This study explores how gay, lesbian and bisexual entrepreneurs develop specific skills in articulating the construct of appropriateness in relation to mainstream and gay culture. In comparing 90 French and American entrepreneurs, the author observed that the three groups identified – reconcilers, transcenders and resisters – demonstrated a set of original initiatives that challenge the mainstream political order in their opportunity exploration and exploitation processes. The construct of appropriateness may constitute a significant variable with which to study contrasts in commitment and performances that can be observed between mainstream and minority entrepreneurs.
AdlerS.BrennerJ. (2005), ‘Gender and space: Lesbians and gay men in the city’, in LinJ.MelleC., eds, The Urban Sociology Reader, Routledge, London, pp 200–205.
2.
AjzenI. (1985), ‘From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behaviour’, in KuhlJ., and, BeckmanJ., eds, Action-Control: From Cognition to Behaviour, Springer, Heidelberg, pp 11–39.
3.
AlvessonM.KarremanD. (2000), ‘Varieties of discourse: On the study of organizations through discourse analysis’, Human Relations, Vol 53, No 9, pp 1125–1149.
4.
AtkinsD. (1998), Looking Queer: Body Image and Identity in Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay and Transgender Communities, Haworth Press, Binghamton, NY.
5.
BakerD. (1997), ‘A history in ads: The growth of the gay and lesbian market’, in GluckmanA.ReedB., eds, Homo Economics, Capitalism, and Lesbian & Gay Life, Routledge, NY and London.
6.
BawerB. (1993), A Place at the Table: The Gay Individual in American Society, Touchstone Books, London.
7.
BlackD.GatesG.SandersS.TaylorL. (2000), ‘Demographics of gay and lesbian population in the United States: Evidence from available systematic data sources’, Demography, Vol 37, No 2, pp 139–154.
8.
BourcierM.-H. (2006), Queer Zones, Politiques des Identités Sexuelles et des Savoirs, Editions Amsterdam, Paris.
9.
ChaperonS. (2002), ‘L'histoire contemporaine des sexualités en France’, Vingtième Siècle, Revue d'Histoire, Vol 75, No 3, pp 47–59.
10.
ChasinA. (2000), Selling Out, the Gay and Lesbian Movement Goes to Market, Palgrave, NY.
11.
ConradP. (1997), ‘Public eyes and privates genes: Historical frames, new constructions, and social problems’, Social Problems, Vol 44, No 2, pp 139–152.
12.
CorriganP.MatthewsA. (2003), ‘Stigma and disclosure: Implications for coming out of the closet’, Journal of Mental Health, Vol 12, No 3, pp 235–248.
13.
EdwardsT. (2005), ‘Queering the pitch? Gay masculinities’, in KimmelJ.HearnJ.ConnellR., eds, Men and Masculinities, Sage, London, pp 51–68.
14.
EllisA. (1996), ‘Sexual identity issues in the workplace: Past and present’, Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, Vol 4, No 4, pp 1–16.
15.
FoucaultM. (1984), Histoire de la Sexualité, l'Usage des Plaisirs, Vol 2, Gallimard Tel, Paris.
16.
HabermasJ. (1991), The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
17.
HabermasJ. (2000), The Inclusion of the Other, Studies in Political Theory, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
18.
HabermasJ. (2001), On the Pragmatics of Social Interactions: Preliminary Studies in the Theory of Communicative Action, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
19.
HoggM. (1996), ‘Intragroup processes, group structure and social identity, social groups and identities’, in RobinsonW.P., ed, Social Groups and Identities, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp 65–93.
20.
KemmisS. (2008), ‘Exploring the relevance of critical theory for action research: Emancipatory action research in the footsteps of Jürgen Habermas’, in ReasonP.BradburyB., eds, Handbook of Action Research, Sage, London, pp 121–138.
21.
KnauerN. (2003), ‘Science, identity and the construction of the gay political narrative’, Law and Sexuality, Vol 1, No 2, pp 2–83.
22.
KruegerN.F. (2000), ‘The cognitive infrastructure of opportunity recognition’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol 24, No 3, pp 5–23.
23.
LatimerT. (2005), ‘Portraiture et identité sexuelle dans le Paris des Années Vingt’, Clio, Histoire, femmes et sociétés, Vol 22, pp 244–256.
24.
LevinS. (1999), In the Pink. The Making of Successful Gay- and Lesbian-Owned Businesses, Haworth Press, Binghamton, NY.
25.
MaingueneauD. (1991), L'Analyse du Discours: Introduction aux Lectures de l'Archive, Hachette, Paris.
26.
MartelF. (1996), Le Rose et le Noir, les Homosexuels en France depuis 1968, Seuil, Paris.
27.
PhizackleaA.RamM. (1996), ‘Being your own boss: Ethnic minority entrepreneur in comparative perspective’, Employment and Society, Vol 10, No 2, pp 319–339.
28.
RaduM.Redien-CollotR. (2008), ‘The social representation of entrepreneurs in the French press: Desirable and feasible models?’International Small Business Journal, Vol 26, No 3, pp 259–298.
29.
SchindehutteM.MorrisM.AllenJ. (2005), ‘Homosexuality and entrepreneurship: Implications of gay identity for the venture-creation experience’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Vol 6, No 1, pp 27–40.
30.
SeidmanS. (1993), ‘Identity and politics in a postmodern gay culture: Some historical and conceptual notes’, in WarnerM., ed, Fear of Queer Planet, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN, pp 105–142.
31.
SibalisM. (2004), ‘Urban space and homosexuality: The example of the Marais, Paris’ gay ghetto’, Urban Studies, Vol 41, No 9, pp 1739–1758.
32.
StilesC.GalbraithC. (2004), Ethnic Entrepreneurship: Structure and Process, Elsevier, Oxford.
33.
TamagneF. (2000), ‘Histoire des homosexualités en Europe: Un état des lieux’, Revue d'Histoire Moderne et Contemporaine, Vol 53, No 4, pp 7–31.
34.
WatsonJ.NewbyR. (2005), ‘Biological sex, stereotypical sex-roles, and SME owner characteristics’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship Behaviour and Research, Vol 11, No 2, pp 129–143.
