We explore the influence of sex role attribution and associated gendered ascriptions upon the entrepreneurial experiences of a female high–technology business owner operating within the context of business incubation. Our literature analysis and empirical evidence suggest that stereotypical gendered expectations surrounding incubated high–technology venturing reproduce masculine norms of entrepreneurial behavior. The adoption of a gendered perspective to explore the experience of business incubation responds to contemporary calls to embed feminist analyses within the entrepreneurial field of enquiry. Furthermore, we draw upon evidence from a detailed case study informed by a life history narrative to explore a female entrepreneur's experience of incubated high–technology entrepreneurship.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AhlH. (2004). The making of the female entrepreneur. Jonkoping International Business School Dissertation Series, No. 015, Jonkoping, Sweden: Jonkoping University.
2.
AhlH. (2006). Why research on women entrepreneurs needs new directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(5), 595–621.
3.
AhlH. (2007). Sex business in the toy store: A narrative analysis of a teaching case. Journal of Business Venturing, 22, 673–693.
4.
AldrichH.E. & CliffJ. (2003). The pervasive effects of family entrepreneurship toward a family embeddedness perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 573–596.
5.
BanduraA. (1993). Perceived self–efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148.
6.
BaughanC., ChuaB.–L., & NeupertK.E. (2006). The normative context for women's participation in entrepreneurship: A multicountry study. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(5), 687–708.
7.
BemS.L. (1981). Bem sex role inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden.
8.
BemS.L. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
9.
BowdenJ. & MummeryP. (2009). Understanding feminism. New York: Acumen Press.
10.
BruniA., GherardiS., & PoggioB. (2005). Gender and entrepreneurship: An ethnographical approach. London: Routledge.
11.
BrushC., de BruinA., & WelterF. (2009). A gender aware framework for women's entrepreneurship. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 8–24.
CaputtiJ. (1988). Seeing elephants: The myths of phallotechnology. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 32–38.
14.
CaseP. (2003). From objectivity to subjectivity: Pursuing subjective authenticity in organizational research. In WestwoodR. & CleggS. (Eds.), Debating organization: Point–counterpoint in organization studies (pp. 35–49). Oxford: Blackwell.
15.
CockburnC. (1992). The circuit of technology: Gender, identity and power. In SilverstoneR. & HirschE. (Eds.), Consuming technology: Media and information in domestic spaces (pp. 32–47). London: Routledge.
16.
CrumpB.J., LoganK., & McIlroyA. (2007). Does gender still matter? A study of the views of women in the ICT industry in New Zealand. Gender, Work and Organization, 14(4), 349–370.
de BeauvoirS. (1988/1949). The second sex. London: Pan.
19.
De ClercqD. & AreniusP. (2006). The role of knowledge in business start–up activity. International Small Business Journal, 24(4), 339–358.
20.
DeVaultM. (1996). Talking back to sociology: Distinctive contributions of feminist methodology. Annual Review of Sociology, 22(1), 29–50.
21.
ECDGEI. (2008). Evaluation on policy: Promotion of women innovators and entrepreneurship, DG Enterprise and Industry, European Commission. Available at http://www.ec.europa.eu/enterprise/dgs/eval.htm, accessed 27 January 2010.
22.
FangS., Fu–ShengT., & LinJ. (2010). Leveraging tenant–incubator social capital for organizational learning in incubation programmes. International Small Business Journal, 28(1), 90–113.
23.
FaulknerW. (2001). The technology question in feminism: A view from feminist technology studies. Women's Studies International Forum, 24(1), 79–95.
24.
FaulknerW., SorensonK., GansmoH., & RommesE. (2004). Gender inclusion with the ICT workforce. Available at http://www.sigis–sit.org, accessed 21 June 2008.
25.
GartnerW. (2010). A new path to the waterfall: A narrative on a use of narrative. International Small Business Journal, 28(1), 6–20.
26.
GherardiS. & PoggioB. (2001). Creating and recreating gender order in organizations. Journal of World Business, 36(3), 245–259.
27.
GiddensA. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
28.
GillR. & GrintK. (1995). The gender–technology relation: Contemporary theory and research. London: Taylor and Francis.
29.
GodwinL.N., StevensC.E., & BrennerN.L. (2006). Forced to play by the rules? Theorizing how mixed–sex founding teams benefit women entrepreneurs in male–dominated contexts. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(5), 623–642.
30.
GuptaV.K., TurbanD.B., WastiS.A., & SikdarA. (2009). The role of gender stereotypes in perceptions of entrepreneurs and intentions to become an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(2), 397–417.
31.
HackettS.M. & DiltsD.M. (2004). A systematic review of business incubation literature. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(1), 55–82.
32.
HannonP.D. & ChaplinP. (2003). Are incubators good for business? Understanding incubation practice—the challenges for policy. Environment and Planning C, 21, 861–881.
33.
HardingS. (1986). Feminism and methodology. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
34.
HausmannR., TysonL.D., & ZahidiS. (2007). The Global Gender Gap Report 2007. Available at http://www.globalgendergapindex.org, accessed 21 June 2008.
35.
HaynesK. (2006). Linking narrative and identity construction: Using autobiography in accounting research. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 17(4), 399–418.
36.
HelimanM.E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. Research in Organizational Behavior, 5, 269–298.
37.
HirdmanY. (2001). Genus—om det stabilas förănderliga former. Malmö: Liber Press.
38.
HolmesM. (2007). What is gender? London: Sage.
39.
HyttiU. & MakiK. (2007). Which firms benefit most from the incubators?International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 7(6), 506–523.
40.
KeltnerD. (1995). Signs of appeasement: Evidence for the distinct displays of embarrassment, amusement and shame. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 441–454.
41.
KingE. (2008). The effect of bias on the advancement of working mothers: Disentangling legitimate concerns from inaccurate stereotypes as predictors of advancement in academe. Human Relations, 61(12), 1677–1713.
42.
KleifT. & FaulknerW. (2003). “I'm no athlete [but] I can make this thing dance!”—Men's pleasures in technology. Science Technology Human Values, 28, 296–325.
43.
KnightsD. & KerfootD. (2004). Between representations and subjectivity: Gender binaries and the politics of organizational transformation. Gender, Work and Organization, 11(4), 430–454.
44.
KvandeE. (1999). In the belly of the beast: Constructing femininities in engineering organizations. European Journal of Women's Studies, 6(3), 305–328.
45.
LalkakaR. (2002). Technology business incubators to help build an innovation based economy. Journal of Change Management, 3(2), 167–176.
LatourB. & WoolgarS. (1979). Laboratory life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
48.
LeeS.S. & OsteryoungS.J. (2004). A comparison of critical success factors for effective operations of university business incubators in the United States and Korea. Journal of Small Business Management, 42(4), 418–426.
49.
LewisP. (2006). The quest for invisibility: Female entrepreneurs and their masculine norm of entrepreneurship. Gender, Work and Organization, 13(5), 453–469.
50.
LinsteadA. & BrewisJ. (2004). Beyond boundaries: Towards fluidity in theorising and practice. Gender, Work and Organization, 11(4), 335–362.
51.
LinsteadJ. & PullenS. (2006). Gender as multiplicity: Desire, displacement, difference and dispersion. Human Relations, 59(9), 1287–1310.
52.
LockeK. (1996). A funny thing happened? The management of consumer emotions in service encounters. Organization Science, 7(1), 40–59.
53.
LohanM. & FaulknerW. (2004). Masculinities and technologies. Men and Masculinities, 6(4), 319–329.
54.
MadsenM.T., NeergaardH., & UlhoiJ.P. (2008). The influence of role and identities on female entrepreneurial agency. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 5(3–4), 358–372.
55.
MarlowS. (2002). Self–employed women: A part of or apart from feminist theory?Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 2(2), 23–37.
56.
MarlowS., CarterS., & ShawE. (2008). Constructing UK policy to support female entrepreneurship, is the US a relevant benchmark?Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26, 335–351.
57.
MartinJ. (2003). Feminist theory and critical theory: Unexplored synergies. In AlvessonM. & WillmottH. (Eds.), Studying management critically (pp. 66–91). London: Sage.
58.
McAdamM. & MarlowS. (2007). Building futures or stealing secrets? Entrepreneurial cooperation and conflict within business incubators. International Journal of Small Business, 25(4), 359–377.
59.
McAdamM. & MarlowS. (2008). The business incubator and the female high technology entrepreneur: A perfect match? Paper presented at 53rd International Conference on Small Business, Halifax, Canada, July.
60.
McAdamM. & MarlowS. (2009). Walk like a women, talk like a man? Constructing identities in the context of the high technology business incubator. Paper presented at the 26th EURAM Conference, Liverpool, May.
61.
McRobbieA. (2009). The aftermath of feminism. London: Sage.
62.
MirchandaniK. (1999). Feminist insight on gendered work: New directions in research on women and entrepreneurship. Gender, Work and Organization, 6(4), 224–235.
63.
National Business Incubation Association. (NBIA) (2007). The state of the business incubation industry. Athens, OH: NBIA.
64.
OakleyA. (1972). Sex, gender and society. London: Temple Smith.
65.
OECD. (2003). Women's entrepreneurship: Issues and policies. Working Party on Small and Medium–Sized Enterprises and Entrepreneurship. Paris: OECD.
OgborJ. (2000). Mythicizing and reification in entrepreneurial discourse: Ideology–critique of entrepreneurship studies. Journal of Management Studies, 37(5), 605–635.
68.
PetersonH. (2007). Gendered work ideal in Swedish IT firms: Valued and non–valued workers. Gender, Work and Organization, 14(4), 334–347.
69.
Prowess: Promoting Women's Enterprise Support. (2007). Women–friendly incubation environments and managed workspaces. For Women in Science Engineering and Technology, UKRC. Norwich, U.K.: Prowess.
70.
PullenA. & KnightsD. (2007). Undoing gender in organizations. Gender, Work and Organizations, 14(5), 505–511.
71.
ReinharzS. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
72.
RiceM.P. (2002). Co–production of business assistance in business incubators: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(2), 163–187.
73.
RiceM.P. & MatthewsJ.B. (1995). Growing new ventures, creating new jobs—Principles & practices of successful business incubation. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
74.
RosaP. & DawesA. (2006). Gender and the commercialisation of university science. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 18(3), 341–366.
75.
RoseneilS. (2000). Queer frameworks and queer tendencies: Towards an understanding of post modern transformations of sexuality. Sociological Research Online, 5, 3.
76.
RothschildL. & DarrA. (2005). Technological incubators and the social construction of innovation networks: An Israeli case study. Technovation, 25(1), 59–69.
77.
SmilorR.W. & GillM.D. (1986). The new business incubator—linking talent, technology, capital and know–how. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
78.
SmithR. & AndersonA.R. (2004). The devil is in the e–tail: Forms and structures in the entrepreneurial narratives. In HjorthD. & SteyaertC. (Eds.), Narrative and discursive approaches in entrepreneurship, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham (2004) (pp. 125–143). Stockholm: Liber AB.
79.
StoreyD. & GreenF. (2010). Small business: The big picture. London: Pearson.
80.
StraussA. & CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
81.
VerheulI. & ThurikR. (2001). Start–up capital: Does gender matter?Small Business Economics, 16(4), 329–345.
WatsonT. (2009). The case of the rapidly changing family firm. International Small Business Journal, 27(3), 251–269.
84.
WattsJ.H. (2007). Porn, pride and pessimism: Experiences of women working in professional construction roles. Work, Employment and Society, 21(2), 299–316.
85.
WeickK. (2007). The generative properties of richness. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 14–19.
86.
WhiteheadS. (2008). Men and masculinities. London: Polity Press.
87.
WilsonB.C. (2002). A study of factors promoting success in computer science including gender differences. Computer Science Education, 12(1), 141–164.
88.
WilsonF. & TaggS. (2010). Social constructionism and personal constructivism: Getting the business owner's view on the role of sex and gender. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 2(1), 68–82.
WynarczykP. & RennerC. (2006). The “gender gap” in the scientific labor market: The case of science, engineering and technology–based SMEs in the UK. Equal Opportunities International, 25(8), 660–673.
91.
YinR. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods. London: Sage.
