Social Construction Ism

8/6/2019 Social Construction Ism

1/15

Social constructionism andpersonal constructivism

Getting the business owners view on the roleof sex and gender

Fiona Wilson Department of Management, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK, and

Stephen Tagg Department of Marketing, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK

Abstract

Purpose While the entrepreneurship and small business research literature has tended to portraywomen as lesser than men in identifying the differences between them, little research has looked athow gender is construed in business ownership. The purpose of this paper is to provide a new focus,examining how male and female business owners construe each other.Design/methodology/approach The research employs George Kellys personal constructtheory and repertory grids to examine the constructs associated with male and female businessowners.Findings It is found that there are many constructs used to describe business owners and, counterto predictions from some of the literature review, few differences between the way in which male andfemale business owners are construed. The paper offers explanations as to why so few differences arefound.Research limitations/implications The sample is limited to just one area of Britain and thebusinesses had all been established in the last three years. This will inuence the generalizability of the ndings.Originality/value This paper is able to offer research evidence to demonstrate that male andfemale business owners do not construe male and female business owners differently.Keywords Gender, Small enterprises, Entrepreneurialism, United KingdomPaper type Research paper

IntroductionIt appears to be widely recognized that expanding the involvement of women inentrepreneurship and business ownership is critical for long-term economic growth(Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, 2006, 2007; Langowitz and Minniti, 2007;Brush et al., 2006), yet women-owned businesses and female entrepreneurs remain ina minority (Marlow et al., 2008). A contributing factor may be that in the literatureentrepreneurship and business ownership are construed as predominately male.The entrepreneurship research literature has historically assumed that entrepreneursare male (Stevenson, 1996; Beggs et al., 1994) and has tended to identify them in terms of masculine characteristics. The entrepreneur or small business owner has been referred

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/1756-6266.htm

The grids were collected by four researchers Sara Carter, Eleanor Shaw, Fiona Wilson andWing Lam. The research team is grateful for the nancial support for this project from theEconomic and Social Research Council, UK (Award Reference No. RES-000-23-0247).

IJGE2,1

68

International Journal of Gender andEntrepreneurshipVol. 2 No. 1, 2010pp. 68-82q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1756-6266DOI 10.1108/17566261011026556


2/15

to as he (Collins and Moore, 1964; Schumpeter, 1934; Deeks, 1973). The entrepreneur, inparticular, has been portrayed as essentially masculine with super-normal qualities,reecting the archetype of white middle class male hero (Beggs et al., 1994; Ogbor, 2000).Some have noted that the term entrepreneurship specically connotes certain behaviourssuch as innovation, risk taking and an emphasis on growth (Carland et al., 1984; Curran,1991; Greenand Cohen, 1995; Schumpeter, 1934), behaviours that may be associatedmorereadily with male rather than female entrepreneurship. The symbolic order of genderassigns the sphere of activity and proactivity to the male while it associates passivity,adaptation andexibilitywiththe female.Themale-oriented denition of realityis upheldas the legitimate worldview celebrating masculine concepts of control, competition,rationality and dominance (Ogbor, 2000). Female entrepreneurs nd they are judged andevaluated against a norm established by a self-evident majority group standard (Lewis,2006). In this comparison, female entrepreneurs are construed as lacking or lesser. Forexample, a Global Entrepreneurship Monitor report says that women:

[. . .] areless likelyto know anentrepreneur, less likelyto be thinking of starting a business, less

likely to think they have the skills to start a business, less likely to see business opportunitiesand more likely to fear failure than their male counterparts (Harding, 2007, p. 37).

A recent headline proclaims, Women-owned entrepreneurial startups underperformmen-ownedrms (Kauffman Foundation, 2009). The mediaadds to this view of womenentrepreneurs as lesser when it reinforces the attitude that women entrepreneurs arentreally serious (Langowitz and Morgan, 2003, p. 14) and paints a restricted picture of them (Achtenhaagen and Welter, 2003).

Social constructionism invites us to be critical of conventional knowledge,particularly the idea of unproblematic observations of the world, cautions us to beever suspicious of our assumptions about how the world appears (Burr, 1995). It is notdifcult to challenge howtheattributes or identity of entrepreneurs andbusiness owners

have been construed. Qualitative research shows that business owners do not seethemselves as heroes(Down,2006)andmaybe reluctantto call themselves entrepreneurs(Jones, 2009). Female business owners themselves refute the archetype of the whitemale heroic entrepreneur (Essers and Benschop, 2007). Research on leadership (Eaglyand Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001) indicates that there are few signicant differences in theleadership behaviours of menandwomen especially in organizational settings.Cliff et al.(2005) too challenge the assumption that male and female business leaders establishgender-stereotypic organizational characteristics in their rms. Explaining andchallenging these stereotypes of the attributes of the entrepreneur, Bruni et al. (2005)argue that the features of entrepreneurship reside in the symbolic domain of the male(initiative-taking, accomplishment and relative risk) and when those same features aretransposed to the symbolic domain of the female, they become uncertain. It is thennecessary to justify female enterprise or business ownership because it is not animmediately shared and self-evident social value. Women business owners andentrepreneurs are marked out by simply having the word female placed in front of theterm (Lewis, 2006). As a result, some authors such as Baker et al. (1997), Reed (1996) andMirchandani (1999, 2005) have argued that female business owners and entrepreneurshave been made invisible in the literature. Further, their contribution to the smallbusiness sectoreitherasrm owners in their own right orasproviders of labour tofamilyowned rms has been largely unrecognised (Carter and Bennett, 2006; Hamilton, 2006).

The role of sexand gender

69


3/15

There is research which refutes this view of female entrepreneurs being lesser ordifferent (Birley, 1989). A study of Polish women entrepreneurs illustrated that thesewomen identied with a pattern of characteristics typically found to be masculine(Zapalska, 1997). Although the women rated themselves as more emotional than men,there were no signicant differences in the personality attributes that characterisedmale and female entrepreneurs.ForZapalskas (1997) research, interviewees were askedto identify their own managerial characteristics from a list provided by the researcher.Similarly, a survey by The Small Enterprise Research Team (2005) in the UK found thatfemale respondents disagreed quite strongly with the notion that men and women havedifferent attributes/psychological traits. However, the women also argued for perceivedfemale superiority seeing women as better multi-taskers and more conciliatorymanagers.

A US study of female managers and entrepreneurs using the 16 Personality FactorProle (Cattell et al., 1969) and the BemSex Role Inventory (Bem, 1981) found that femaleentrepreneurs did not self-identify with the stereotypical feminine sex role. The studyfound that two-thirds of the sample held culturally masculine attitudes (Brodsky, 1993).

One-third of the entrepreneurs adopted an androgynous self-perception. Theirpersonalities tended to be less warm, very dominant, expedient, bold, suspicious,shrewd, self-assured, somewhat conservative and self-sufcient. They presented asbright, determined, verbally skilled, analytic and strong, in need of control andintolerant of limits imposed by others, seeking to dene their own work environmentsand parameters. Studies of women business owners often include the criteria forsuccess. The most successful women business owners in the USA and Britain havebeen awarded the title Business Amazons. Hertz (1986) studied Business Amazons andfound that three criteria were used to assesseligibility: ownership andmanagement of atleast 50 per cent of the equity of a business, employment of at least 25 persons, and asales volume of at least 750,000 in Britain, and $5 million in the USA.

Critique of the research on constructions of gender and entrepreneurshipSize, growth and prot from business are the assumed standards, rarely questioned,against which allbusinesses aremeasured.Thevery fewrms that grow quickly happento be mostly male owned. Despite the fact that most existing small rms, both male andfemale owned, do not grow to any considerable extent, research texts tend to constructlack of growth as a female problem. The assumed performance norm is imposed onwomen, rendering them inadequate (Ahl, 2004; 2006). Moreover, a judgment is beingmade when it is stated that women undercapitalize their business. Evidencehas suggested that women have greater limitations upon access to personal savingswhen compared to their male counterparts (Carter and Kolvereid, 1997) as women weremore likely to have been working part time or in low-paid work, or come from lowerincome households than men. Their disadvantaged position will fundamentallyinuence their experience of self-employment (Marlow and Patton, 2005). A judgment isalso implicit in the symbolic constructs that are claimed to be associated withentrepreneurship. For example, Collinson and Hearn (1996) claim that the symbolicconstruct of entrepreneurship concerns the conquest of new markets and newterritories so that masculinity is a competitive process which tends to exclude whoeveris not man enough to be a predator (Bruni et al., 2005). Ahl (2004) reviews the wordstheorists have used to describe entrepreneurs and argues that words such as able,

IJGE2,1

70


4/15

intelligent, skilled at organizing, resolute and daring are words associated withmasculinity. Ahl also nds a t between the words in Bems (1981) masculinity scale andthe words describing entrepreneur. Would this the case if male and female businessowners were asked about their constructs of each other?

In most of the research literature, if the subject is not only female, but also themasculine as norm is taken for granted. The hierarchical nature of the gender binaryrenders the feminine subordinate and other to the male norm. The binary dividecoupledwith stereotypes that draw on differences betweenmenandwomen arereiedinresearch such as Bems that see masculinity and femininity as two separate constructs.Similarly, Broverman et al. (1972) can be accused of reinforcing the gender stereotypeby askingmale andfemalestudent to list all thecharacteristics,attributesandbehaviouron which they thought men and women differed. Recently, Ahl (2004) taking the wordsfrom Bems masculinity scale and the words used to describe entrepreneur could be indanger of reifying the gender divide. Is this dualism a learnt state of being then found inall studies of constructs associated with entrepreneurship or is it caused by the researchmethod employed that provides contrasting stereotypes of males and females?

In the research by Buttner and Rosen (1988), 106 bank loan ofcers were asked toevaluate men, women or successful entrepreneurs on scales assessing nine attributes of successful entrepreneurs. Each loan ofcer received only one version and was unaware of the otherversions. Men, compared towomenwere consistently seen as closer to successfulentrepreneurs on characteristics such as leadership, autonomy and risk taking. However,the research provided the attributes and did not examine the constructs or attributes thatwould naturally arise as bank loan ofcers or business owners described business ownersthey personally knew.

AstudybyWatson etal. (1995)examined theconstructsusedto describe successfulandunsuccessful entrepreneurs. In total, 63 small business owner-managers (16 women and47 men) were rst asked to describe a successful entrepreneur and their work, paying

attention to habits, beliefs, business operations, interpersonal relations, the marketplaceandother factors. A second question asked themtodescribe an unsuccessful entrepreneur.Business owners were asked to describe their social constructions of successful andunsuccessful entrepreneurs. If research examines constructs associated with success,differenceswill emerge inhowsuccess isconstrued. This becomes thefocusinstead ofhowmen and women in business are construed.

Rationale for this researchWhat constructs would arise naturally if men and women business owners were asked todescribe business owners without being asked about success? How would they construeotherbusinessowners they knew? Wouldthere be an essentialist divide between men andwomen? No research, to our knowledge, has allowed the constructs individuals use todescribe male and female business owners to naturally emerge, without prompting aboutmanagerial characteristics, stereotypical sex roles or attributes of successful orunsuccessful success business owners or entrepreneurs. Further, there has only beenonestudy (Watson etal., 1995) onhow businessowners construe other businessowners. Inthat study, the respondents were primed to discuss successful and unsuccessful businessowners and the maleandfemalesampleswereunmatchedin terms ofnumbersofeachsex,age of rm and sector. In this research, we do not prime and the male and female sampleswere matched.


71


5/15

Social constructionism, personal constructivism and personal construct theoryThis research sought to use personal construct theory (Kelly, 1955) to explore themental maps business owners construct to make sense of their understanding of how they saw other business owners. Just as social constructionism insists, we take acritical stance toward our taken for granted ways of understanding the world, andwould not accept that knowledge comes from objective unbiased observations,personal construct theory would reject the notion of an objective reality. George Kellyspersonal constructivism can be regarded as a leading member of the constructivistsfamily (Chiari, 2000). Kelly is a radical constructivist in that his theory of knowledgedoes not reect an objective reality but an ordering and organization of the worldconstituted by our experience. Knowledge is a construction of realities (Chiari andNuzzo, 2003, p. 44) so the world can be interpreted in many equally legitimate ways.Personal construct psychology is based on understanding the individuals from withintheir own worldview. We all interact from a unique perspective. The basis of ourmental map is formed by our collection of experiences and actions. The working toolsof this map are constructs. Constructs are verbal labels. Kelly (1955, Vol. 1, p. 104)dened a personal construct as a way in which things are like and yet different fromothers. A construct is then a way of differentiating between objects, in this casebusiness owners. Each construct can be thought of as a line connecting two points;these two points or poles each have a different label identifying the opposite extremesof the construct. Based on our perceptions of other people, we can place themsomewhere on the scale between the two poles and hence build our mental map.

Given the difculty in dening what entrepreneurship means, and the fact that it isusually associated with innovation and risk, factors that may not be associated with allbusiness owners, we chose to ask about business owners, not entrepreneurs. However,we were interested to see if the characteristics associated with entrepreneurship mightarise in discussions of business owners. Would business owners be construed in the

same way as entrepreneurs, emphasizing super-normal qualities or placing emphasison masculine constructs such as competitive, active, independent, decisive andself-condent?

The sampleThe sample of 60 business owners consisted of equal numbers of males and females.For cost and convenience, they were all drawn from one geographical area of Britain.All the business owners in our sample were screened, through a telephone survey, tomake sure we had a matched sample, matched on age of rm (they had established theirbusinesses within the past three years) location and sector. All were from the businessservicesector as in that sector there would be a likelihood of accessing equal numbers of male and female business owners. Initial sample assembly concentrated on building thefemale sample of rms (advertising agencies, marketing and advertising consultants,public relations, etc.) as male businesses were more prevalent. Male businesses ownerswere then sought to match each of the female ones.

The research methodThe repertory grid is a method for eliciting constructs (Fransella et al., 2003). For thepurposes of this study, the repertory grid method provided a means of eliciting abusiness owners constructs of other male and female business owners. In this case,

IJGE2,1

72


6/15

business owners were asked to compare business owners they knew (the elements). Thebusiness owners became the elements. Each business owner interviewed was told thatthe researchers were interested in understanding how they viewed other businessowners who they knew. (An example of a grid generated can be found in Table I.) Theywere rst asked to name, or give codenames or short descriptors to six business owners(three male and three female). These names, codenames or descriptors (elements of thegrid) were presented across the top of a sheet, at the top of six columns with a note onthe kind of business they ran, e.g. in Table I, the rst element is Consultant self. Theconstructs were then elicited from distinctions made among these elements. Eachrespondent was presented with three sets of elements (triads) that they had identiedand for each set asked to specify some important way in which two of the elements arealike and thereby different from the third. This was repeated until the respondent coulddetermine no further meaningful similarities and differences from the element triadspresented to them. The basis of each set of similarities and differences became thebipolar constructs that were written, on either side of each row, down the sides of the

page. Having constructed the grid, individuals were asked to rate each element on eachconstruct using a scale of 1-7 (1 being on the left hand side of the grid and 7 being on theright). In Table I, (Grid F2) for example, each element (business owner) is being rated asto how pessimistic (1) or positive (7) they are.

Let us look further at Table I to illustrate what the conceptual grid tells us. Thiswoman construes the female business owners she knows as delegators, meek andopen, good communicators who network. The male business owners are construed asself-reliant, arrogant, insular and poor communicators who are isolated. Table I alsoillustrates one of the more radical constructs that were used; one of her pair of constructsis cow and buttery; this is one way in which she construed how business owners werealike and different. The method then allows the researcher to probefor an explanation asto why this is how she construes business owners. As there were no others drawing onsimilar constructs, and this construct did not help distinguish between male and femalebusiness owners, we need not discuss it any further here.

Consultantself (F)

Mindorganiser

(F)

Propertyconsultant

(F)

Garageequipment

(M)

Chickenfarmer

(M)Analyst

(M)

Pessimistic 7 7 2 4 3 4 Positive andenergetic

Secure 5 6 1 3 1 2 InsecureSelf-reliant 7 7 4 2 1 1 DelegatorPersonalminded

7 5 2 4 6 4 Businessminded

Meek 1 3 5 6 7 7 ArrogantOpen 1 2 4 6 6 7 InsularBusiness skill 2 3 6 6 7 7 Technical

skilledGoodcommunicator

1 1 3 5 5 6 Poorcommunicator

Cow 1 7 7 5 1 4 ButteryIsolated 7 7 7 1 1 2 Networker

Table I.Repertory Grid F2


73


7/15

A conceptual grid is then gradually made up and the elements rated on each construct.About 30 male business owners and 30 females completed grids. The grids were analyzed.Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) assists with the quantitative analysisbut a simple and more qualitative analysis can be done by simply looking at the list of types of business owners chosen (the elements) and the constructs generated from these.

Grid analysisEach of the 60 grids was unique. Analysis of the grids required an analysis of theelements, of the constructs and the numerical scores of constructs awarded for eachelement. Analysis can be enabled with the use of statistical tests. Sex differencesbetweenthe constructs and the business owners themselves were central to the analysis.

The grids were entered into SPSS as separate les with labels for constructs andelements. Three sets of statistical tests investigated the presence or absence of sexdifferences within the grids. t -tests determined whether the average for the male elementsdiffered from the average for the female elements for each separate construct. MANOVA

was used on each grid using Wilks lambda to test whether any combination of constructsshowed differences between male and female elements and nally categorical principalcomponentsanalysis (CatPCA)wasusedtogenerate a twodimensional representationof thegrid. To ensure systematic interpretation of the element plots that were generated, t -testswere conducted on the two dimensions and a MANOVA. Wilks lambda used to explorewhere a combination of the two dimensions might generate an overall signicant sexdifference.

FindingsOur rst nding from grid analysis was that there was very large heterogeneity in theconstructs generated; 384 different constructs were generated by the 60 businessowners.The large variety of kinds of business ownershipknown to the business ownersled to a wide variety of constructs being generated; the very wide heterogeneity to befound in the elements led to the wide heterogeneity of constructs. We saw in the exampleabove, from Table I, how nuanced these constructs could be. We also found thatalthough the constructs are bipolar, this does not mean they will necessarily be directopposites of each other. For example, in Table I this business owner has meek versusarrogant in her list of constructs. We have then constructs being used in individualizedways. Given this individuality in thinking about business owners, it is not surprisingthat there are very few commonly used constructs. Of the 384 constructs, only 25 of thesame or similar wording were used more than once. The most commonly used constructwas risk taker orrisk taking whichwas a constructfound inonlyve of the 30femalegrids and none of the mens. Similar constructs such as daring did not appear.

A comparison of the constructs shows that not only are there very few commonlyused constructs; there was no grouping of shared constructs. These business ownerswere not seen, for example to be ambitious, condent or innovative. Kellys (1969)personal construct theory suggests that key systems of constructs are likely to beshared by groups. The literature on entrepreneurs might suggest that a key system of constructs might have been generated, such as those associated with beingsuper-normal. However, this is not a clear nding in our research.

The second nding was that females generated signicantly more constructs(female mean, 6.87; male mean, 5.87;t 2 0.299; df 54.1; p , 0.01). The 30 women

IJGE2,1

74


8/15

overall generated 209 different constructs while the same number of males generated175 constructs.

Our third, and most important nding in relation to how gender is construed is thatinstead of a list of constructs socially constructed as male such as competitive, active,independent, decisive and self-condent being generated, a more androgenous list of personality traits was found such as pondering, guarded and tactile. The constructsused to describe business owners were not loaded with male symbolism. Constructssuch as aggressiveness, assertiveness, determination, strong leadership behaviour,highly developed communication skills, objective and analytical thinking did notfeature. Nor were the females being described as lesser to men or being different, forexample they were not construed as more warm, understanding, emotional and caringthan men. However, there were instances where a construct would differentiate ordistinguish between how male and female business owners were described and rated.

Using SPSS, the constructs female and male business owners used about male andfemale business owners had their means compared with t -tests. Tables II and III showthe signicant, distinguishing constructs for the men and women in our sample; thereare 22 constructs (out of 206) for the females and 16 (out of 176) for the males. For bothgenders, thiscould besaid tobe a similar rateand not many more than might beexpected

No. Grid Construct label (1) Construct label (7)Malemean

Femalemean

t -testvalue

1 2 Self-reliant Delegator 1.33 6.00 4.432 2 Meek Arrogant 6.67 3.00 2 3.053 2 Open Insular 6.33 2.33 2 4.244 2 Good communicator Poor communicator 5.33 1.67 2 4.925 2 Isolated Networker 1.33 7.00 17.00

6 4 Static Growth orientated 6.33 2.672

4.927 5 Not well-known Well-known, established 6.67 2.67 2 3.218 7 Unapproachable Approachable 4.67 6.33 3.549 7 Reactive Proactive 4.33 6.33 4.24

10 10 Business not yet wellestablished

Established business 7.00 1.67 2 8.00

11 10 Working hard to make morebusiness

Relaxed, not growthoriented

2.33 7.00 NA

12 10 No nancial difculties Financially struggling 7.00 2.33 NA13 11 Not Willing to help Willing to help 5.00 7.00 NA14 12 Not motivated by money Motivated by making

money6.67 3.33 2 4.47

15 12 Less nancial experience Financial experience 6.33 2.00 2 6.5016 12 No business vision Business vision 6.00 3.00 2 3.67

17 14 No compassion Compassion 2.33 6.33 5.3718 14 No patience Patience 2.00 6.67 7.0019 14 Not organised Well-organised 1.33 7.00 17.0020 22 Traditional Open mind ness 1.67 6.00 6.5021 23 Traditional Creative 5.67 4.00 2 5.0022 24 Do not do networking for

businessGolf course fornetworking clients

7.00 2.33 2 5.29

Note: NA, zero variance preventing t -test calculation but still a clear difference

Table II.Distinguishing constructs

female business owners


75


9/15

by chance. Grid F2 in Table I is the respondent (male or female) with the most, ve,gender discriminating constructs.

About 11 women respondents used constructs in a way that distinguished betweenthe male and female business owners they knew; 13 male respondents used constructs ina similar way. Out of the two groups of 30, 19 female and 17 male had no constructs thatclearly distinguished male from female. Those men and women who saw male andfemale business owners as different are, then, in a minority. Only ve female and threemale had more than one construct that distinguished males from females.

In order to examine the possibility that there might be gender differences in somecombination of constructs, a second SPSS analysis looked at each individuals grid forlinear combinations of constructs: the general linear model procedure was used and aWilks lambda test calculated.Table IVshows that onlytwoof the 60resultsare signicantat the 5 per cent level. This was a level that might only be expected by chance. There wasthen no clear pattern of distinction on the basis of sex on the combination of constructs inthe grids.

A search was then done for gender differences for the whole grid employing a thirdSPSS analysis using the CatPCA procedure, which represents the differences betweenelements based only on the rank order information in the construct ratings. Table IVshows only eight dimension differences signicant at 5 per cent (three females and vemales); six would be expected by chance. There were only seven overall differencessignicant at 5 percent with theWilks lambda (six female and one male); three would beexpected by chance. This again shows no clear pattern of sex differences.

Table IV also summarizes the three analyses. Slightly more than half the femalerespondents (16 of 30) had some form of signicant result at the broad 10 per cent level.

No. Grid Construct label (1) Construct label (7)Malemean

Femalemean

t -testvalue

1 1 Condent Not condent 7.00 5.00 NA2 1 Outgoing Not outgoing and introvert 7.00 5.00 NA3 4 More faith in ability Less faith in ability 7.00 5.33 NA4 6 Less experienced More experienced 4.33 7.00 8.005 7 Not forgiving Forgiving 3.00 5.33 7.006 9 Poor people skills Very good people skills 7.00 3.66 NA7 12 Not closely associated

with the brandClosely associated withthe brand

6.33 5.00 NA

8 15 Discomfort with nancial/numerical issues

Comfortable with nanceand accounting

6.67 3.67 2 3.18

9 17 Does not see a wider picture inclients business

Can see a wider picture inclients business

7.00 4.33 NA

10 18 Not a team player Team player 6.67 3.67 2 3.1811 23 Easy going Opinionated 4.66 2.00 NA

12 23 Masculine Feminine 1.00 7.00 NA13 28 Focused on detail

Business acumen/seeingbigger picture

7.00 5.33 2 5.00

14 29 Conventional protestant workethic

Relaxed about work 6.33 2.67 2 4.92

15 30 Quiet Talkative 3.67 6.33 3.5816 30 Sense of humour Lack of sense of humour 5.67 3.67 2 4.24

Table III.Distinguishing constructsmale business owners

IJGE2,1

76


10/15

Slightly less than half (13 of 30) the male respondents had a signicant result at thesame level. Statistical tests would not normally go as far as reporting results at the10percentlevelso wehavego further thanis usual and still found thatthereis verylittleorno clear pattern of sex differences to be found in how the constructs of males and femalesare rated.

When constructing the grids with the respondents we found that three of the 30 malerespondents found it difcult to name three female business owners they knew and onemale had less than 3 male elements. Table V shows the details. The knowledge of other

M/F No.Clear

differencesNo. of t -tests at 5 per cent

(Tables II and III)Wilksl (%)

CatPCAdim 1 (%)

CatPCAdim 2 (%)

CatPCAoverall (%)

F 2 0 5 NS NS NS 5F 4 0 1 10 10 NS NSF 5 0 1 NS NS 5 NSF 7 0 2 NS 1 NS 0.1F 10 2 1 NS 0.1 NS 5F 11 1 0 NS NS NS NSF 12 0 3 NS 10 NS 5F 14 0 3 NS 10 NS 5F 16 0 0 10 NS NS NSF 18 0 0 NS NS 10 NSF 20 0 0 NS 10 NS NSF 22 0 1 NS NS NS NSF 23 0 1 NS NS 5 10F 24 0 1 NS 1 NS 5

F 26 0 0 1 NS NS NSF 30 0 0 NS 10 NS NSM 1 2 0 NS 1 NS 1M 4 1 0 NS NS NS NSM 6 0 1 0.1 NS NS NSM 7 0 1 NS NS 5 NSM 9 0 0 NS NS 5 10M 12 1 0 NS NS NS NSM 14 0 0 NS NS 10 NSM 15 1 1 NS 5 NS NSM 18 0 1 NS NS NS NSM 23 2 0 NS 10 NS 10M 28 0 1 NS 5 NS 10M 29 0 1 NS NS NS NS

M 30 0 2 NS NS NS NS

Table IV.Summary of business

owner grids with

signicant differences

Variable Males FemalesLess than three male elements 1 0Less than three female elements 3 0Not had self as element 9 4Number using any celebrity 3 1More than six constructs 6 12Less than six constructs 7 1Number with any zero variance constructs 16 15

Table V.Details on grids


77


11/15

business owners was, in these few cases, a little limited. However, theirgrids are includedin the analysis. No females named less than three male and three female business ownersthey knew. Three males and one female included celebrities such as Richard Branson intheir list of business owners. These were included, as we did not want to impose ourrestrictions on the constructs being generated by the respondents. The respondents werealso permitted to use themselves as one of the elements; nine males and four females didthis. Zero variance constructs were removed from the Wilks lambda analyses.

Discussion of ndingsThese are theconstructs elicited about howthese businessowners construe other businessowners of whom they have rst hand knowledge, with the few noted exceptions.One reason why there are few differences in the constructs generated by men and womenmay be that female business owners were being seen to have male characteristics. Yet, if this was the case, then more masculine characteristics, such as those identied in theliterature should have emerged. Thisclearly did not happen.Anotherreason might be that

the women were in non-traditional jobs. For example, for Grid 4 amongst the males, therewas a female who was a farmer. However, examples of women or men in non-traditionalroles are not the norm in this sample.

An alternative explanation was that men and women perceive the business world asneutralandequal. They may berejecting thesuggestion thatsex, gender or stereotypesmayhavea signicant impact onbusinessownership.Theremay bea belief inmeritocracy in thebusiness world. This explanation would be t with that of Lewis (2006) who found thatfemale entrepreneurs saw gender as something external to the business experience andsomething that can be overcome if need be, reinforcing the conventional view that genderwas not in any way inherent or embedded in the business world. The similarities betweenmen and women are emphasized rather than their differences. This explanation would alsot with Baker et al. (1997) who argued that men and women are subject to common

institutional and economic structures so behave similarly in creating similar businesses.There are limitations of the research design utilized here. The sample was limited to just one area ofBritain and the businesses had all been established in the last three years.This will inuence the generalizability of the ndings. Given the very varied list of constructs generated, it is easy to see why researchers might choose to imposeconstructs or attributes for measurement. However, we wished to adopt a differentapproach in order to see what constructs would arise naturally. Here, we are looking atthe ordering and organization of the constructs male and female business owner formale and female business owners.

ConclusionsOur ndings challenge the stereotypical view of what it takes to be an entrepreneur orbusiness owner, as well as the identity of entrepreneurs in terms of masculine andsuper-normal characteristics. We need to stop using the white middle class hero as themain unit of analysis to construe entrepreneurship and business ownership, one thatmaintains the dichotomy between maleness and femaleness and that perpetuatesexisting social inequality where women are seen as lesser. The historically masculineframed basis of the heroic entrepreneur deserves to be critically re-examined,particularly if business owners do not see themselves as heroes, or call themselvesentrepreneurs. If there are few differences in the leadership behaviours of men and

IJGE2,1

78


12/15

women and they do not establish gender-stereotypic organizational characteristics intheir businesses then the emphasis on difference should not be prevalent in the socialconstruction of men and women business owners and entrepreneurs. We need to stopundervaluing and underplaying the role of female entrepreneurs and business owners(Henry and Johnston, 2007; Marlow et al., 2009) as this may be contributing to the lowernumber of women found in these roles. We must also avoid research methods that drawon stereotypes of differences between men and women as entrepreneurs or businessowners that potentially reify and distort differences. In this research, business ownerswere not discussing other male and female business owners as different. Both menand women are equally capable of characteristics such as initiative taking andaccomplishment, being active, independent, decisive and self-condent. Also, we shouldnot conclude or state that womens business underperforms against mens unlessvariables such as age of business, industry and others have been controlled for. AsMirchandani (1999) has argued, research should be pursued without the notion of anessentialist woman at its core. May be it is time to consider a new assessment of businesses performance that would incorporate new measures such as work-lifebalance, or as Brush (1992) suggests employee satisfaction, social contribution and goalachievement and effectiveness. Perhaps, we should reconsider the yardsticks againstwhich womens businesses are advantaged or disadvantaged. Specically, we shouldquestion using high-growth businesses and relative risk as the standard of comparisonfor all businesses.

If the male model of entrepreneurship and business ownership predominates, thenwomen are less likely to see themselves as business owners and entrepreneurs. Thesimilarities between men and women business owners are highlighted by this research,rather than the differences highlighted in most of the previous literature. This researchalso demonstrates the central importance in research method. A research method thatpresents stereotypes of male and female characteristics can reify differences between

men and women. Using the personal construct repertory grid methodology showed howthose differences did not emerge.

ReferencesAchtenhaagen, L. and Welter, F. (2003), Female entrepreneurship as reected in German media

in the years 1995-2001, in Butler, J. (Ed.),New Perspectives on Women Entrepreneurs ,Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT, pp. 71-100.

Ahl, H. (2004),The Scientic Reproduction of Gender Inequality: A Discourse Analysis of ResearchTexts on Womens Entrepreneurship , Liber, Stockholm.

Ahl, H. (2006), Why research on women entrepreneurs needs new directions, Entrepreneurship,Theory and Practice , Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 595-621.

Baker, T., Aldrich, H.E. and Liou, N. (1997), The invisible entrepreneurs: the neglect of womenbusiness owners by mass media and scholarly journals in the USA, Entrepreneurship& Regional Development , Vol. 9, pp. 221-38.

Beggs, J.D., Doolittle, D. and Garsombke, D. (1994), Entrepreneurship interface: linkages to race,sex and class, Race, Class and Gender , Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 35-51.

Bem, S.L. (1981),Bem Sex Role Inventory , Mind Garden, Palo Alto, CA.Birley, S. (1989), Female entrepreneurs: are they really any different?, Journal of Small Business

Management , Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 32-7.


79


13/15

Brodsky, M.A. (1993), Successful female corporate managers and entrepreneurs, Group & Organization Management , Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 366-78.

Broverman, I., Vogel, S.R., Broverman, D.M., Clarkson, F.E. and Rosenkranz, P.S. (1972),Sex-role stereotypes: a current appraisal, Journal of Social Issues , Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 59-78.

Bruni, A., Gherardi, S. and Poggio, B. (2005),Gender and Entrepreneurship: An Ethnographical Approach , Routledge, London.

Brush, C.G. (1992), Research of women business owners: past trends, a new perspective, futuredirections, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice , Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 5-30.

Brush, C.G., Carter, N.M., Gatewood, E.J., Greene, P. and Hart, M.M. (Eds) (2006), Introduction:the Diana Project International, Ch. 1, Growth-oriented Women Entrepreneurs and Their Businesses: A Global Research Perspective , Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

Burr, V. (1995), An Introduction to Social Constructionism , Routledge, London.Buttner, H.E. and Rosen, B. (1988), Bank loan ofcers perceptions of the characteristics of new

women and successful entrepreneurs, Journal of Business Venturing , Vol. 3, pp. 249-58.Carland, J.W., Hoy, F., Boulton, W.R. and Carland, J.C. (1984), Differentiating entrepreneurs from

small business owners: a conceptualization, Academy of Management Review ,Vol.9No.2,pp. 354-9.

Carter, N. and Kolvereid, L. (1997), Women starting new businesses: the experience in Norwayand the US, paper presented at the OECD Conference on Women Entrepreneurs in SMEs,Paris, April.

Carter, S. and Bennett, D. (2006), in Carter, S. and Jones-Evans, D. (Eds),Gender and Entrepreneurship in Enterprise and Small Business: Principles, Practice and Policy , FT Prentice-Hall, London, pp. 176-91.

Cattell, R.B., Ebert, H.W. and Tatsuoka, M.M. (1969),Handbook for the 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF) , Institute of Personality and Ability Testing, Champaign, IL.

Chiari, G. (2000), Personal construct theory and the constructivist family: a friendship to

cultivate, a marriage not to celebrate, in Scheer, J.W. (Ed.), The Person in Society:Challenges to a Constructivist Theory , Psychosozial, Giessen.

Chiari, G. and Nuzzo, M.L. (2003), Kellys philosophy of constructive alternativism, inFransella, F. (Ed.), International Handbook of Personal Construct Psychology , Chapter 4,Wiley, Chichester.

Cliff, J.E., Langton, N. and Aldrich, H.E. (2005), Walking the talk? Gendered rhetoric vs action insmall rms, Organization Studies , Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 63-91.

Collins, O.F. and Moore, D.G. (1964),The Enterprising Man , Michigan State University Press,East Lansing, MI.

Collinson, D.L. and Hearn, J. (1996),Men as Managers, Managers as Men: Critical Perspectives on Masculinity , Sage, London.

Curran, J. (1991), Forward, in Burrows, R. (Ed.),Deciphering the Enterprise Culture: Entrepreneurship, Petty Capitalism and the Restructuring of Britain , Routledge, London.Deeks, J. (1973), The small rm: asset or liability,Journal of Management Studies , Vol. 10 No. 1,

pp. 25-47.Down, S. (2006),Narratives of Enterprise: Crafting Entrepreneurial Self-identity in Small Firms ,

Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.Eagly, A.H. and Johannesen-Schmidt, M. (2001), The leadership styles of women and men,

Journal of Social Issues , Vol. 57, pp. 781-97.

IJGE2,1

80


14/15

Essers, C. and Benschop, Y. (2007), Enterprising identities: female entrepreneurs of Moroccan orTurkish origin in The Netherlands, Organization Studies , Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 49-69.

Fransella, F., Bell, R. and Bannister, D. (2003),A Manual for Repertory Grid Technique , 2nd ed.,Wiley, Chichester.

Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (2006), Global Entrepreneurship Association , GlobalEntrepreneurship Monitor, London.

Global EntrepreneurshipMonitor(2007) in Harding, R., Hart, M., Jones-Evans, D. andLevie, J. (Eds),UK 2007 Monitoring Report , London Business School, London.

Green, E. and Cohen, L. (1995), Women businesses: are women entrepreneurs breaking newground or simply balancing the demands of womens work in a new way?, Journal of Gender Studies , Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 297-314.

Hamilton, E. (2006), Whose story is it anyway? Narrative accounts of the role of women infounding and establishing family businesses, International Small Business Journal ,Vol.24No. 3, pp. 253-71.

Harding, R. (2007),State of Womens Enterprise in the UK , Prowess, Norwich, CT.

Henry, C. and Johnston, K. (2007), Introduction, in Carter, N., Henry, C., Cinneide, B.O. and Johnston, K. (Eds), Female Entrepreneurship: Implications for Education, Training and Policy, Routledge, London, pp. 1-7.

Hertz, L. (1986),The Business Amazons , Deutsch, London. Jones, S. (2009),The Gendered Social Construction of Entrepreneurship: The Self-made Man or

the Man-made Self, Enterprising Matters , Institute for Small Business andEntrepreneurship, London, available at: www.isbe.org.uk

Kauffman Foundation (2009), Women-owned Entrepreneurial Startups Underperform Men-owned Firms , Kauffman Foundation, Kansas City, MO, available at: www.kaufman.org/newsroom/kfs-women-entrepreneurs.aspx

Kelly, G.A. (1955),The Psychology of Personal Constructs , Vol. 2, Norton, New York, NY.

Kelly, G.A. (1969), Sin and psychotherapy, in Maher, B. (Ed.),Clinical Psychology and Personality: The Selected Papers of George Kelly , Wiley, New York, NY.Langowitz, N. and Minniti, M. (2007), The entrepreneurial propensity of women,

Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice , May, pp. 341-64.Langowitz, N. and Morgan, C. (2003), Women entrepreneurs: breaking through the glass

barrier, in Butler, J. (Ed.),New Perspectives on Women Entrepreneurs , Information AgePublishing, Greenwich, CT, pp. 101-19.

Lewis, P. (2006), The quest for invisibility: female entrepreneurs and the masculine norm of entrepreneurship, Gender, Work and Organization , Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 453-69.

Marlow, S. and Patton, D. (2005), The nancing of small business female experiences andstrategies, in Fielden, S.L. and Davidson, M.J. (Eds),International Handbook of Womenand Small Business Entrepreneurship , Chapter 6, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

Marlow, S., Carter, S. and Shaw, E. (2008), Constructing female entrepreneurship policy in theUK: is the US a relevant benchmark?, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Vol. 26, pp. 335-51.

Marlow, S., Henry, C. and Carter, S. (2009), Exploring the impact of gender upon womensbusiness ownership: introduction, International Small Business Journal , Vol. 27 No. 2,pp. 139-48.

Mirchandani, K. (1999), Feminist insight on gendered work: new directions in research onwomen and entrepreneurship, Gender, Work and Organization , Vol. 6 No. 43, pp. 224-34.


81


15/15

Mirchandani, K. (2005), Womens entrepreneurship: exploring new avenues, in Fielden, S.L.and Davidson, M.J. (Eds), International Handbook of Women and Small Business Entrepreneurship , Ch. 19, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

Ogbor, J.O. (2000), Mythicizing and reication in entrepreneurial discourse: ideology critique of

entrepreneurial studies, Journal of Management Studies , Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 605-35.Reed, R. (1996), Entrepreneurialism and paternalism in Australian management: a gender

critique of the self made man, in Collinson, D. and Hearn, J. (Eds),Men as Managers, Managers as Men , Sage, London.

Schumpeter, J. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Prots, Capital,Credit, Interest, and The Business Cycle , Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA(translated by R. Opie).

(The) Small Enterprise Research Team (2005), Small Enterprise Research Report: Management and Gender Differences , Vol. 2, Lloyds TSB and SERT Team, Open University BusinessSchool, Milton Keynes, No. 3, July.

Stevenson, L. (1996), Against all odds: the entrepreneurship of women, Journal of Small Business Management , Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 30-6.

Watson, W., Ponthieu, L. and Doster, J. (1995), Business owner-managers descriptions of entrepreneurship: a content analysis, Journal of Constructivist Psychology , Vol. 8,pp. 33-51.

Zapalska, A. (1997), A prole of women entrepreneurs and enterprises in Poland, Journal of Small Business Management , Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 76-83.

Further readingCharboneau, F.J. (1981), The woman entrepreneur, American Demographics , June 21-23.Humphreys, M.A. and McClung, J. (1981), Women entrepreneurs in Oklahoma, Review of

Regional Economics and Business , Vol. 6, pp. 13-21.

About the authorsFiona Wilson is a Professor of Organizational Behaviour in the Department of Management atthe University of Glasgow. Fiona Wilson is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:[email protected]

Stephen Tagg is a Reader in Marketing at the University of Strathclyde.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

IJGE2,1

82

Documents

Social Construction Ism