ET P Like Mother, Like Daughter? Analyzing Maternal ... · contextualize entrepreneurship as...

etap_484 687..711

Like Mother, LikeDaughter? AnalyzingMaternal InfluencesUpon Women’sEntrepreneurialPropensityFrancis J. GreeneLiang HanSusan Marlow

Within the phenomenon of entrepreneurship, the extant literature suggests that the normativeactor is embodied by and through stereotypical masculinized characteristics. In this paper, wecontextualize entrepreneurship as self-employment in order to explore how such stereotypi-cal characterizations might influence women’s attitudes toward this activity. However, ratherthan analyzing the confirmatory effects of stereotypes, we critically evaluate the effect ofcounterstereotypical characterizations upon women’s propensity for self-employment.Drawing upon life-span data, we explore whether self-employed mothers disconfirm mascu-linized stereotypes and so act as positive role models for their daughters.As hypothesized, wefound that maternal self-employment has a counterstereotypical effect and so positivelyinfluences daughters to become self-employed. These data indicate, however, that this effectis tempered by personal stereotypes held by daughters; moreover, it is shaped by significantlife events (marriage, parenthood, education, and prior managerial experience). By using arobust data set, this paper contributes to our understanding of how stereotypes and roleexpectations influence women’s propensity toward entrepreneurial activity.

Introduction

Evidence suggests that the latent entrepreneurial potential of women is underutilized,with detrimental implications for innovation, employment creation, and wealth generationwithin the global economy (Marlow, Carter, & Shaw, 2008; Minitti, Arenius, & Langow-itz, 2005; Welter, Smallbone, Aculai, Isakova, & Schakirova, 2003). As Reynolds, Camp,Bygrave, Autio, and Hay (2001, p. 5) argue, “there is no greater initiative a country cantake to accelerate its pace of entrepreneurial activity than to encourage more of its womento participate.” However, this objective remains elusive since—despite focused policy

Please send correspondence to: Francis J. Greene, tel.: +44 (0) 24-765-222-33; e-mail: [email protected], to Liang Han at [email protected], and to Susan Marlow at [email protected].

PTE &

1042-2587© 2011 Baylor University

687July, 2013DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2011.00484.x

support—women constitute a minority of self-employed individuals throughout devel-oped economies (Baker, Miner, & Eesley, 2003; Hart, Martiarena, Levie, & Anyadike-Danes, 2010; van Stel, Wenneckers, Thurik, & Reynolds, 2003). A notable impediment toincreasing rates of women’s self-employment lies within the persistent masculinizedsocial construction of the stereotypical entrepreneurial persona (Ahl, 2006; Eddleston &Powell, 2008; Gupta, Turban, Wasti, & Sikdar, 2009), suggesting a lack of fit betweenfemininity and entrepreneurship (Rudman & Phelan, 2008). Thus, sex differences inentrepreneurial intentions and activities do not arise from essential biological differencesbut reflect socially constructed embedded gendered disincentives (de Bruin, Brush, &Welter, 2007; Gupta, Turban, & Bhawee, 2008).

Illustrating this argument, Ahl (2007, p. 687) utilizes a meta-analysis of publishedacademic work to conclude that “the entrepreneur was consistently described in exactlythe same words as those used to describe manhood.” This critique suggests that normativeconstructions of femininity are not congruent with prevailing entrepreneurial stereotypesthat are founded upon masculinized attributes such as risk, aggression, competitiveness,individuality, and economic rationality (Cálas, Smircich, & Bourne, 2009; Marlow &Patton, 2005; Shane, Locke, & Collins, 2003). This embedded stereotypical gender bias isillustrated, confirmed, and reproduced through the coding and homogenization of womenas “female” entrepreneurs to separate and differentiate them from the normative (presum-ably male) entrepreneur (Mirchandani, 1999; Taylor & Marlow, 2010). As such, mascu-linity defines the entrepreneurial stereotype, positioning women in an oppositionalgendered space. Thus, the dissonance between ascribed femininity, which characterizesthe human female (Butler, 1993; Kelan, 2009), and the embedded masculinity inherentwithin entrepreneurial stereotypes acts as a specific and situated disincentive to women’sengagement with entrepreneurial activities such as self-employment.

So, while the extant evidence describes how gender stereotypes impact femaleentrepreneurial outcomes (e.g., Eddleston & Powell, 2008; Gupta et al., 2009), relativelylittle attention has been afforded to the impact of enacted counterstereotypical represen-tations (Bird & Brush, 2002; Gupta et al., 2008). Consequently, to address this gap, ourunderpinning research question explores how women’s propensity toward self-employment is influenced by counterstereotypical representations of the normative entre-preneur. Accordingly, we make two particular contributions. For the first time, weexamine how mothers’ occupational roles (homemaker, employed, and self-employed)and their stereotypical assumptions subsequently influence the prevalence of their daugh-ter’s entrepreneurial activities, which we define in terms of reported self-employmentstatus. In using self-employment, we are not mapping this construct onto firm perfor-mance profiles or reflecting particular assessments of the entrepreneurial ambitions ofthese women. Rather, reflecting arguments by Wiklund, Davidsson, Audretsch, and Karls-son (2011), we recognize entrepreneurship as a “phenomenon” that rests upon a funda-mental construct, that of the “emergence of new economic activity” (p. 5), enabling thedifferentiation between the context in which entrepreneurship occurs and the phenomenonthat constitutes this activity. Within this paper, we focus on a critical influence on theemergence of “new economic activity,” that of gender. We contextualize the entrepreneur-ial phenomenon through a focus on women’s propensity to become self-employed. Hence,we refer to “entrepreneurial activities, propensities, and intentions” as behaviors thatare central to the realization of self-employment for the individual. Thus, the unit of analy-sis here is not the firm or its performance but the self-employed female. So, evaluatingthe propensity toward, and affiliations with, self-employment is articulated through acritical intersectional analysis of entrepreneurial stereotyping and gendered ascrip-tions. Second, we refine this analysis through a life-span exploration of the daughter’s

688 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE

significant life events (for example, education, work experience, marriage, and mother-hood) and how these effects also influence the propensity to become self-employed.

Our theoretical framing is informed by a social role theory (Diekman & Eagly, 2000;Eagly, 1987; Simpson & Carroll, 2008) and how this concept interacts with and informsstereotypical representations of gender (Bowden & Mummery, 2009; Bradley, 2007).Binary-gendered characterizations are recognized as a fundamental identity marker withinthe human society (Bowden & Mummery; Butler, 1993; Harding, 1987; Oakley, 1972).Human interaction is made possible through mapping gendered identities onto biologicalcategories as this process bounds expected and acceptable social behaviors (Linstead &Pullen, 2006; Martin, 2001). As such, the construction and reconstruction of genderedexpectations in situated contexts makes us intelligible subjects able to enact mutuallyconstituted and comprehensible social roles (Butler, 2004; Kelan, 2009; Taylor & Marlow,2010). As West and Zimmerman (1987, p. 137) in their pivotal analysis of “doing gender”argue, “can we ever not do gender?” and in response state: “[S]ociety is partitioned by‘essential’ differences between men and women and placement in a sex category is bothrelevant and enforced, doing gender is unavoidable.”

To guide and inform our gendered performances, we draw upon gender stereotypes asheuristic devices constructed from situated cues that prescribe the behaviors, values, andactions that males and females perform, and are performed by, if they are to be recognizedas credible social actors (Kelan, 2009; Robertson & Kulik, 2007). However, the contex-tualized articulation of gendered characterization has shifted over time, particularly aswomen have taken a more visible role as economic actors within the public sphere.Accordingly, gender stereotypes incorporate enduring representations of male and femalecharacterizations, but the manner in which they are articulated within differentiated socialroles enables degrees of dynamism.

Consequently, exploring tensions between stereotypical representations of entrepre-neurial behavior, ascribed femininity, and social role enactment offers an importantresearch site. Prior research exploring gender, entrepreneurial roles, and stereotypes hasprovided a valuable but atemporal understanding of how such influences shape entrepre-neurial outcomes (Eddleston & Powell, 2008; Gupta et al., 2009). Moreover, the extantevidence offers few explanations for either how such associations are assimilated orindeed how, or if, they might be refuted. Thus, there is a need for a life-span perspectivethat illustrates the processual impartation of stereotypical and disconfirming behaviorsthat both inform and challenge the social roles that influence subsequent entrepreneurialactivities. This study, therefore, is a response to calls for a better understanding of theinfluence of gendered stereotypes and social role assimilation upon the entrepreneurialactivities of women as manifested in terms of self-employment (Carter, Shaw, Lam, &Wilson, 2007; Marlow, 2002; Ruble & Martin, 1998).

We use life-span data from the 1970 British Cohort Study (BCS70). Within these data,we examine two groups of women—mothers and daughters—and specifically how thesocioeconomic positioning of the former (homemaker, employee, and self-employed)influences the life choices of the latter (homemaker, employee, and self-employed). Whileacknowledging that intervening variables such as market conditions (for example, unem-ployment pressures fuelling necessity entrepreneurship) influence entrepreneurial propen-sity, our focus in this study is to use social role theory to assess how the mother’s occupationand the confirming or disconfirming stereotypical representation this presents shapes acohort member’s later propensity toward self-employment. While we are not original inspecifically examining how the occupational roles of mothers (homemaker, employee, andself-employed) impact filial occupational choices (Waddell, 1983), we believe we are oneof the few to examine how gender stereotypes imparted through maternal roles later impact

689July, 2013

the labor market decisions (homemaker, employee, and self-employment) of their daugh-ters. These data enable us to assess maternal influences upon gender socialization but alsorecognizes that over time, women dynamically internalize and construct gender character-izations in line with broader socioeconomic expectations. We therefore examine howdaughters’ life activities (work experience, educational attainment, marriage, and mother-hood) “imprint”—along with gender stereotypes—on the subsequent homemaking,employee, and self-employment propensities of cohort members.

To develop our arguments, this paper is structured as follows. First, in our theory andhypotheses section, we draw upon social role theory to motivate our hypotheses regardingthe transmission of intergenerational gendered stereotypes and their influence uponwomen’s self-employment propensity. Second, our research methods section describesthe BCS70, identifies the measures used, and explains why, given our interest in exploringintergenerational impacts and different employment outcomes experienced by women, weadopted a multinomial approach to our data. We then consider the results of our analysis.The study concludes with a discussion of the findings and implications of the study.

Theory and Hypotheses

Gender Stereotypes and Social Role ExpectationsStereotypes can be defined as socially constructed cognitive expectations applied to

specific categories of people; they rest upon exaggerated typicalities that act as anchorpoints to inform intelligible social interaction (Deaux & LaFrance, 1998; Eddleston &Powell, 2008; Kelan, 2008). Stereotypical representations are heuristic devices throughwhich we make sense of social actors and their actions; they are descriptive in that theyestablish the constituent components of ascribed behaviors but are also prescriptive asthey shape perceptions of how people should act (Eagly, Wood, & Diekman, 2000). Thus,given that ascribed gender is a constructed binary characterization that creates us asrecognizable humans, gender stereotypes are critical social mechanisms from which we,as males and females, draw situated cues to inform appropriate behaviors (Butler, 1990,2004; Gherardi, 1995; Harding, 1987). So, for example, attributes coded as “feminine”reflect empathy, softness, caring, serving, and vulnerability (see Bem’s sex role inventory,1993) but are afforded a lower status and value (de Beauvoir, 1997/1949; Bradley, 2007;Oakley, 1972). This liability of gender spills over into broader social roles that areattributed to, and associated with, women. This underpins binary stereotypes in whichmasculinity is denoted as agentic (controlling, powerful, assertive, and achieving) and thefeminine as communal (sharing and submissive) (Eddleston & Powell). However, theenactment of these stereotypes is contextualized through a specific social milieu thatcreates spaces for diverse and shifting articulations of stereotypes. In essence, as genderedhuman actors, we enact stereotypical behaviors, but these are molded by positioningwithin particular social roles that introduce heterogeneity and valorization to these enact-ments. Hence, social role theory analyzes how gender becomes embedded within specificroles that then define normative, institutional expectations (stereotypes) about whatwomen and men can do and what they should do.

The Transmission of Stereotypes and the Importance of Role ModelsSocial role theory suggests that gendered stereotypical characterizations are genera-

tionally transmitted (Korupp, Ganzeboom, & Sanders, 2002; Moen, Erickson, &Dempster-McClain, 1997). As Butler (1993) observes, none of us are born with a gender;


this is constructed through gendering as soon as the pronouncement of being a girl or a boyis made (this is the performative; this statement genders us); at this point, our genderedfutures are decided. As Kelan (2009, p. 49) notes, “this naming functions as a performativeand creates the girl as a social reality. However, this process is not complete until the girlresponds to the label ‘girl’ by citing subject positions which are deemed appropriate forgirls; thus, gender is a ‘doing’ but not a doing of free will.” So, gender is both performedand a performative, but as a social role, requires contextualized learning to ensure com-pliance with appropriate norms and behaviors (Bowden & Mummery, 2009). A criticalsource of behavioral learning arises from the division of labor within families (Lippa,2005; Oakley, 1972). Moen et al. and Eagly et al. (2000) argue that the occupationalactivities of mothers, in terms of homemaking or waged employment, mold the subsequentlabor market choices of their children. Indeed, research (Levy, 1989; Marantz & Mansfield,1977; Walkerdine, 2001) indicates that the children of employed women, for example, aremore likely to demonstrate greater flexibility toward sex typing than those of home-basedmothers. In entrepreneurial research, it has been clearly established that the children ofself-employed parents are far more likely to replicate such choices whether through familybusiness succession or through their own self-employment (Storey & Greene, 2010). Ineffect, from the repertoire of role models to which we are exposed as children, parents arecritical influences in terms of future attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs (Arum & Müller,2004; Dunn & Holtz-Eakin, 2000; Fairlie & Robb, 2007). Thus, we anticipate that the rolemodel exemplars presented by self-employed mothers encourage a greater propensity forself-employment among daughters. In contrast, we would anticipate that if a mother wasa homemaker or employed, daughters are less likely to become self-employed. Our firsthypothesis is therefore:

Hypothesis 1: Daughters born to self-employed mothers are more likely to becomeself-employed when compared with mothers who were homemakers or in employ-ment in the early years of their daughter’s life.

So, central to social role theory is the importance of gender prescriptions informedby gender stereotypes. As noted, these stereotypes consist of related characteristics thatmay persistently devalue the feminine, but these articulations change over time and in re-sponse to context. Given our aim to develop a life-span analysis, we draw upon theoristswriting during the 1970s (Millett, 1970; Oakley, 1972, 1974) who critically evaluated thecontemporary socioeconomic positioning and expectations of women’s place withinadvanced market economies. Oakley (1972) argues that the communal stereotypicalrepresentation of a woman’s role and place had positioned her primarily within theprivatized domestic sphere with any waged work undertaken deemed of secondary impor-tance. Reflecting this ordering, waged work available to women reflected devalued gen-dered attributions and so was segregated as feminized occupations were deemed anextension of the domestic role (Bradley, 2007). As such, at that time, economic partici-pation was deemed secondary and not a legitimate central life activity.

Despite broader social assumptions regarding women’s primary domestic role, Oak-ley’s (1972) study does reveal that stereotypical notions of the “feminine, communalrole” were not universally shared. During this era, as the socioeconomic and politicalsubjugation of women in Europe and North America was increasingly challenged, par-ticularly through second-wave liberal feminism (Beesley, 2005; Friedan, 1963), greateremphasis was placed on women’s economic participation. Consequently, the domestic,homemaker stereotype was weakened. Accordingly, we expect there to be differencesbetween those who held stereotypical views concerning the role of women as primarilyand appropriately domestic actors and those with more permissive views on women’s

691July, 2013

rights to economic participation. Specifically, we expect that those mothers whobelieved that women have a legitimate role outside the domestic sphere were subse-quently more likely to have self-employed daughters. For mothers who hold traditionalstereotypical views of women, we would anticipate that their daughters are less likelyto pursue self-employment. We therefore suggest the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Daughters whose mother considered that women should have aneconomically active role outside of the home are more likely to become self-employedthan daughters whose mothers considered that a woman’s place is in the home.

Dynamic Social RolesSimpson and Carroll (2008) note that early articulations of role theory reflected a static

notion of fixed roles: “[R]ole provides a set of social expectation or normative behavioursthat prescribe how an agent should occupy a social situation, position or status position”(Simpson & Carroll, p. 31 [italics in original]). However, in analytically reframing roles as“boundary objects,” Simpson and Carroll suggest that they have degrees of plasticity,operating as translation devices and so, “intermediary metaphors” that “mediate andnegotiate the meanings constructed in relational interactions” (pp. 33, 34). This contem-porary notion of roles as bridges between knowledge domains (Star & Griesemer, 1989) isuseful in conceptualizing the translation of stereotypes into social roles—this relationshipthen becomes iterative and dynamic. Thus, fundamental gender stereotypical constructssuch as those, for example, between femininity and caring/empathy are accommodated by,but also developed within, contemporary social roles. So, within the broader socioeconomiccontext, Diekman and Eagly (2000) suggest that shifts in female social role expectationshave arisen from degrees of convergence between gender stereotypes largely fuelled bywomen’s changing economic participation. Data clearly demonstrate the wider participa-tion of women in employment with, for example, an increase in economic activity amongadult females (16–64) in all major developed economies (Munoz & Perez, 2007). More-over, a meta-analysis of attitudes toward women’s employment (Twenge, 1997) between1970 and 1995 supports the relationship between increased female economic participationand stronger gender egalitarianism within advanced economies.

In terms of how these social role shifts have permeated the entrepreneurial field, theevidence is somewhat contradictory. So, while there has been an increase in the women’sshare of business ownership (Brush, Carter, Gatewood, Greene, & Hart, 2006), it is notedthat their enterprises reflect traditionally feminine activities, suggesting that genderedroles and stereotypes persist and, at best, have evolved only very slowly (Powell, Butter-field, & Parent, 2002). As Marlow and Patton (2005, p. 722) argue, “women experienceentrepreneurship in a context which is largely shaped by male norms and values.” Accord-ingly, while we would support the suggestion that more women are certainly more likelyto become self-employed, this decision is still negatively affected by the image of entre-preneurship as a masculine activity plus a paucity of successful role models to disconfirmprevailing stereotypes (Lewis & Simpson, 2010). In addition, we argue that women’sentrepreneurial propensities are also shaped by the extent to which they accord with andabide by persistent gendered socioeconomic stereotypes and related social role expecta-tions. Thus, women who hold traditional stereotypical perceptions regarding the rolewomen should adopt in society are, we would argue, less likely to become self-employed.We therefore suggest the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: Women who hold strong traditional stereotypes about the place ofwomen in society are more likely to subsequently be homemakers than self-employed.


While the combination of increasing economic participation and more porous genderstereotypes may act as positive cues for entrepreneurial endeavors, it has also beenidentified that—similar to their male counterparts—those women who are better educatedand have prior managerial experience are potentially more likely to pursue self-employment (Parker, 2009). In general, there has been a notable and rapid improvementin the access to, and quality of, education available for girls and young women (Charles,2002; Halford & Leonard, 2006). This is reflected in women attaining qualifications thatenable them to enter a broader range of professional and managerial occupations (Pringle,2008). Moreover, Manolova, Carter, Manev, and Gyoshev (2007, p. 410) have suggestedthat “higher levels of education and extent of prior experience are likely to increase thebelief that the effort put into an entrepreneurial initiative will not be misdirected, but will,instead, lead to a desired outcome” (p. 410). This, they argue, reflects the wider augmen-tation of human capital which allows women to accumulate relevant expertise and skills(Davidsson & Honig, 2003) and to successfully deploy this education and experience toinform venture creation (Forbes, 2005). This positively promotes entrepreneurial cred-ibility with external stakeholders; this is of particular importance for women in challeng-ing stereotypical expectations regarding weaker feminine competencies (Marlow &Patton, 2005).

It has, however, been argued (Astebro & Bernhardt, 2005) that higher human capitalresource endowments do not directly translate into entrepreneurial activity. At a theoreti-cal level, Lucas (1978) suggested that higher education, like higher managerial capabili-ties, leads to ambiguous outcomes. As such, while individuals with higher human capitalare better able to begin and run entrepreneurial ventures, such individuals are also moreattractive to employers. Similarly, Astebro and Bernhardt argue that those with higherlevels of human capital are more likely to enter employment rather than self-employmentgiven the higher levels of remuneration accruing from the former (Carter, 2011). Empiri-cally, van der Sluis, van Pragg, and Vijverberg’s (2005) meta-analysis of the relationshipbetween education and self-employment confirms that educated women are more likely tobe in employment than in self-employment. It may therefore be argued that higher levelsof human capital—at least in developed economies—may mean that educated womenwith significant managerial experience are less likely to forgo employment for thevicissitudes of entrepreneurship. What, however, is clear from both the theoretical andempirical literature is that such women are much more likely to prefer employment orself-employment above that of being a homemaker. We therefore suggest that:

Hypothesis 4: Women who are better educated and have prior managerial experienceare more likely to be self-employed or employees than homemakers.

In developing this analysis, we have argued that gendered stereotypical representa-tions shape permitted social roles that act as dynamic devices influencing possible behav-ioral options and outcomes. In acknowledging the dynamic nature of social roles, we haveargued that women’s socioeconomic status has changed over the last 30–40 years suchthat access to education, civil rights informed by a politicized, if liberal feminist agenda,has repositioned women as economic actors even if such participation is still framed bygendered expectations and constraints (Bradley, 2007; Charles, 2002). Thus, the persis-tence of gendered “feminine roles” embodied in stable relationships and motherhood, wewould argue, still influence women’s economic participation. At a simple level, given thatwomen remain designated as primary child carers (Lawler, 2000; Skeggs, 2004), it can beanticipated that cohabiting women with children are more likely to be homemakers.Equally, cohabiting women (either married or unmarried) with dependent children aremuch more likely—in absolute terms—to be either homemakers or employees. However,

693July, 2013

there is considerable evidence to suggest that cohabiting women with children have agreater relative propensity toward self-employment when compared with equivalentemployed women with no children or who are single (Devine, 1994; Lombard, 2001; Rees& Shah, 1994). Kirkwood and Tootell (2008), Wellington (2006), and Edwards andField-Hendrey (2002) have also all suggested that entrepreneurship potentially offersgreater opportunities for mothers than employment because it affords greater “flexibility”to combine income generation with child care and other domestic work. Indeed, reviewsby Minniti (2009), Parker (2009), and Storey and Greene (2010) all indicate that cohabi-tation and children have a positive association with entrepreneurship. We thereforesuggest the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 5: Women who have children and cohabit have a greater propensitytoward being self-employed than employed women who are single and have nochildren.

Research Methods

The British Cohort Study (BCS70)We use the BCS70 to examine how gender stereotypes and roles “imprint” on

entrepreneurial propensities. The BCS70 is a continuing cohort study that began with17,196 children born between the 5th and the 11th of April, 1970, in England, Scotland,and Wales. There have been six sweeps of cohort members: when the cohort member wasaged 5 (1975); aged 10 (1980); aged 16 (1986); aged 26 (1996); aged 30 (2000); andfinally in sweep 6, when they were aged 34 (2004). The BCS70 has increasingly becomea multidisciplinary study as it has developed. In 1970, its main focus was on the factorsthat influenced the health of the infant cohort member (e.g., parental employment, familycircumstances, and obstetric history). In subsequent sweeps, the study has expanded tolook not only at health but also, inter alia, at social values and norms, educationalexperience, and employment. These data have been collected from both the cohortmember and significant individuals such as their parents, medical practitioners, andteachers.

As with any cohort study, there is likely to be sample attrition. Plewis, Calderwood,Hawkes, and Nathan (2004) have analyzed the reasons for the response rates across thevarious sweeps. In addition to the death of cohort members (4.3%), Plewis et al. show thatother factors have impacted response rates: emigration of individuals (6%), difficulties intracking cohort members, and the refusal of cohort members or their parents to take partin the study (around 7.5% for each sweep—see Elliott & Shepherd, 2006). Sweeps 1 and3 were also hampered by limited funding and by a teachers’ strike. Nonetheless, Plewiset al. show that the response rate for the study is generally over 70% with response ratesbeing 79% (1975), 89% (1980), 71% (1986), 56% (1996), 72% (2000), and 75% (2004).Moreover, Elliott and Shepherd demonstrate that the achieved samples did not generallydiffer from the target samples, while Thompson, Hollis, and Richards (2003) suggest thatbias resulting from nonresponse was small. For this study, the 2004 sample of 9,665cohort members was restricted—given our explicit focus on women—to women cohortmembers (5,039 women) and to those who provided full information on the measuresidentified in the next section. We, however, ran tests of nonresponse bias which confirmedthat there were only minor differences between the means in the total sample of womenand the sample used in the different models outlined in Tables 3 and 4.


MeasuresTable 1 reports the descriptive statistics and the correlation matrix for each of the

measures used in our study.

Employment Status. The dependent variable (WORK) our study uses is categorical.WORK is coded as 0 if the cohort member self-reported that she was a “housewife” in2004, 1 if she reported that she was an employee in 2004, and 2 if she was self-employedin 2004. Table 1 shows that the average was 0.86; disaggregated, this translates to 25.7%(1,295) of cohort members being homemakers, 68.3% (3,442) being employees, and 6%(302) being self-employed in 2004.

Parental Employment History. In terms of our independent variables, the occupationalroles of a cohort member’s parents in the original BCS70 1970 were coded as MOTH-ER_SE70 and FATHER_SE70 (both 1 = self-employed, 0 = otherwise). Overall, Table 1shows that 4.68% of mothers (MOTHER_SE70) and 15.40% of fathers (FATHER_SE70)were self-employed. At a disaggregated level, what Table 2 shows is that—out of the totalavailable sample of 4,385 mother/daughter combinations—daughters are less likely to behomemakers if they had a self-employed mother (13.79% vs. 20.02%) and that daughtersare more likely to be self-employed if they had a self-employed mother (10.84% vs. 5%[homemaker] or 6.21% [employee]). Table 2 also shows that out of the 4,477 father/daughter combinations, the impact of fathers’ self-employment or employment appears inthese summary statistics to have little impact on the subsequent self-employment of theirdaughter (5.62% vs. 7.87%). Overall, therefore, these summary statistics indicate thatmaternal rather than paternal occupations subsequently influence the self-employment ofcohort members.

Stereotypes of the Role of Women in Work. To assess the stereotypical views of cohortmembers and their mothers, we use data from the 1975, 1996, and 2000 sweeps of BCS70,which asks specific questions on women’s views of work. When cohort members wereaged 5 (1975), their mothers were asked the following questions: “Girls should accept thefact that they will marry and have children and not think about starting a career”(NO_CAREER4WOMEN); “Women should have the same work opportunities as men”(EQUAL_OPPS); and “A mother’s proper place is at home with her children” (WOM-EN_STAY_AT_HOME). These questions are coded in either of two ways in the 1975sweep of the BCS70: in their raw form (coded: strongly agree [1], agree [2], neutral [3],disagree [4], and strongly disagree [5]) or as z-scores to minimize multicollinearity issues(see below). For the 1996 sweep of the BCS70, cohort members were asked the followingquestions: “There should be more women bosses in important jobs in business andindustry” (MORE_WOMEN_BOSSES); “Men and women should all have the chance todo the same kind of work” (SAME_CHANCES4WORK); and “If a child is ill and bothparents are working, it should usually be the mother who takes time off work to look afterthe child” (CHILDCARE4WOMEN) (coded strongly agree [1], agree [2], neutral [3],disagree [4], and strongly disagree [5]). Finally, in the 2000 sweep, the cohort memberswere asked the following two questions: “A mother and her family will all be happier ifshe goes out to work?” (WOMEN2WORK) and “A father’s job is to earn money; amother’s job is to look after the home and family?” (FAMILYFIRST) (inversely coded:strongly agree [5], agree [4], neutral [3], disagree [2], and strongly disagree [1]). Hence,the higher the value of these two measures, the greater the cohort member disagrees withthese two questions.

695July, 2013

Tabl

e1

Des

crip

tive

Stat

istic

san

dC

orre

latio

nM

atri

x

Mea

nSD

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(1)

WO

RK

0.86

250.

4968

—(2

)E

DU

CA

TIO

N1.

2786

0.59

440.

1527

*—

(3)

PAR

TN

ER

0.76

890.

4216

-0.0

529*

0.01

29—

(4)

NU

M_C

HIL

D3.

2498

1.28

12-0

.275

3*-0

.183

7*0.

4447

*—

(5)

MA

NA

GE

_EX

P0.

1781

0.38

260.

0143

0.13

60*

0.02

75*

-0.0

607*

—(6

)M

OT

HE

R_S

E70

0.04

680.

2112

0.04

79*

0.03

25*

0.01

10.

0018

0.00

19—

(7)

FAT

HE

R_S

E70

0.15

400.

3610

0.00

940.

0524

*0.

0176

-0.0

204

0.00

580.

2716

*—

(8)

NO

_CA

RE

ER

4WO

ME

N-0

.027

11.

0274

0.02

3-0

.037

1*-0

.039

*-0

.010

2-0

.015

6-0

.020

6-0

.017

8—

(9)

EQ

UA

L_O

PPS

-0.0

697

1.01

20-0

.040

3*-0

.144

2*0.

0234

0.04

60*

-0.0

117

-0.0

029

-0.0

145

-0.1

381*

—(1

0)W

OM

EN

_STA

Y_A

T_H

OM

E0.

0168

1.02

79-0

.001

50.

0292

*0.

0149

-0.0

231

0.02

43-0

.002

20.

017

-0.2

170*

0.20

84*

—(1

1)M

OR

E_W

OM

EN

_BO

SSE

S4.

3813

0.67

340.

0169

0.09

21*

0.00

88-0

.057

5*0.

0497

*0.

0027

0.02

330.

0043

-0.0

674*

0.00

45—

(12)

SAM

E_C

HA

NC

ES4

WO

RK

4.04

730.

7875

0.04

77*

0.11

52*

-0.0

204

-0.0

845*

0.02

50.

0182

-0.0

035

0.02

87-0

.057

2*-0

.031

9*0.

2937

*—

(13)

CH

ILD

CA

RE

4WO

ME

N3.

4938

1.05

570.

0507

*0.

2216

*-0

.021

8-0

.150

1*0.

0779

*-0

.000

8-0

.005

10.

0111

-0.1

257*

-0.0

067

0.19

01*

0.16

04*

—(1

4)W

OM

EN

2WO

RK

0.01

070.

9960

0.16

01*

0.12

12*

-0.0

037

-0.1

297*

0.07

37*

-0.0

206

-0.0

188

0.09

57*

-0.0

685*

-0.0

270.

1515

*0.

1242

*0.

2478

*—

(15)

FAM

ILY

FIR

ST-0

.000

60.

9969

0.09

03*

0.00

03-0

.006

5-0

.037

2*0.

0096

-0.0

049

-0.0

095

0.08

03*

-0.0

108

-0.0

376*

0.03

03*

0.09

95*

0.03

48*

0.00

52

*St

atis

tical

lysi

gnifi

cant

leve

lof

5%or

low

er.


Preliminary investigations of these data indicated that these measures were stronglycorrelated with each other.1 To control for multicollinearity, we therefore used the originalz-score data from the 1975 BCS70 sweep on mothers’ stereotypical views and, for the1996 and 2000 sweeps, investigated if principal component factor analysis was suitablefor standardizing the measures and overcoming the possible problem of multicollinearity.For the 1996 measures, both the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test (0.57) and Cronbach’sa (0.41) suggested that factor analysis may be inappropriate. As a result, we usedthe original categorical coding to measure MORE_WOMEN_BOSSES andSAME_CHANCES4WORK. For the inversely coded 2000 measures (WOMEN2WORK;FAMILYFIRST), the KMO test (0.71), the Barlett’s test (p = .000), and Cronbach’sa = 0.69 suggested that factor analysis is appropriate for these inversely coded questions.2

Personal Characteristics. To identify how significant life events impact entrepreneurialpropensity, we used four measures from the BCS70: the women’s educational attainment

1. This is problematic because multicollinearity may exist and affect the precision of the estimates due toover-inflated standard errors. This may reduce the power of hypothesis tests in relation to the coefficients andmean that estimates vary widely in response to small changes in the data (Greene, 2003).2. The eigenvalues with varimax rotation are 1.882 and 1.374, respectively.

Table 2

Mother, Father, and Daughter Combinations

Mother in 1970

Employed Self-employed Home maker

No. % No. % No. %

Daughter in 2004 Employed 2,746 73.78% 153 75.37% 337 73.26%Self-employed 231 6.21% 22 10.84% 23 5.00%Home maker 745 20.02% 28 13.79% 100 21.74%Total 3,722 100.00% 203 100.00% 460 100.00%

Father in 1970

Employed Self-employed Home maker

No. % No. % No. %

Daughter in 2004 Employed 2,932 69.20% 144 66.67% 18 75.00%Self-employed 238 5.62% 17 7.87% 0 0.00%Home maker 1,067 25.18% 55 25.46% 6 25.00%Total 4,237 100.00% 216 100.00% 24 100.00%

697July, 2013

level (EDUCATION) (0 = no qualification, 1 = A level; 2 = degree and above); thenumber of children she had (NUM_CHILD); whether she lived alone or with a partner(PARTNER: 1 = cohabiting, 0 = single, widowed, divorced, or separated)3; and, finally, ifshe had managerial/supervisory experience on or before 2000 (MANAGE_EXP:1 = managerial experience, 0 = otherwise). Table 1 shows that around three quarters ofwomen were cohabiting; that, on average, they had three children; and that around one infive had managerial/supervision experience before 2004. In addition, around 1 in 3 had adegree or above while less than 1 in 10 (8.2%) had no qualifications.

Multinomial ApproachGiven the life-span nature of the BCS70, problems of endogeneity—which

may mark more atemporal studies of gender roles and stereotypes—are minimized.Another advantage of the BCS70 is that it allows for the econometric testing of differ-ent groups of women (mothers and cohort members) and differences in the outcomesexperienced by women (homemaking, paid employment, and self-employment). Whilewe did consider and test other approaches to the data, it lends itself to a multinomialapproach.4 This is because a multinomial approach seeks to identify particularoutcomes—in our case homemaking, paid employment, and self-employment—anduses relative risk ratios (the change in the odds of being in one dependent category(i.e., self-employment–employment) as opposed to the comparison category (homemak-ing) associated with a one-unit change in the independent variable to parsimoniouslyassess and interpret our hypotheses. Using a multinomial approach, we test our hypoth-eses sequentially rather than simultaneously; this reflects the nature of our hypotheses.Hence, we develop three models: Model 1 examines the occupational roles of thecohort members’ parents and the mothers’ views of the world of work. Model 2 aug-ments this by analyzing the cohort members’ views of women in work. Finally, Model3 integrates significant life events (i.e., educational attainment, number of children,prior managerial experience, and cohabitation) into our analysis. Table 1 also reports thecorrelation matrix, and it shows that none of the measures are above 0.45, suggestingthat the issues of multicollinearity may be minimized in the following multivariateanalysis.

Results

We now turn to the multinomial models presented in Tables 3 and 4. In Table 3, wepresent the overall results while in Table 4, we present the marginal impacts (anincrease of one unit of the independent variables on employment status). Model 1examines the influence of occupational roles of both the mother and the father and the

3. Specifically, cohabitation refers to a cohort member who was, in 2004, either married (first and onlymarriage or second or later marriage), or cohabiting with an individual as a couple (1 = cohabiting); single andnever married, legally separated, divorced, and widowed (0 = otherwise). Because there may have beendifferences between those who were married and those who were cohabiting, we further analyzed differencesin living arrangements by splitting being married from cohabitation. These results did not differ from thosepresented here, although the results are available from the authors upon request.4. The other alternative we considered was a probit approach to the data where the cohort member was either1 = self-employed in 2004 or otherwise. This produced similar results to our multinomial results (resultsavailable on request from the authors).


Tabl

e3

Out

com

esR

egre

ssed

onR

oles

,Ste

reot

ypes

,and

Lif

eE

vent

s

Mod

el1

Mod

el2

Mod

el3

Em

ploy

eeSe

lf-e

mpl

oyed

Em

ploy

eeSe

lf-e

mpl

oyed

Em

ploy

eeSe

lf-e

mpl

oyed

Pare

nts’

empl

oym

ent

MO

TH

ER

_SE

700.

3537

(0.2

262)

0.99

01**

*(0

.324

2)0.

3513

(0.2

746)

1.35

35**

*(0

.375

2)0.

3564

(0.2

893)

1.30

62**

*(0

.386

5)FA

TH

ER

_SE

70-0

.071

4(0

.118

7)-0

.127

1(0

.215

6)0.

0162

(0.1

453)

-0.3

637

(0.2

750)

-0.0

408

(0.1

569)

-0.4

328

(0.2

816)

Pare

nts’

view

onw

omen

issu

esin

1975

NO

_CA

RE

ER

4WO

ME

N0.

0849

**(0

.042

4)0.

0322

(0.0

758)

0.05

00(0

.053

3)-0

.038

4(0

.093

0)0.

0955

*(0

.057

0)0.

0222

(0.0

955)

EQ

UA

L_O

PPS

-0.0

844*

*(0

.042

2)-0

.184

9**

(0.0

791)

-0.0

070

(0.0

543)

-0.2

529*

*(0

.101

7)0.

0197

(0.0

587)

-0.2

070*

*(0

.104

5)W

OM

EN

_STA

Y_

AT

_HO

ME

0.02

61(0

.042

9)0.

0575

(0.0

761)

0.02

47(0

.053

7)0.

1510

*(0

.090

1)-0

.021

8(0

.057

5)0.

1071

(0.0

927)

Coh

ort

mem

bers

’vi

ewon

wom

enis

sues

in19

96M

OR

E_W

OM

EN

_BO

SSE

S0.

0174

(0.0

807)

-0.1

181

(0.1

418)

-0.0

014

(0.0

864)

-0.1

494

(0.1

449)

SAM

E_C

HA

NC

ES4

WO

RK

0.08

15(0

.067

2)0.

1690

(0.1

243)

0.01

74(0

.072

2)0.

0958

(0.1

272)

CH

ILD

CA

RE

4WO

ME

N0.

0499

(0.0

512)

0.01

58(0

.091

8)-0

.089

7(0

.055

6)-0

.147

3(0

.096

0)C

ohor

tm

embe

rs’

view

onw

omen

issu

esin

2000

WO

ME

N2W

OR

K0.

4636

***

(0.0

523)

0.20

80**

(0.0

925)

0.45

33**

*(0

.056

2)0.

2036

**(0

.094

8)FA

MIL

YFI

RST

0.29

98**

*(0

.052

1)0.

1766

*(0

.091

2)0.

3016

***

(0.0

546)

0.17

89*

(0.0

929)

Pers

onal

char

acte

rist

ics

ED

UC

AT

ION

0.56

77**

*(0

.103

4)0.

9408

***

(0.1

788)

PAR

TN

ER

0.00

71(0

.173

3)0.

1640

(0.2

841)

NU

M_C

HIL

D-0

.734

8***

(0.0

561)

-0.5

832*

**(0

.093

9)M

AN

AG

E_E

XP

-0.4

209*

**(0

.145

1)-0

.126

4(0

.235

9)C

ON

STA

NT

1.32

94**

*(0

.046

0)-1

.187

7***

(0.0

846)

0.88

13**

(0.3

938)

-1.3

774*

*(0

.701

1)3.

6429

***

(0.4

875)

0.38

98(0

.813

9)N

UM

BE

RO

FO

BSE

RV

AT

ION

S36

7926

6226

57L

oglik

elih

ood

-261

7.89

62-1

763.

1635

-160

7.53

97L

RC

hi2>

20.9

317

3.08

478.

71Pr

ob>C

hi2

0.02

160.

0000

0.00

00P S

eudo

R2

0.00

400.

0468

0.12

96

Dep

ende

ntva

riab

leis

WO

RK

(bas

eca

tego

ryis

hom

emak

er);

*,**

and

***

mea

nst

atis

tical

lysi

gnifi

cant

leve

lsat

10%

,5%

,and

1%,r

espe

ctiv

ely.

Stan

dard

erro

rsar

ein

pare

nthe

ses.

699July, 2013

mother’s views of the role of women in work. Model 1 shows that mothers who wereself-employed in 1970 (MOTHER_SE70 = 1) have a statistically, at a 1% level, signifi-cant impact on the self-employment status of women in 2004 (WORK = 2) when com-pared with the base category (WORK = 0). These results remain consistent when weintegrate Models 2 and 3. Cohort members were 2.69 times (Model 1, Table 4) morelikely to be self-employed than to be an employee or a homemaker in 2004 if theirmother were self-employed in 1970. This result persists even after Models 2 and 3 areintroduced where the likelihood of a cohort member being self-employed is 3.87(Model 2, Table 3) and 3.69 times (Model 3, Table 4) of that being an employee or ahomemaker. In essence, the results suggest that maternal entrepreneurship impacts theself-employed status of the cohort member. Hence, hypothesis 1 is strongly supported.There is little evidence that the father’s self-employed status impacts the cohortmember’s employment choices. This is a noteworthy finding because prior researchindicates a strong intergenerational effect with self-employed parents being more likelyto have daughters and sons who, themselves, are self-employed (Arum & Müller, 2004;Fairlie & Robb, 2007). The expectation, therefore, may have been that self-employed

Table 4

Predicted Probabilities for Outcomes Regressed on Roles, Stereotypes, andLife Events

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

EmployeeSelf-

employed EmployeeSelf-

employed EmployeeSelf-

employed

Parents’ employmentMOTHER_SE70 2.6915 3.8710 3.6921FATHER_SE70Parents’ view on women issues in 1975NO_CAREER4 WOMEN 1.0886 1.1002EQUAL_OPPS 0.9191 0.8312 0.7765 0.8130WOMEN_STAY_ AT_HOME 1.1630Cohort members’ view on women issues in 1996MORE_WOMEN_BOSSESSAME_CHANCES4WORKCHILDCARE4WOMENCohort members’ view on women issues in 2000WOMEN2WORK 1.5898 1.2312 1.5735 1.2258FAMILYFIRST 1.3496 1.1932 1.3520 1.1959Personal characteristicsEDUCATION 1.7642 2.5620PARTNERNUM_CHILD 0.4796 0.5581MANAGE_EXP 0.6565

The results reported in this table are derived from Table 2. It reports that by how many times the probability of being in aspecific employment sector (EMPLOYEE or SELF-EMPLOYED) is as high as that of being a homemaker. That is, thenumbers in the table indicate that if the corresponding independent variable increases by one unit, how many times it willbe for the probabilities to be employed or self-employed, compared with the original probabilities to be employed orself-employed with such independent variables at zero. If the probabilities do not change, we have left it as blank.


fathers may influence the self-employment preferences of their daughters. However,Niittykangas and Tervo (2005) and Dunn and Holtz-Eakin (2000) both argue that sons,rather than daughters, are more likely to become self-employed if their father wereself-employed. Our results also fit in with Parker (2009), who argued that maternalrather than paternal self-employment is likely to have a greater influence on self-employment among women.

Model 1 further examines the views of the mother, and the results are consistent withour expectations discussed earlier. Table 3 shows that the higher the value of the firstmaternal stereotype (NO_CAREER4WOMEN), the more likely the cohort member is anemployee (Models 1 and 3). However, this measure has no significant effect on thelikelihood of a cohort member being self-employed. In terms of the second measure ofmaternal stereotypical views (EQUAL_OPPS), Table 2 shows that there were significantnegative coefficients in Model 1 (and in Models 2 and 3), which suggests that the cohortmember was more likely to be self-employed in 2004 if her mother more strongly agreed(i.e., lower EQUAL_OPPS score) with equal work opportunities. In terms of WOMEN_STAY_AT_HOME, this measure has no significant effects on the cohort members’employment status in all three models. The overall evidence suggests that there is supportfor hypothesis 2 and that the stereotypical views of the cohort member’s mother affects thecohort member as she grows up and, indirectly, go on to influence her self-employedstatus. Nonetheless, it is also worth noting here that Model 1 has a low Pseudo R2 (0.0040),suggesting that other factors may contribute to the entrepreneurial intentions of cohortmembers.

Model 2 introduces the stereotypical views of the cohort member. It shows that thecohort members’ views in 1996 (age 26) do not significantly impact their status in 2004.However, we note that Model 2 has a higher Pseudo R2 (0.0468) compared with Model 1.Moreover, their views in 2000 (age 30) have strong impacts on the likelihood of beingself-employed when they were 34 years old (2004). The more strongly the cohort memberagreed with WOMEN2WORK and disagreed with FAMILYFIRST, the more likely shewas an entrepreneur in 2004. These results persist in Model 3.

Model 3 integrates all of the historical variables found in Models 1 and 2 withsignificant life events that potentially “imprint” on a woman’s life. Overall, it shows asignificant improvement in the Pseudo R2 value to 0.1296. Model 3 also shows that womenwho are more highly educated are much more likely to be self-employed than employedor a homemaker. For example, an increase in the education level of cohort membersincreases the probability of being an employee by 1.76 times compared with the basegroup (homemaker) and by 2.56 times for being self-employed (Model 3, Table 3).Managerial experience, however, does not impact the likelihood of being self-employedbut, to our surprise, has a negative impact on the probability of being an employee.Overall, therefore, there is partial evidence for hypothesis 4.

In terms of hypothesis 5, the greater the number of children, the greater the propensitythat the cohort member will be a homemaker since with an additional child, the probabil-ity of being an employee or self-employed is only 0.48 or 0.56 times that, respectively, ofbeing a homemaker (Table 4, Model 3). Indeed, this propensity is slightly lower by 1.17times (0.56/0.48) for self-employed cohort members when compared with employedcohort members, perhaps reflecting that self-employed mothers had greater levels offlexibility in terms of working hours than employee mothers. Overall, cohort memberswith more children were more likely to be self-employed than employees, but there is littleevidence that cohabitation impacts self-employed or employment given that there isno statistically significant relationship evident in Table 4, Model 3. This suggests thathypothesis 5 is only partially supported.

701July, 2013

Discussion

There is a growing literature that explores the negative impacts of masculinizedentrepreneurial stereotypes upon women (Gupta et al., 2008, 2009; Eddleston & Powell,2008). In this paper, however, we explored how positive role models might challenge suchrepresentations. Drawing upon life-span data, we found that if a mother was self-employed when her daughter was born, the daughter was also more likely to becomeself-employed. Our results also revealed that the mothers’ attitudes toward women andwork had a direct influence on the entrepreneurial propensities of their daughters. Further,we found that better educated women were more likely to be self-employed, althoughwomen with more children were more likely to be homemakers.

Our study makes a number of important contributions to analyzing the complex anddiverse interaction between stereotypes and social roles in terms of their influence uponthe propensity of women to become self-employed. First, we are able, using our cohortdata, to show how prior attitudes influence subsequent entrepreneurial outcomes ofwomen. In limiting the prospect of interference from endogeneity issues, our results partlyconfirm previous cross-sectional evidence that observes a link between stereotypes andentrepreneurial outcomes (Eddleston & Powell, 2008; Gupta et al., 2009). These studiessuggest, as de Bruin et al. (2007) also argue, that women’s self-perceptions help shapeentrepreneurial decisions and that those who conform to gender stereotypes are less likelyto undertake “agentic” activities such as self-employment.

In line with such research, our cohort data found that the stereotypes held by motherswhen daughters were 5 influenced the self-employment propensities of the daughters whenthey were 34. Moreover, our results suggest that if a mother was self-employed when herdaughter was born, there was a greater likelihood of the daughter herself becomingself-employed. This evidence again confirms earlier research that suggested that maternalrole models play a critical intergenerational transmission role in entrepreneurial behavior(Waddell, 1983).

Such evidence suggests that maternal stereotypical views and occupational roles havea persistent impact on the subsequent entrepreneurial propensities of daughters. None-theless, evidence on the cohort member’s own stereotypical views suggests that theinfluence of such views has an equivocal impact on self-employment propensity. Wefound, using the 1996 data, that such views did not have an impact on entrepreneurship(aged 34) while they did so for the 2000 data. Why there should be differences in theimportance of stereotype consistent or inconsistent information for women between theages of 26 to 30 remains an area for future research. Accordingly, we would encouragefurther longitudinal research in this area particularly to explore how women’s self-perceptions evolve over time. Our own view is that because the women in the BCS70 arerelatively young, they may still be forming views about roles women should and couldadopt; the fact that these change over time supports our earlier argument regarding theiterative relationship between stereotypes, social roles, and context.

We would also suggest that the use of stereotype consistent or inconsistent informa-tion needs to be contextualized within women’s life choices. Our models clearly show thatsignificant life event variables have a marked impact on the R2 of our models. Even here,though, there are notable nuances. The results show that the occupational roles adopted bywomen are imprinted in diverse ways by significant life events (motherhood, cohabitation,education, and managerial experience). One reason suggested for why women becomeself-employed is to gain “flexibility” to balance child care and income generation. Thisis usually measured in terms of a distinction between women who are employed orself-employed (Wellington, 2006). In this study, we extended this distinction from


self-employed/employed to homemaker/self-employed/employment, and we found thatentrepreneurship occupies a middle position. Women who are homemakers are morelikely to have more children than entrepreneurs, who, in turn, were more likely to havemore children than those in employment. Nonetheless, we also found that living with apartner did not have an impact on self-employment propensity. These findings suggest thatfor women, self-employment represents a “middle” role for those seeking to integrateincome generation with child-care responsibilities (Brush, 1992; Marlow, 2006) whilealso presenting new evidence indicating that self-employment propensities are no longernecessarily linked to cohabitation.

Further nuances are evident when we consider the influence of education and mana-gerial experience. We hypothesized and found that women who were better educated weremore likely to become self-employed. Our results confirm previous evidence on thelink between education and female entrepreneurship (Cowling & Taylor, 2001), whichsuggests that education is positively associated with women’s entrepreneurial endeavors.This is perhaps because education strengthens the belief that entrepreneurship is a credibleand legitimate choice for women. However, we also suggested—but did not find—thatthose women with prior managerial experience are more likely to become self-employed.Our evidence suggests that managerial experience gained in the workplace has no impacton self-employment propensity, and, indeed, women with managerial experience are morelikely to be homemakers. These contradictory results raise interesting questions for furtherresearch. Our data are cohort data, and this allows us to examine differential impacts overtime. Hence, they allow us to better explore how gender understandings have evolvedover the last 30–40 years. Over this period, the position of women relative to occupationalchoices seems to have changed through the socialization experiences gained in education.However, what our data do not allow us to explore are age effects. What, therefore, mightexplain such findings regarding managerial experience may be that all of these women areaged 34. As women become older, the importance of prior managerial experience toself-employment and employment may change. We would suggest that further researchthat explores both cohort and age effects on women’s propensity toward self-employmentis required.

Overall, this study demonstrates that gender roles and stereotypes are complex andmultifaceted in relation to entrepreneurial propensity. Illustrating how maternal rolesand attitudes reflect upon the employment/homemaker/self-employment activities ofdaughters suggests that the generational transference of stereotypes is nuanced and con-textualized. Similarly, we contribute to scholarly understanding of gender socialization bydemonstrating that significant life events have differential impacts on self-employment.This is evident in relation to managerial experience and educational attainment and, to alesser degree, to the fact that self-employment continues to be related—for better orworse—to motherhood but not to cohabitation.

Limitations

This study has a number of limitations. First, although the size and breadth of theBCS70 allows us to identify different groups of women at different stages of theirlives, it is not a cohort study that focuses explicitly and exclusively upon self-employment propensity. For example, the questions that are available on women andwork, either in the 1975 sweep (mothers) or in the 1996 and 2000 sweeps (cohortmembers), do not consider directly the self-employment option. While this isunderstandable—given that self-employment back in the 1970s, and even in 2000,

703July, 2013

remained an occupational role adopted by a limited number of women, there remainsthe possibility that when female respondents were asked about women and work, theywere thinking principally about employed work. Similarly, while the focus of this paperhas been on the intergenerational links between the individual cohort member and theirmother, another limitation of the data are that they do not focus on the familial natureof many entrepreneurial ventures (Dunn & Holtz-Eakin, 2000; Fairlie & Robb, 2007).We therefore call for other studies that longitudinally examine how family issuesinfluence entrepreneurship activities. Another potential weakness of this study is thepossibility of sample bias. This is a common problem faced by large-scale cohortstudies that are prone to attrition as the study develops. Hence, although we control forsample bias, this may remain.

Moreover, our data are British based. While self-employment and business owner-ship rates among British women are broadly comparable with that of most otherdeveloped economies (Marlow et al., 2008), it remains the case that our findings maynot generalize to other countries. For instance, more social democratic Nordic countrieshave different work–family policies (Esping-Anderson, 1999) that are symptomatic ofgreater gender equalitarianism (House, Javidan, Hanges, & Dorfman, 2002). Welter,Smallbone, and Isakova (2006) and Manolova et al. (2007) have also argued thatalthough women in eastern Europe have similar socialization experiences to those foundin more developed economies, they face additional challenges given resource paucityin these transitional economies. Equally, we also recognize our Euro/U.S. ethnocentricperspective. In developing our conceptual framework, we embed our arguments inWestern normative constructions of entrepreneurial stereotypes and social roles withinadvanced economies. As the data from which we test our hypotheses are drawnfrom the BCS70, we suggest this framing is appropriate within this context. However,we fully recognize that sociocultural influences are central in shaping the constructionof stereotypes and associated social roles. Thus, work by Al Dajani and Marlow (2010),for example, explores how the intersection of patriarchy, gender, and migrant statuscritically impact how Palestinian women in Jordan experience self-employment. Thiswork challenges stereotypical assumptions concerning the lack of entrepreneurial activ-ity among such women and exposes how social roles have been influenced and, indeed,changed by entrepreneurial activities in a context of deprivation and exclusion. More-over, there are wealthy market economies, such as Saudi Arabia, where theseparation of women and men within the public sphere is critical in shaping stereotypesand delimiting social opportunities (Almobaireek, Alshumaimeri, & Manolova, 2011).In such a context, we might not expect women to be self-employed. However,it is suggested that rising levels of educational attainment but limited access to employ-ment (due to sex segregation) actually prompts higher levels of self-employment amongwomen where social interaction can be contained within female networks of customers,suppliers, and employees (Patni, 1999; Sadi & Al Ghazali, 2010). Thus, there arefuture research opportunities to explore the contextualization of attitudes, stereotypes,and social roles in an environment where overt sex segregation orders genderedrelationships.

We also acknowledge that there are numerous influences, in addition to stereotypicalsocial role expectations, that will impinge upon women’s entrepreneurial propensity. Itis, for example, well documented that women’s employment choices are influencedby macroeconomic conditions such as gross domestic product (Chamlee-Wright, 1997) orunemployment levels (Thurik, Carree, Van Stel, & Audretsch, 2008) and that women’sentry into business is often linked to “necessity” rather than “opportunity” entrepreneur-ship (Minniti, Allen, & Langowitz, 2006). So, regardless of social role expectations,


women may move into self-employment given constrained employment opportunities. AsMinniti (2009) suggests, macroeconomic factors and market conditions will intersect insubtle and nuanced fashions with the production and reproduction of dynamic stereotypi-cal social roles. There is therefore a scope for future longitudinal research to develop ananalysis of how market conditions impact women’s propensity for self-employment andhow these trends influence stereotypical representations and assumptions concerningwomen’s economic activities.

Conclusions and Implications

Within this paper, we have explored how popular stereotypical masculinized repre-sentations of entrepreneurship influence women’s self-employment propensity. In particu-lar, we have analyzed how stereotypes are transposed onto normative gendered socialroles that inform and legitimize specific subject positions making us intelligible as humanactors. However, drawing upon work of Simpson and Carroll (2008), we note that socialroles are not static but mediate the translation of stereotypes into socialized behaviors. Assuch, we argue that the relationship between stereotypes and social roles must be iterativeand dynamic to explain how expectations and assumptions underpinning these represen-tations change over time and context. Moreover, stereotypical characterizations are notessential and fixed but are constructed and open to challenge. Thus, although there is agrowing body of literature (Eddleston & Powell, 2008; Gupta et al., 2009; Taylor &Marlow, 2010) that explores how gender stereotypical representations of entrepreneurialbehavior act as potential disincentives for women, relatively little analysis has beenafforded to the process and potential for disconfirming such stereotypes. Consequently,through our analysis of life-course data that focus specifically upon the influences ofmaternal social role upon daughters’ attitudes and employment choices, we have adopteda novel perspective that offers new insights into how stereotypes are absorbed, enacted,and in some cases, disconfirmed. However, it is also acknowledged that stereotypicalrepresentations are deeply entrenched as heuristic devices that order our social world;thus, change is slow and fragile (McRobbie, 2009). Accordingly, we found that thestereotypical views of daughters and significant events in their lives had complex effectson self-employment propensities. Nonetheless, it would appear that maternal role modelsare positive influences on their daughter’s self-employment propensities. It would beexpected, therefore, that as more women become self-employed, this capacity buildingwill have a positive generational effect. Potentially, this trend should incrementally chal-lenge the normative masculinized entrepreneurial persona, but clearly, such change will betime lagged.

The advantage of a life-span perspective over more typical cross-sectional analyses isthat we are able, using cohort data, to examine the influence of roles and stereotypes ongender socialization and demonstrate that a woman’s decision to become self-employed isshaped in complex and multifaceted ways. Indeed, we find no evidence for any essential-ism that roots women’s propensities within biological sex and so supports the notion ofone “gender lens” (Mirchandani, 1999); rather, propensity is critically influenced bysocial role models. Thus, we confirm that situated socioeconomic influences that produceand reproduce stereotypical gendered expectation will contextualize how differentwomen, in different situations, perceive entrepreneurship. While we concur with Ahl(2006) that there is a need to focus more exclusively on how women’s (gendered)experiences and attitudes shape self-employment, we also reflect work by de Bruin et al.(2007), as our results point to the embedded and contextual nature in which women situate

705July, 2013

entrepreneurial endeavors. In other words, this study argues that there is no overarchingparadigm that reflects women’s entrepreneurship; to suggest otherwise may be misleadingas it fails to reflect how stereotypes and other experiences such as education and workimpact entrepreneurial propensity.

Another implication arising from this study is the need for research to move beyondonly focusing on the primary entrepreneurial actor. Although we only consider maternalroles and attitudes in this study, further gender socialization studies need to take accountof the integrated ways in which women (and men) use their social and human capital.Researchers need, therefore, to temporally account for how gender is repeatedly done andthe various ways in which male role models, peer groups, and business and professionalcontacts influence gender socialization. We would also argue that researchers shouldrecognize that the adoption of gender stereotypes remains a contestable experience;although gender-inconsistent information is perhaps more pervasive today, our resultsshow that women still adopt gender-consistent stereotypes, and so gender stereotypes havean enduring impact on self-employment propensities.

In terms of future research, we have already identified a number of potentialdevelopments in terms of investigating associations between managerial experience,self-employment, and homemaking; furthermore, we have noted that age and contextrequire greater exploration. In addition, follow-up work from a qualitative perspectivewould generate in-depth contextualized accounts of how stereotypes are transmitted andtransferred into social roles. Finally, further longitudinal research could usefullyexamine the impact of gender socialization processes on the performance of women-owned ventures.

REFERENCES

Ahl, H. (2006). Why research on women entrepreneurs needs new directions. Entrepreneurship Theory andPractice, 30(5), 595–621.

Ahl, H. (2007). Sex business in the toy store: A narrative analysis of a teaching case. Journal of BusinessVenturing, 22, 673–693.

Al Dajani, H. & Marlow, S. (2010). The impact of women’s home based enterprise on marriage dynamics:Evidence from Jordan. International Small Business Journal, 28(5), 360–378.

Almobaireek, W.N., Alshumaimeri, A., & Manolova, T.S. (2011). Entrepreneurial motivations among Saudiyouth. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Small Business and Entrepreneurship,Nicosia, Cyprus.

Arum, R. & Müller, W. (2004). The re-emergence of self-employment: A comparative study of self-employment dynamics and social inequality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Astebro, T. & Bernhardt, I. (2005). The winner’s curse of human capital. Small Business Economics, 24(1),63–78.

Baker, T., Miner, A., & Eesley, D. (2003). Improvising firms: Bricolage, account giving and improvisationalcompetencies in the founding process. Research Policy, 32, 255–276.

Beesley, V. (2005). What is feminism? London: Sage.

Bem, S.L. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven, CT: YaleUniversity Press.


Bird, B. & Brush, C. (2002). A gendered perspective on organizational creation. Entrepreneurship Theory andPractice, 26(3), 41–66.

Bowden, P. & Mummery, J. (2009). Understanding feminism. New York: Acumen Press.

Bradley, H. (2007). Gender. London: Polity Press.

Brush, C. (1992). Research on women business owners: Past trends, a new perspective and future directions.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(4), 5–30.

Brush, C., Carter, N., Gatewood, E.J., Greene, P., & Hart, M. (2006). Growth oriented women entrepreneursand their businesses. Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar.

Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. London: Routledge.

Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of “sex.” London: Routledge.

Butler, J. (2004). Undoing gender. London: Routledge.

Cálas, M., Smircich, L., & Bourne, K. (2009). Extending the boundaries: Reframing “entrepreneurship associal change” through feminist perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 34(3), 552–569.

Carter, S. (2011). The rewards of entrepreneurship: Exploring the incomes, wealth and economic well-beingof entrepreneurial households. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 39–55.

Carter, S., Shaw, E., Lam, W., & Wilson, F. (2007). Gender, entrepreneurship, and bank lending: The criteriaand processes used by bank loan officers in assessing applications. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,31(3), 427–444.

Chamlee-Wright, E. (1997). The cultural foundations of economic development. London: Routledge.

Charles, N. (2002). Gender in modern Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cowling, M. & Taylor, M. (2001). Entrepreneurial women and men: Two different species? Small BusinessEconomics, 16(3), 167–175.

Davidsson, P. & Honig, B. (2003). The role of human and social capital among nascent entrepreneurs. Journalof Business Venturing, 18(3), 301–331.

de Beauvoir, S. (1997/1949). The second sex. London: Pan.

de Bruin, A., Brush, C.G., & Welter, F. (2007). Advancing a framework for coherent research on women’sentrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(3), 323–339.

Deaux, K. & LaFrance, M. (1998). Gender. In D. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of socialpsychology (pp. 788–828). New York: Random House.

Devine, T.J. (1994). Changes in wage-and-salary returns to skill and the recent rise in female self-employment. The American Economic Review, 84(2), 108–112.

Diekman, A.B. & Eagly, A.H. (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of the past,present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(10), 1171–1188.

Dunn, T. & Holtz-Eakin, D. (2000). Financial capital, human capital, and the transition to self-employment:Evidence from intergenerational links. Journal of Labor Economics, 18(2), 282–305.

Eagly, A.H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

707July, 2013

Eagly, A.H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A currentappraisal. In T. Eckes & H.M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Eddleston, K.A. & Powell, G.N. (2008). The role of gender identity in explaining sex differences in businessowners’ career satisfier preferences. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(2), 244–256.

Edwards, L.N. & Field-Hendrey, E. (2002). Home-based work and women’s labor force decisions. Journal ofLabor Economics, 20(1), 170–200.

Elliott, J. & Shepherd, P. (2006). Cohort profile: 1970 British Birth Cohort (BCS70). International Journal ofEpidemiology, 35, 836–843.

Esping-Anderson, G. (1999). Social foundation of post-industrial society. Oxford: University Press.

Fairlie, R.W. & Robb, A. (2007). Families, human capital, and small business: Evidence from the character-istics of business owners survey. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 60(2), 225–245.

Forbes, D.P. (2005). Managerial determinants of decision speed in new ventures. Strategic ManagementJournal, 26, 355–366.

Friedan, B. (1963). The feminist mystique. New York: Norton.

Gherardi, S. (1995). Gender, symbolism and organizational culture. London: Sage.

Greene, W. (2003). Econometrics. London: Prentice Hall.

Gupta, V., Turban, D., & Bhawee, N. (2008). The effect of gender stereotype activation on entrepreneurialintentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1053–1061.

Gupta, V.K., Turban, D.B., Wasti, S.A., & Sikdar, A. (2009). The role of gender stereotypes in perceptions ofentrepreneurs and intentions to become an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(2),397–417.

Halford, S. & Leonard, P. (2006). Gender, power and organisations. London: Palgrave.

Harding, S. (1987). Is there a Feminist Method? In S. Harding (Ed.), Feminism and methodology (pp. 1–14).Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Hart, M., Martiarena, A., Levie, J., & Anyadike-Danes, M. (2010). High growth orientation of nascentand new businesses: Unravelling the effects of gender. Paper to the 33rd Institute for Small Businessand Entrepreneurship Conference, November, London. Available at http://www.isbe.org.uk, accessed10 December 2010.

House, R., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., & Dorfman, P. (2002). Understanding cultures and implicit leadershiptheories across the globe: An introduction to project GLOBE. Journal of World Business, 37, 3–8.

Kelan, E. (2008). Bound by stereotypes. Business Strategy Review, 19(1), 4–7.

Kelan, E. (2009). Performing gender at work. London: Sage.

Kirkwood, J. & Tootell, B. (2008). Is entrepreneurship the answer to achieving work-family balance? Journalof Management and Organization, 14(3), 285–302.

Korupp, S.E., Ganzeboom, H.B.G., & Sanders, K. (2002). Her mother’s daughter? The over-time and lifecourse dynamics of mothers’ occupational status transfer for daughters in West-Germany and the Netherlands.Kolner Zeitschrift Fur Soziologie Und Sozialpsychologie, 54(1), 17–42.

Lawler, S. (2000). Mothering the self: Mothers, daughters, subjectivities. London: Routledge.


Levy, G.D. (1989). Relations among aspects of children’s social environments, gender schematization, genderrole knowledge and flexibility. Sex Roles, 21(11/12), 803–823.

Lewis, P. & Simpson, R. (2010). Introduction: Theoretical insights into the practices of revealing andconcealing gender within organisations. In P. Lewis & R. Simpson (Eds.), Revealing and concealing gender:Issues of visibility in organisations (pp. 1–22). Basingstoke, U.K.: Palgrave.

Linstead, J. & Pullen, S. (2006). Gender as multiplicity: Desire, displacement, difference and dispersion.Human Relations, 59(9), 1287–1310.

Lippa, R.A. (2005). Gender, nature, and nurture (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lombard, K. (2001). Female self-employment and demand for flexible, nonstandard work schedules. Eco-nomic Inquiry, 39, 214–237.

Lucas, R.E. (1978). On the size distribution of business firms. Bell Journal of Economics, 9, 508–523.

Manolova, T.S., Carter, N.M., Manev, I.M., & Gyoshev, B.S. (2007). The differential effect of men andwomen entrepreneurs’ human capital and networking on growth expectancies in Bulgaria. EntrepreneurshipTheory and Practice, 31(3), 407–426.

Marantz, S. & Mansfield, A. (1977). Maternal employment and the development of sex-role stereotyping infive- to eleven-year-old girls. Child Development, 48, 668–673.

Marlow, S. (2002). Women and self employment: A part of or apart from feminist theory? InternationalJournal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 1(3), 83–91.

Marlow, S. (2006). Enterprising futures or dead-end jobs? Women, self employment and social exclusion.International Journal of Manpower Studies, 27(6), 588–600.

Marlow, S., Carter, S., & Shaw, E. (2008). Constructing female entrepreneurship policy in the UK: Is the USa relevant benchmark? Environment and Planning C-Government and Policy, 26(2), 335–351.

Marlow, S. & Patton, D. (2005). All credit to men? Entrepreneurship, finance, and gender. EntrepreneurshipTheory and Practice, 29(6), 717–735.

Martin, P.Y. (2001). Mobilising masculinity: Women’s experiences of men at work. Organization, 8(4),587–618.

McRobbie, A. (2009). The aftermath of feminism. London: Sage.

Millett, K. (1970). Sexual politics. New York: Doubleday.

Minitti, M., Arenius, P., & Langowitz, N. (2005). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2004 report on womenand entrepreneurship. Babson Park, MA: Babson College.

Minniti, M. (2009). Gender issues in entrepreneurship. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 5(7/8),498–621.

Minniti, M., Allen, E., & Langowitz, N. (2006). The 2005 Global Entrepreneurship Monitor specialtopic report: Women in entrepreneurship. Babson Park, MA: Center for Women Leadership, BabsonCollege.

Mirchandani, K. (1999). Feminist insight on gendered work: New directions in research on women andentrepreneurship. Gender, Work and Organization, 6(4), 224–235.

Moen, P., Erickson, M.A., & Dempster-McClain, D. (1997). Their mother’s daughters? The intergenerationaltransmission of gender attitudes in a world of changing roles. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59(2),281–293.

709July, 2013

Munoz, L.G. & Perez, P.F. (2007). Female entrepreneurship in Spain during the nineteenth and twentiethcenturies. Business History Review, 81(3), 495–515.

Niittykangas, H. & Tervo, H. (2005). Spatial variations in intergenerational transmission of self-employment.Regional Studies, 39(3), 319–332.

Oakley, A. (1972). Sex, gender and society. London: Temple Smith.

Oakley, A. (1974). The sociology of housework. London: Martin Robertson.

Parker, S.C. (2009). The economics of self employment and entrepreneurship. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Patni, A. (1999). Behind the veil: Saudi women and business. Harvard International Review, 21(1), 15.

Plewis, I., Calderwood, L., Hawkes, D., & Nathan, G. (2004). National Child Development Study and 1970British Cohort Study Technical Report: Changes in the NCDS and BCS70 populations and samples over time.London: Centre for Longitudinal Studies, University of London.

Powell, G.N., Butterfield, D.A., & Parent, J.D. (2002). Gender and managerial stereotypes: Have the timeschanged? Journal of Management, 28, 177–193.

Pringle, J. (2008). Gender in management: Theorising gender as heterogender. British Journal of Manage-ment, 19(1), 110–120.

Rees, H. & Shah, A. (1994). The characteristics of the self employed: The supply of labour. In J. Atkinson &D.J. Storey (Eds.), Employment, the small firm and the labour market (pp. 102–119). London: Routledge.

Reynolds, P., Camp, S., Bygrave, W., Autio, E., & Hay, M. (2001). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2001report. Kansas City, MO: E.M. Kauffman Foundation.

Robertson, L. & Kulik, C. (2007). Stereotype threat at work. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(2),24–40.

Ruble, D.N. & Martin, C.L. (1998). Gender development. In W. Damon (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology,social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed., Vol. 3, pp. 933–1016). New York: Wiley.

Rudman, L.A. & Phelan, J.E. (2008). Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organizations.Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 61–79.

Sadi, M. & Al Ghazali, B. (2010). Doing business with impudence: A focus on women’s entrepreneurship inSaudi Arabia. African Journal of Business Management, 4(1), 1–11.

Shane, S., Locke, E.A., & Collins, C.J. (2003). Entrepreneurial motivation. Human Resource ManagementReview, 13(2), 257–279.

Simpson, B. & Carroll, B. (2008). Reviewing role in processes of identity construction. Organization, 15(1),29–50.

Skeggs, B. (2004). Class, self, culture. London: Routledge.

Star, S. & Griesemer, J. (1989). Institutional ecology “translations” and boundary objects: Amateurs andprofessionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387–420.

Storey, D.J. & Greene, F.J. (2010). Entrepreneurship and small businesses. Harlow, U.K.: Pearson.

Taylor, S. & Marlow, S. (2010). Engendering entrepreneurship: Why can’t a women be more like a man?American Academy of Management Conference, Montreal, August.


Thompson, A., Hollis, C., & Richards, D. (2003). Authoritarian parenting attitudes as a risk for conductproblems: Results from a British national cohort study. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 12,84–91.

Thurik, A.R., Carree, M., Van Stel, A., & Audretsch, D. (2008). Does self-employment reduce unemploy-ment? Journal of Business Venturing, 23(6), 673–686.

Twenge, J.M. (1997). Attitudes towards women, 1979–1995. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 35–51.

van der Sluis, J., van Praag, M., & Vijverberg, W. (2005). Entrepreneurship selection and performance: Ameta-analysis of the impact of education in developing economies. The World Bank Economic Review, 19(2),225–261.

Van Stel, A., Wenneckers, A., Thurik, A., & Reynolds, P. (2003). Explaining nascent entrepreneurship acrosscountries. Working Paper 3, EIM Business and Policy Research.

Waddell, F.T. (1983). Factors affecting choice, satisfaction, and success in the female self-employed. Journalof Vocational Behavior, 23, 294–304.

Walkerdine, V. (2001). Growing up girl. London: Palgrave.

Wellington, A.J. (2006). Self-employment: The new solution for balancing family and career? LabourEconomics, 13, 357–386.

Welter, F., Smallbone, D., Aculai, E., Isakova, A., & Schakirova, N. (2003). Female entrepreneurship inpost-Soviet countries. In J. Butler (Ed.), New perspectives on women entrepreneurs (pp. 1–24). Greenwich,IT: Information Age Publishing.

Welter, F., Smallbone, D., & Isakova, N. (Eds.). (2006). Enterprising women in transition economies.Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate.

West, C. & Zimmerman, D.H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1(2), 125–151.

Wiklund, J., Davidsson, P., Audretsch, D., & Karlsson, C. (2011). The future of entrepreneurship research.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 1–9.

Francis J. Greene is an associate professor at the CSME, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick,UK.

Liang Han is a senior lecturer at the Hull University Business School, Hull, UK.

Susan Marlow is a professor at the University of Birmingham, UK.

711July, 2013

ET P Like Mother, Like Daughter? Analyzing Maternal ... · contextualize entrepreneurship as...

Documents

Transcript of ET P Like Mother, Like Daughter? Analyzing Maternal ... · contextualize entrepreneurship as...