Richness in diversity: Towards more contemporary research conceptualisations of women’s entrepreneurship

Abstract

Analyses of the diversity of women entrepreneurs and their enterprises, using novel approaches and theoretical viewpoints, is lacking in contemporary scholarship. Accordingly, this article reviews and critiques five articles that constitute this Special Issue (SI) focused on exploring the diversity of women’s entrepreneurship. The authors acknowledge that entrepreneurship is a rich and multi-coloured tapestry, hence, these SI articles highlight the complexities of women entrepreneurs and celebrate their diversity through signposting towards research conceptualisations that reflect the actual rather than the assumed status quo. The article contributes to extant scholarship by platforming the heterogeneity of women’s entrepreneurial endeavours, supporting the view that in terms of supporting women’s entrepreneurship, ‘one size (still) does not fit all’. We also propose a framework to help future scholars strengthen the quality and relevance of their research on women entrepreneurs along four key dimensions: influence of context; theoretical development; multiplicity of dimensions; and heterogeneity.

Keywords

entrepreneurship framework intersectionality research women

Introduction

Significant gaps have been identified in reviews of the women’s entrepreneurship literature with respect to theoretical development, methodological approaches and embedded gender biases that signal the underperformance of women-owned firms compared to those of men-owned firms (Foss et al., 2019; Henry et al., 2016; Jennings and Brush, 2013; Leitch et al., 2018). These biases serve to marginalise the experiences, challenges and contributions of women entrepreneurs, inadvertently positioning them as ‘lacking’, ‘lesser than’ or ‘other’ in comparison with counterpart business owners. Calls for new research approaches, contexts and perspectives to address biases have not yet been addressed (Foss et al., 2019; Welter, 2011). Our understanding of the diversity and heterogeneity of women entrepreneurs and their enterprises, using novel approaches and theoretical viewpoints, is lacking in academic scholarship. A lack of understanding about the experiences and market response strategies of women entrepreneurs results in homogenised public policies and programmes that do not adequately reflect the needs of many women-owned or women-led businesses. This includes support services of stakeholders such as academic institutions, small business organisations and governments. Thus, in this Special Issue (SI), we sought to enhance the understanding about the richness and diversity of women’s entrepreneurship.

Another core consideration within entrepreneurship scholarship is the emphasis on enterprise growth (Brush et al., 2010; Coleman et al., 2019; Hechavarria et al., 2019; Mason and Brown, 2014). It is assumed that enterprise growth is good, and should be a goal for most entrepreneurs. While a better understanding of growth-oriented women entrepreneurs is of critical importance for many reasons, including job creation and innovation, continued emphasis on growth produces unintended consequences, including diminished legitimacy and perceived contributions of women-owned and -led businesses (Coleman et al., 2019; Hechavarria et al., 2019; Welter et al., 2017). These factors further affect the provision of women’s entrepreneurship policies and programmes (Henry et al., 2017). In light of such observations, this SI also sought to provide scholars with the opportunity to capture the heterogeneity of women entrepreneurs through a broad view of the motivations, goals, measures of success and contexts in which they launch and lead firms.

One such context affecting women’s entrepreneurship is the Covid-19 pandemic, a context with unprecedented consequences and uncertainties (He and Harris, 2020). The pandemic has demonstrated that women tend to be more vulnerable to crisis-driven loss of earnings. On average, women’s incomes are lower and rates of poverty are higher. Similarly, women entrepreneurs have been more likely to experience revenue losses and firm discontinuance compared to men entrepreneurs (OECD, 2020). Women make up a disproportionate share of employment in industries that are most affected by Covid-19, such as retail, food and services (Manolova et al., 2020). A recent Diana International Research Institute survey found that two-thirds of women entrepreneurs reported a decrease in revenues during the first months of 2020 (Manolova et al., 2020). Compared to the 2008 financial crisis, the impacts of Covid-19 were more rapid and dramatic on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), as countries introduced restrictions on commercial and personal activities (OECD, 2020: 9). Due to the prolonged length of this global crisis and government measures, many women entrepreneurs will continue to suffer the impact of the pandemic into the foreseeable future. Consequently, the research presented in this SI advances novel conceptualisations of women’s entrepreneurship and methodological approaches that provide the momentum for creating knowledge for recovery policies and programming.

Purpose of the Special Issue

We acknowledge that entrepreneurship is a rich and multi-coloured tapestry. For this SI, we sought articles that demonstrated the complexities of women’s entrepreneurship. The purpose was to recognise and celebrate the diversity of women’s entrepreneurship through research conceptualisations that reflect the actual rather than the assumed status quo. In doing so, we aimed to construct a better understanding of women’s entrepreneurship. We also hoped to contribute insights into the field of gender and entrepreneurship research in general. Accordingly, we encouraged conceptual and empirical papers that considered women’s entrepreneurship in global and multi-cultural contexts, and that explored women’s entrepreneurial endeavours in diverse geographical, industrial, sectorial, cultural and institutional settings. Themes and research questions that we sought to address focused on the following:

Context: How do different country, cultural and organisational contexts affect women’s entrepreneurial endeavours? How do women enact entrepreneurship in such contexts? What is the effect of gendered structures in facilitating and inhibiting women’s entrepreneurship?

Entrepreneurial process: What is the role of intersectionality in amplifying the diversity of women’s entrepreneurship? Where and how might an intersectional lens be applied? How does social identity, both ascribed and enacted, influence entrepreneurial processes and outcomes?

Theoretical frameworks: Are different theoretical frameworks/theoretical lenses needed to help us fully understand the influence of these contexts on women’s entrepreneurial endeavours? How can feminist theories help?

Novel future research insights: Which theoretical, conceptual or methodological lessons can we take from the studies in this SI for future research scholarship within the field of gender and entrepreneurship? How might we apply these lessons to different contexts and to small business and entrepreneurship more broadly?

Special Issue process and overview of the selected papers

The initial call for papers for this SI was issued in mid-2019, with a submission date for full papers by 31st March 2020. The call attracted 33 submissions, and following desk review, 13 papers were selected for double blind peer review. Upon the completion of the review processes and editorial feedback, we selected four papers for inclusion in this SI. The selected papers exemplify the diversity of women’s entrepreneurial endeavours around the world. The geographical contexts covered by the studies include Jordan and Sudan, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Authors adopted quantitative and qualitative approaches, comparative and individual studies, and a diverse range of methodologies, including self-administered questionnaires, interviews, a phenomenologically oriented case study and analysis of longitudinal survey data. Theoretical stances encompassed agency theory as applied to the family business interface of women-headed family firms in Jordan and Sudan; legitimacy building among women in the UAE; entrepreneurial identity in the case of a woman artisan food producer in New Zealand; and intersectionality to highlight the influences of gender, ethnicity, place and innovation among UK-based women-led SMEs. Collectively, these contributions challenge extant perspectives about gender and entrepreneurship, and lay the foundation for future research.

The first paper – ‘The door swings in and out: The impact of family support and country stability on the success of women entrepreneurs in the Arab world’ by Dianne Welsh, Eugene Kaciak, Saime Mehtap, Massimiliano Pellegrini, Andrea Caputo and Siddiga Ahmed –investigates women entrepreneurs in Jordan and Sudan. Drawing from literature on work–family interface, the authors explore the influence of objective and subjective family support on business performance. They use the term ‘business–family’ interface and consider the positive connections between business and family domains and how these influences impact performance. Notably, this study is contextualised in two ways, first comparing Jordan and Sudan, two different country environments, and second, by examining the influence of political and social stability. The article tests hypotheses and presents results of analysis of data from 116 women entrepreneurs from Jordan compared to 103 women entrepreneurs from Sudan. Overall, this article confirms that institutional elements have a major impact on the business family interface, and sheds light on the role of multi-level contextual factors shaping the relationship between family moral and financial support and business performance. The study also documents how women are particularly vulnerable to political decisions that lend to economic instability.

In their paper ‘How women in the UAE enact entrepreneurial identity to build legitimacy’, Helen Thompson-Whiteside, Sarah Turnbull and Judith Fletcher-Brown explore how women in the UAE enact entrepreneurial identities to build legitimacy. Employing netnographic analysis of media interviews and institutional theory, the authors unravel the complexities and tensions of an entrepreneurial self, as reflected through the prism of legitimacy, context and identity. The researchers conclude that as women build entrepreneurial identities, they draw on a range of micro-identities or micro aspects of their identities. To establish credibility, social approval and role desirability (Leitch and Harrison, 2016), women in the UAE produce legitimacy through self-descriptions using well-trotted entrepreneurial characteristics, such as perseverance, passion, hard work and vision. To further legitimise identity in the context of media, some situate themselves as ‘heroines’, describing experiences of being stigmatised, isolated, impoverished and excluded. Motivated by ‘the need to both fit in and stand out, to be both familiar and different’ in the prevailing culture and social norms, personal characteristics and credentials are reinforced through references to external endorsements. Financial prizes, accolades, celebrity statements and the support of male family members confer how the ‘patriarchal bargain’ (Williams et al., 2013) is both referenced and fortified through the mechanisms that women use to seek legitimacy.

In examining how women entrepreneurs are disrupting the institutional arrangements that constrain them, this study contributes to theory by conceptualising new ways in which women navigate institutional logics, by pulling on micro aspects of identity and external sources of evidence. In doing so, the article presents a fresh perspective on how media reinforce gendered stereotypes of entrepreneurs, as women respond to the institutional influences of culture, geography and industry practice.

Identity work serves as the theoretical framework for the paper – ‘In the night kitchen: Gender, identity and artisanal work’ – by Kate Lewis, who explores the link between gender, identity and artisanal work through the experience of Rachel Scott, founder of Rachel Scott Bread located in a small New Zealand town. Noting that both ‘entrepreneur’ and ‘artisan’ are identities ‘beset by masculine narratives, imagery and history’, Lewis poses the question of how one reconciles the disparate identities of entrepreneur, woman and artisan. Her selection of identity work as an analytical lens is motivated by its potential for exploring ways in which different facets of identity can interact. Using phenomenological enquiry as her methodology (Cope, 2005; Moustakas, 1994), Lewis develops a case study on Rachel and her firm through semi-structured interviews and other types of contact over a period of years. Data from these inputs were coded, analysed and examined using Brown’s five primary approaches to interrogating identity work (Brown, 2017). Building on prior research suggesting that identities can co-exist, compete or be integrated, Lewis advances an alternative theory to the effect that identities may exist as intertwined lines ‘akin to the helical form of DNA’. Application of this theory reveals that, although Scott’s primary identity is that of an artisan (a baker of bread), she is also an entrepreneur in terms of starting and leading a viable business. However, as Lewis points out, in Rachel’s case, her identity as an entrepreneur is ‘recessive to the dominance of the artisan identity’. Similarly, although Rachel is a business owner and a woman, the bread she creates and the artisanal character of her work take precedence. By examining entrepreneurial identity through the ways in which that identity is practised, Lewis opens the door to a more nuanced perspective on how the identities of women entrepreneurs are assumed and enacted. She also makes a compelling case for exploring entrepreneurial identity within contexts, such as those of the artisan, that are typically ignored.

In the final paper by Beldina Owalla, Elvis Nyanzu and Tim Vorley – ‘Intersection of gender, ethnicity, place and innovation: Mapping the diversity of women-led SMEs in the United Kingdom’ – the authors explore how gender intersects with ethnicity and place to influence engagement in innovation. Drawing on Longitudinal Small Business Survey data of 29,257 SMEs over the period from 2015 to 2018, the paper adopts an intersectional approach (Atewologun, 2018) in responding to calls for more nuanced ‘within-group’ comparisons that consider the impact of intersecting socio-demographic factors on the entrepreneurial process. Findings reveal first that women-led SMEs in the United Kingdom are actively engaged in innovation activities. Second, ethnic minority women-led SMEs are more likely to engage in innovation activities than ethnic majority women-led SMEs. Third, significance of place for innovation is highlighted, by identifying places where innovation is most likely to occur. Fourth, the paper provides insights for future research on the diversity and heterogeneity of women’s entrepreneurship. The authors conclude that more comprehensive national level studies that allow for fine-grained analyses of the intersecting socio-demographic categories that influence women’s entrepreneurship are needed. As these findings counter the general policy rhetoric which positions women’s individual and firm-level constraints as problematic, the paper advises that more research attention should be paid to the gendered structures constraining women’s entrepreneurial activities. The spatial variation in the likelihood of women-led SMEs to engage in innovation implies tailoring policies and support initiatives to the place where such activities are occurring. Given the significance of place for innovation, the development of policies more effective in improving the environment for women entrepreneurs’ engagement in innovation are needed. Greater awareness of the contextual and institutional dimensions of entrepreneurial ecosystems is also needed to inform policy. A key contribution towards future research is the need for increased focus on the intersection of ethnic status and gender of firm ownership, including the influence of mixed gender ownership teams.

Reflections and future research insights

Collectively, the SI articles in this issue highlight that women-owned and women-led enterprises provide value across size, industry and innovation spectrums. Another contribution being that the heterogeneity of women entrepreneurs and women-owned firms is present, important and valuable. These SI articles also illustrate the effects of context on aspects of women’s entrepreneurship, including intersectionality, identity and legitimacy.

The SI articles draw on agency theory, identity theory/work and, to a certain extent, signalling theory to illuminate the strategies that women use to engage in entrepreneurship, while achieving greater freedom and power to structure entrepreneurial lives in accordance with their own priorities rather than the priorities dictated by generally accepted (and often male) norms. The SI Editors were struck by the different ways in which women ‘enact’ entrepreneurship, through their choice of industry, product/service selection, target markets, size and growth expectations; ways that they bring products into being, and ways in which they interact with and are vested in their products and the venture creation process itself. The article by Lewis, for example, which focuses on an artisan entrepreneur, helped sensitise the editors to such insights. The choices that Rachel Scott made allow her to live and work in ways that are consistent with her preferences and priorities. She is not governed by the expectations of others about what a successful business should look like, or how a successful entrepreneur should act.

Similarly, Thompson-Whiteside et al. delve into how women enact entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial identities to create advantages for themselves while minimising institutional barriers. The authors analyse media interviews by women entrepreneurs in the UAE to find that interviewees drew upon personal and external sources of legitimacy as a means for combatting social, cultural and political constraints. In doing so, the women entrepreneurs were able to signal the ways in which they ‘fit’ into their institutional setting, while illustrating that they are not constrained by institutional biases. In essence, the women entrepreneurs used the media as a vehicle for constructing an entrepreneurial identity that was advantageous to them.

Findings from these two articles suggest that fluidity in managing entrepreneurial identity is both defensive and reforming, as women construct signals to counter entrenched perceptions about what it is to be entrepreneurial and who is an entrepreneur. Simultaneously, the presence of women as entrepreneurial actors erodes misperceptions, while informing us about the gendered processes of venture creation, innovation, artistry and entrepreneurship. Drawing upon the Lewis and Thompson-Whiteside articles, future research into strategies that empower women to practice entrepreneurship ‘as they see fit’, while empowering them to circumvent institutional biases and barriers, would be both inspiring and informative.

Three of the SI articles point out that women’s entrepreneurship is multi-dimensional. The paper by Welsh et al., for example, focuses on women entrepreneurs in Jordan and Sudan, and examines the influence of the intersectionality of gender, ethnicity and place on firm performance, as measured by business income. Their findings reveal a positive relationship between family moral support and performance in Sudan, which is less politically stable, but not in Jordan, which is more politically stable. This suggests that one cannot assume women in different Middle Eastern countries experience similar outcomes. Moderating factors in the countries play an important role. In this study context, political stability or lack thereof, represented a ‘deciding factor’ when added to the dimensions of gender and ethnicity. Again, such insights highlight the value of research that compares women entrepreneurs across geo-political and ethnic contexts.

A similar pattern emerges in the article by Owalla et al., who examine how the intersections of gender, ethnicity and place affect innovation among entrepreneurs in the United Kingdom. The findings confirm the heterogeneity of women-owned firms in that both ethnic majority women-owned and ethnic minority women-owned firms engage in innovative activities. Nevertheless, the use of intersecting variables by the authors provides a more nuanced perspective in that ethnic minority-owned firms are found to be more likely to engage in innovation than ethnic majority-owned firms. Similarly, when technology firms are examined as a subset of all firms, the dimension representing location was particularly significant. Both the articles by Welsh et al. and Owalla et al. illustrate the manner in which intersectionality can be used as a means for conducting more fine-grained analyses of entrepreneurs and their firms. This, in turn, can lead to more targeted interventions in the form of policy and programming.

Interestingly, none of the SI articles address the role of parenting. This is often the ‘elephant in the room’ in examining women’s entrepreneurship. Lewis’ helix theory provides insights into how entrepreneurs might balance multiple roles at different points in time. In doing so, she advances a theory whereby different identities are intertwined as opposed to operating in parallel. While there is recognition of the work/family interface and embeddedness of women entrepreneurs in family and community, especially given the recent pandemic, the interconnections are tightly intertwined and clearly present an opportunity for future research.

While we believe the SI articles offer valuable insights and directions for future research, we also believe that there are knowledge domains missing that can provide insights into new research opportunities. To date, much of what we know about women’s entrepreneurship emerges from studies undertaken in Western cultures. While the SI articles examine women’s entrepreneurship in geographic regions where relatively little research has been published, such as in the Middle East, insights are needed from other under-researched regions such as Latin America, Africa and Asia. The same holds true for women’s entrepreneurship in under-researched industries and occupational roles (artisan), communities (remote and rural versus urban locations) and types of entrepreneurs (such as, immigrant/newcomer entrepreneurs, Indigenous peoples and entrepreneurs of different races and ethnicities).

As the articles in this SI demonstrate, one cannot generalise findings from studies undertaken in one region, sector or occupational role and assume relevance to other regions, industries, communities or types of entrepreneurs. Studying women’s entrepreneurship in under-researched developing economies, niche contexts and atypical occupational roles will further inform the broader entrepreneurship literature. In this regard, Owalla et al.’s mapping strategy is compelling because of its potential to identify barriers and needs that are differentiated by intersecting factors, such as gender and ethnicity or gender and location. Further research using such approaches could help identify factors favourable to women-owned firms, as well as factors or intersections that represent potential impediments. Fine-tuning analyses in these ways will refine approaches to informing entrepreneurship policies, programmes and practices.

Our SI articles also incorporate valuable theory-building (Lewis, Thompson-Whiteside et al., Welsh et al.), but again, there is considerable room for development. Specifically, recognition of the heterogeneity of women-owned firms, the role and influence of context and its various sub-forms, and differences in the ways that women perceive and enact entrepreneurship, provide ample opportunity for further theory building and empirical research.

Concluding remarks: toward a more diverse future research agenda

This SI celebrates the diversity of women-owned and women-led firms in a range of areas, including entrepreneur characteristics (gender, race, ethnicity), industry and location. It also encouraged us to stretch our understanding of how women-owned firms operate within institutional frameworks – whether in developed or developing economic contexts. This includes highlighting prevailing gendered structures and weak entrepreneurial eco-systems, and illustrating how these can – in certain instances – inhibit or constrain women entrepreneurs. Within the body of the SI, the articles reflect a diversity of women entrepreneurs and the scope in how we view and understand them, using various theoretical frameworks and methodologies. It is time to acknowledge the importance of studying both how women do entrepreneurship, and why women’s entrepreneurship is under-researched across cultures, communities and contexts. We therefore, call for the incorporation of a ‘moral compass’ in future research that recognises that women entrepreneurs are not all the same, and that Western entrepreneurial infrastructures and academic adjudication processes are biased in valuing the importance and contributions of certain types of women entrepreneurs compared to others.

After reviewing the SI articles, we advance four areas that merit further reflection and development in order to strengthen the quality and relevance of research on women entrepreneurs. Each of the areas is described below and illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Directions to strengthen the quality and relevance of research on women entrepreneurs.

Influence of Context: The diversity of women-owned and women-led firms is driven by the contexts in which they operate. Context, in turn, influences how women enact entrepreneurship and construct their entrepreneurial identities. Similarly, context has implications for the types of institutional barriers that women face, how they circumvent these barriers, and how they establish legitimacy for their firms. As the papers in this SI demonstrate, entrepreneurs achieve agency and empowerment by developing strategies for circumventing institutional barriers. Specific strategies that work are determined by institutional factors specific to a given context, that is, location, social, cultural and political conditions (Yousafzai et al., 2019).

Theoretical Development: Several of the SI authors have expanded upon existing theories, including agency theory, identity work, entrepreneurial identity and signalling. There is ample room for further theory-development within these perspectives. This includes novel and more appropriate performance criteria for women’s entrepreneurship that incorporate ‘sense of self’ as an element of the entrepreneurial process and as an outcome of venture creation. In addition, applying identity theory to different firm types, business sectors and diverse geographical contexts, as well as exploring entrepreneurial identities in mixed-gender businesses, could offer further opportunities for theory building.

Multiplicity of Dimensions: The SI articles reveal that women’s entrepreneurship is multi-dimensional. In light of this, intersectionality serves as a means for providing granular analyses that can lead to more targeted interventions and inform women’s entrepreneurship policy and programming. As a critical framework, intersectionality facilitates the examination of interconnections and interdependencies between social categories. By drawing attention to the multiple positionalities of individuals and groups, intersectionality enhances analytical sophistication and deepens theoretical explanations of how and why ethnicity, gender and class influence individual experiences within the workplace (Atewologun, 2018) and, by extension, in entrepreneurship.

Heterogeneity: Women-owned and women-led firms are richly heterogenous, and accordingly, as illustrated by the papers in this SI, ‘one size (still) does not fit all’ in terms of research. This has implications for theory-building, methodology (e.g. data sourcing and gathering, sample identification, sample size and analytical methods) policy, programming and practice. These insights reinforce the need for scholars to push the boundaries of knowledge and continue to explore novel research questions to highlight the diversity of women’s entrepreneurship.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The Editors would like to thank ISBJ for accepting this Special Issue from the Global Women’s Entrepreneurship Policy Research Network. We are especially grateful to Professor Susan Marlow for her academic guidance and to Ms. Valerie Thorne for supporting us through the SI editorial process. We are also grateful to the anonymous reviewers who provided detailed and constructive feedback on the manuscripts, ultimately helping us decide on the final selection. Finally, we thank the authors of the four papers for choosing to share their valuable and insightful research work with us.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Colette Henry

Author biographies

Colette Henry is Head of Department of Business Studies, Dundalk Institute of Technology, Ireland and Adjunct Professor, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia. Colette is also Chair at Global Women’s Entrepreneurship Policy Group and Founder, Editor in Chief of International Journal of Gender & Entrepreneurship.

Susan Coleman is Emeritus Professor of Finance in University of Hartford, Connecticut, USA. Susan’s research is in the area of entrepreneurial finance with a particular focus on the ways in which women entrepreneurs secure financing for their firms.

Lene Foss is Professor in Pedagogy at School of Education and Communication, Department Leader of Institute of Responsible Education Management, Jönköping University, Sweden. Lene is also Adjunct Professor in Entrepreneurship and Innovation, School of Business and Economics, UiT- The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway. Her research focuses on gender in entrepreneurship, innovation and work-life.

Barbara J Orser is Full Professor at Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, Canada. Barbara is also Co-author of over 150 publications, including Feminine Capital. Unlocking the Power of Women Entrepreneurs. Current work focuses on inclusive entrepreneurship education and public policy.

Candida G Brush is the Franklin W. Olin Professor of Entrepreneurship at Babson College, USA, and co-author of over 160 publications, including 13 books and reports for the OECD, Global Entrepreneurship Monitor and Goldman Sachs Foundation. A pioneer in entrepreneurship research, she is one of the most highly cited researchers in the field.

References

Atewologun

(2018) Intersectionality theory and practice. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management. Available at: https://oxfordre.com/business/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.001.0001/acrefore-9780190224851-e-48

Brown

(2017) Identity work and organizational identification. International Journal of Management Reviews 19(3): 296–317.

Brush

de Bruin

Gatewood

, et al. (eds) (2010) Women Entrepreneurs and the Global Environment for Growth: A Research Perspective. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Coleman

Henry

Orser

, et al. (2019) Policy support for women entrepreneurs’ access to financial capital: A comparative analysis of Canada, Germany, Ireland, Norway, and the U.S. Journal of Small Business Management 57(2): 296–322.

Cope

(2005) Researching entrepreneurship through phenomenological inquiry: Philosophical and methodological issues. International Small Business Journal 23(2): 163–189.

Foss

Henry

Ahl

, et al. (2019) Women’s entrepreneurship policy: A 30-year review of the evidence. Small Business Economics 53: 409–429.

Harris

(2020) The impact of covid-19 pandemic on corporate social responsibility and marketing philosophy. Journal of Business Research 117: 124–131.

Hechavarria

Bullough

Brush

, et al. (2019) High-growth women’s entrepreneurship: Fuelling social and economic development. Journal of Small Business Management 57(1): 5–13.

Henry

Foss

Ahl

(2016) Gender and entrepreneurship research: A review of methodological approaches. International Small Business Journal 34(3): 217–241.

10.

Henry

Orser

Coleman

, et al. (2017) Women’s entrepreneurship policy: A 13-Nation Study. International Journal of Gender & Entrepreneurship 9(3): 206–228.

11.

Jennings

Brush

(2013) Research on women entrepreneurs: Challenges to (and from) the broader entrepreneurship literature? The Academy of Management Annals 7(1): 663–715.

12.

Leitch

Welter

Henry

(2018) Women entrepreneurs’ financing revisited: Taking stock and looking forward. Venture Capital: An International Journal 20(2): 103–114.

13.

Leitch

Harrison

(2016) Identity, identity formation and identity work in entrepreneurship: Conceptual developments and empirical applications. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 28(3–4): 177–190.

14.

Manolova

Brush

Edelman

, et al. (2020) Pivoting to stay the course: How women entrepreneurs take advantage of opportunities created by the COVID-19 pandemic. International Small Business Journal 38: 481–491.

15.

Mason

Brown

(2014) Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Growth Oriented Entrepreneurship (Final Report to OECD). Paris: OECD. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/cfe/leed/Entrepreneurial-ecosystems.pdf

16.

Moustakas

(1994) Phenomenological Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

17.

OECD (2020) Women at the Core of the Fight Against the COVID-19 Crisis: Tackling Coronavirus (COVID-19) – Contributing to a Global Effort. Paris: OECD.

18.

Welter

(2011) Contextualizing entrepreneurship: Conceptual challenges and ways forward. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 35(1): 165–184.

19.

Welter

Baker

Audretsch

, et al. (2017) Everyday entrepreneurship: A call for entrepreneurship to embrace entrepreneurial diversity. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 41(3): 311–321.

20.

Williams

Wallis

Williams

(2013) Emirati women and public sector employment: The implicit patriarchal bargain. International Journal of Public Administration 36(2): 137–149.

21.

Yousafzai

Fayolle

Saeed

, et al. (2019) Contextual embeddedness of women’s entrepreneurship: Taking stock and looking ahead. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 31(3–4): 167–177.