E-Magazine
Some of our experts in the field have given their thoughts on the Sally Jones' Debate Piece The Gendered Social Construction of Entrepreneurship: The Self-Made Man or the Man-Made Self? If you would like to join the debate please email chris@isbe.org.uk and your comments will be placed on the new Enterprising Matters webpage.
The article by Sally is a well written resume of the state of play in relation to the literature of female entrepreneurship. However, a sceptical male scholar I was left with feeling that all of this has been said before. Nonetheless, this does not make it any the less relevant.
The tone of the article very much reminds me of a comment one of my female entrepreneurship students made to me this year after a particular lecture on female and ethnic entrepreneurship during which I ‘threw down the gauntlet’ from a pedagogical perspective. She stated "That was a passionate lecture but I feel depressed now". To me this is one of the most important factors to be addressed - the boring statistical underpinning behind such theory. In stark contrast the many female entrepreneurs I know cannot be quantified statistically, nor ‘pigeon holed’.
As a genre, entrepreneurship scholarship undoubtedly aspires to be more scientific and rational which has the effect of infusing it with a masculine aura. Consequentially, research articles must be written in a particular manner to advance theoretical understanding. Nevertheless, entrepreneur stories in their infinite variety are skewed towards the emotive and thus subjective which may help explain why it is so difficult for narrativist scholars and social constructionists to get work published in main stream journals. This has the effect of skewing the research picture because it is my contention that scholarly journals may not be the correct literary medium for articulating the obvious differences experienced by female entrepreneurs in comparison to their alpha male counterparts (Burns, 2001).
What Sally’s article does not highlight is the dearth of literature exploring the counter-factual argument from the masculine perspective. Works like those of Robert Bly (Bly, 1992 – Iron John); the renowned American, English Professor - J.V Catano (Catano, 2001 – Ragged Dicks); and Susan Clark (Clark, 2002 – Cold Warriors) have to date probably remained unread by many entrepreneurship scholars despite their contribution to our developing understanding of masculine doxa. Although it is generally contended that entrepreneurship is asexual there is a need for women to take control of their own narrative identities so as to challenge readers to have their say.
The new research focus of ISBE and also innovations such as the new publication stream of IJGE will no doubt help advance this argument. It is time to have a debate about the influence of masculine doxa (unwritten social scripts) on the social construction of the archetypal ‘bad boy’ entrepreneur. More qualitative studies by scholars such as Simon Down (Down, 2006) are urgently required to redress the current imbalance in the gendered nature of entrepreneurship theory
Dr Robert Smith, Lecturer-Leadership & Management, The Robert gordon University
This article suggests that women do not easily ‘fit’ into the accepted model of entrepreneurship as that which is associated with the feminine is in opposition to entrepreneurial action and characterisation. This argument is usefully illustrated by the lack of female entrepreneurial role models as the entrepreneurial image reflects a strongly masculine tone effectively excluding the feminine. Moreover this ‘othering of the non-male’ is particular evident in the media where success stories continue to be overwhelming male. Therefore in order to promote entrepreneurship as a viable career option amongst women maybe the question should not be ‘who is an entrepreneur?’ but rather ‘who is an entrepreneuse?’
Dr Maura McAdam, Queen's University, Belfast
This is an interesting commentary that raises important questions about how we understand and interpret ‘the entrepreneur’. Reviewing our perceptions and measures of successful entrepreneurship, and inspecting aspirations to be an ‘entrepreneur’ when it is always identified as socio-culturally masculine, comprise starting points in terms of digging deeper intellectually into the phenomenon of business start-up amongst people. The activities and behaviours involved in entrepreneurship exist entirely as functions of humans within a culturally created and accepted socio-economic structure. Therefore, while we might measure the economic impact of entrepreneurship from a functionalist perspective, this is inadequate for robust understanding of the entrepreneurship process and of entrepreneurs. In particular, questions about the generalisibility – and indeed applicability – of the heroic male entrepreneur are overdue, and this article exemplifies a growing interest in redressing the research imbalance that has prevailed in entrepreneurship study, which will ultimately improve the quality and depth of our understanding.
Dr Laura Galloway, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh
Sally’s key argument is that the basis of our understanding of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial success is predicated on personality ‘types’ or behaviours that are deemed masculine. Thus, she argues that this frame of understanding is obstructive and socially unappealing to women. She suggests that the basis of our understanding of entrepreneurship needs to be re-examined. The case is well-argued and well-supported.
Based on my own research and reading in the area, I would raise a few questions:
The argument is made that programmes like Dragon’s Den and The Apprentice “present entrepreneurial success as a battle for resources and recognition”. While this is true, I would suggest that these programmes have a positive impact on widening the reach of entrepreneurial appeal. These programmes have gender-neutral appeal and serve to make entrepreneurship more widely accessible. They are in mainstream media, which is consumed by both genders (and a wide range of ethnic and socio-economic groups), putting entrepreneurship on the radar of a much wider audience. The programmes feature both genders and reward innovation and good ideas, which are arguably key ingredients of entrepreneurship (Thompson, 1999; Alstete, 2002; European Commission, 2003). Thus, could it be argued that these programmes are helping to shape more gender-neutral perceptions of entrepreneurship?
There is reference made to the knighting of entrepreneurs such as Sir Richard Branson (high profile female entrepreneurs such as Anita Roddick and Gurinder Chadha have also been honoured with an OBE), making entrepreneurship seem unattainable and ‘special’. I would question if it is a negative to honour highly successful role models? Surely, these ‘special’ entrepreneurs can act as inspirational role models, making entrepreneurship a desirable career option? While every entrepreneur may not reach the dizzy heights of the OBE, is their very public success not an inspiration in itself?
Organisations such as Prowess have made huge leaps in making entrepreneurship more accessible to females. Perhaps the proposed re-framing could be done in conjunction with such organisations’ experience and members?
Margaret Durand, Lecturer, Waterford Institute of Technology