founding teams: Is the aspect of founding teams (several persons joining forces in the effort to establish an
enterprise) addressed in the paper?

Link to academia/university spinoff: Is the effect of academia and university spin-offs addressed in the
paper?

Risk aversion: Is the issue of risk aversion or alertness addressed in the paper?

Performance: Is the issue of performance of female entrepreneurs addressed in the paper?
20
Appendix B – List of the 20 journals with most papers in the total sample (n=364)
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Appendix C – Publication date of papers in the total sample (n=364)
Percentage
Year
No. of papers
1995
8
2.2%
1996
4
1.1%
1997
8
2.2%
1998
13
3.6%
1999
12
3.3%
2000
24
6.6%
2001
21
5.8%
2002
17
4.7%
2003
25
6.9%
2004
21
5.8%
2005
27
7.4%
2006
45
12.4%
2007
42
11.5%
2008
37
10.2%
2009
44
12.1%
2010*
16
4.4%
Total
364
100%
*Search carried out in July 2010. Hence, the number of publications in 2010 is only from portion of the year.
21
Appendix D – List of the journals in Sample 2 (n=121)
Journals
Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice
Journal of Business Venturing
Journal of Small Business Management
Gender, Work & Organization
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development
Personality and Individual Differences
Academy of Management Review
Gender and Society
Journal of Applied Psychology
Administrative Science Quarterly
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization
Journal of Vocational Behavior
Labour Economics
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
Regional Studies
Acta Sociologica (Taylor & Francis Ltd)
American Sociological Review
Economic Geography
French Historical Studies
Higher Education
Journal of Comparative Economics
Journal of European Public Policy
Journal of Management Studies
Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology
Journal of Personality Assessment
Journal of Urban Economics
Law & Society Review
Management Science
Oxford Bulletin of Economics & Statistics
Quarterly Journal of Economics
Research Policy
Social Problems
Academy of Management Journal
Total
No. of papers
27
18
17
9
7
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
121
22
Appendix E – Number (n) and Percentage (%) of the coded variables in the total
sample (n=364)
Theme
Age
Center/periphery
Discrimination
Education
Ethnicity
Experience
Family businesses
Founding teams
Funding
Marriage
Motivation
Performance
Risk
Social and cultural norms
Social networks and social capital
University relations
n
27
29
46
86
30
72
13
9
103
10
94
73
28
55
45
19
%
7.4%
8.0%
12.6%
23.6%
8.2%
19.8%
3.6%
2.5%
28.3%
2.7%
25.8%
20.1%
7.7%
15.1%
12.4%
5.2%
23