Introduction

The use of the category of ‘minority’ entrepreneurs is entrenched in research, practice and policy, and it is apparent in issues such as differential access to capital and contracts, the perception of training needs and likelihood to enter into entrepreneurial activities (Gherardi 2011). A minority entrepreneurship policy point of view is generally guided by a legislative definition of minority, usually defined by a governmental unit’s determination of protected categories of people, and often applied in arenas such as procurement and assistance (Ram and Smallbone 2001). In research, it is most often used to categorise and gain knowledge about a subset of the population (i.e. those not in the majority group). This body of research is loosely organised to include groups defined by race, ethnicity, sex, gender, religion, nationality, immigrant status, motherhood and every potential intersection of the aforementioned groups (Puryear et al. 2008). However, inclusion varies as women are sometimes legally considered as minority entrepreneurs, and sometimes not.

Going beyond the definitional differences in ‘minority’ groupings as noted above, the question is asked: ‛Do women engage differently in entrepreneurship?’ The chapter begins by questioning assumptions about homogeneity within the group and the practice of grouping all women together, which presumes a shared set of behaviours. This approach largely masks differences from the intersections of other minority groups, including (but not limited to) race and ethnicity. The reliance on narratives to describe women as a minority group is then considered (particularly within entrepreneurial processes) and the chapter concludes with implications for practice, education and training, policy and research. Context is important and within this chapter it is considered by the numerical inclusion of women into the category of minority entrepreneur using US data as the representation.

Assumptions of Homogeneity

In 2015, there were just over 30 million small businesses in the USA, of which 80 per cent (24.3 million) were non-employers, leaving 5.9 million with paid employees. Notably, only 19,464 businesses in the USA were considered large (i.e. having more than 500 employees). How many businesses do women own? Currently in the USA, women are majority owners of 36 per cent of classifiable businesses and equal owners of an additional nine per cent, meaning women are equal or majority owners of 45 per cent of US classifiable companies.Footnote 1 Strictly speaking, 45 per cent meets the definition of minority (‛a relatively small group of people, especially one commonly discriminated against in a community, society or nation differing from others in race, religion, language, or political persuasion’Footnote 2). However, it increasingly seems that in the business ownership case, the term ‘minority’ is more process and outcome-based than a numerical representation of ownership, hence the additional term ‛under-represented’ found in many assistance programmes.

Women business owners are also an increasingly complex subject when considering the term ‘women’. Historically, the topic is approached from a gender binary framework, using ‘sex’ to represent biological differences and gender to capture sociocultural differences (e.g. Unger 1979; West and Zimmerman 1987; Muehlenhard and Peterson 2011). As more precise recognition emerges from studies of identity and self-labelling of a more broadly arrayed delineation of sex/gender, the question becomes even more important as to what matters: What drives differential entrepreneurial behaviours and are those drivers more internal or contextually based? While this question is largely beyond the scope of this chapter, this point is noted to acknowledge the high degree of generalisation underlying much of entrepreneurship research.

Another set of complicating factors are intersections of sex/gender with race and/or ethnicity, and/ or any other of the categories mentioned above. When these intersections are combined with geographical location, this creates more complexity due to different political, social and economic systems, and the cultures found within and across each of these. For the past 20 years, the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) reports have measured start-up behaviours of individuals in random household surveys, highlighting differential rates of entrepreneurship participation around the world (Kelley et al. 2017; Elam et al. 2019). The latest report shows nearly 231 million women in 59 economies are starting and running businesses worldwide, but over the past decade only two countries consistently show higher start-up rates for women than men, Ecuador and Vietnam. Seven countries have equal start-up rates between women and men: Angola, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Madagascar, Panama, Qatar and Thailand. There are also five countries where women start at less than half the rate of men: Egypt, Greece, Slovenia, Sweden and Turkey. The impact levels of economic development are clear in that the higher level of innovation of a country, the lower women rate their capabilities to start a business. Indeed, innovation economies have the lowest start-up rates for women and reflect the biggest start-up gaps between women and men, especially in Western Europe (Elam et al. 2019). Further, there are differences in motivations, as more women start businesses out of necessity, to support their families, than to pursue an opportunity motivation. But, the measure is binary, suggesting this tells only part of the story. And finally, this global data tells us that more women start businesses alone rather than with teams (Kelley et al. 2017; Elam et al. 2019), which likely has consequences for the subsequent growth of the business.

Everything that one might think they know about entrepreneurship is likely to be based upon some model that is many generations old, with their understanding initially developed through the practices and studies of exclusively male business owners and their enterprises (Bird and Brush 2002). In examining scholarly research in entrepreneurship, women slowly entered the discourse, first as variables and then as the protagonists of dedicated studies (Greene et al. 2003; de Bruin et al. 2006). Recently, research has focused more broadly on gender and women’s entrepreneurship, with attention centred on a stronger theoretical understanding of not just differences between men and women, but on feminist approaches (Ahl and Marlow 2017). Nevertheless, even today only 10 per cent of studies in the field of entrepreneurship are focused on women entrepreneurs and/or their businesses (Jennings and Brush 2013). As such, there remains a significant gap in understanding about women’s entrepreneurship and gender. This in part reflects an assumption of homogeneity in the entrepreneurial process (de Bruin et al. 2006).

The driving motivation for an increased number of studies examining differences between men and women entrepreneurs, and among groups of women entrepreneurs is twofold. First, there is a need to better understand and learn from women business owners, particularly regarding their identity development and entrepreneurial behaviours, and how they can contribute to entrepreneurship generally. Second, there is a need to coalesce the body of knowledge on women and men entrepreneurs in order to better develop, improve and advance models that make sense for the diversity of people looking to become entrepreneurial (Jennings and Brush 2013; Brush et al. 2020). In other words, one will know more about entrepreneurship generally if one considers all populations and what they can learn from each other. The next sections present a general framework for the entrepreneurial process through a discussion of current narratives or myths, then it articulates the realities as these relate to women entrepreneurs generally, and men and women entrepreneurs. The chapter concludes with suggestions for practice, training and education, policy and research.

Narratives and the Entrepreneurial Process

The entrepreneurial process is generally agreed to include three basic constructs that result in business creation: the entrepreneur/team, opportunity and resources (Timmons and Spinelli 2009). Generally, ‛entrepreneurs identify or create the opportunity, acquire the resources and provide the leadership to create a venture that creates something of economic and social value’.Footnote 3 To this end, the entrepreneur and team search for, identify or create an opportunity that is linked to their goals, capabilities, aspirations and commitment. They provide the leadership in assessing the opportunity, then acquiring the resources (social, financial, human, physical, organisational, technological) to launch a venture (Brush et al. 2004). Once the venture is launched, entrepreneurs implement a business model and seek to achieve some type of success or growth. The conditions for success depend on the entrepreneurs’ goals, the industry sector and competitiveness, and the local environment (Brush et al. 2004). However, there are ‘narratives’ about what should be done to attain success in the process.

Narratives are used in organisations in the form of novels, short stories, songs, poems and films as ways to study management and organisation. The simple definition of narrative is the ‘analysis of stories that people tell’ (Gartner 2007, 613). There are empirical links between scholarship and narrative, as well as how theories and methods might be applied to the entrepreneurial phenomenon. However, narratives also provide a sense of how things should be done or are currently done. In other words, a story or narrative can construct a reality. On one hand narratives are reality. On the other hand, they are subjective constructions that may or may not be true. For instance, there is a persistent narrative that the steps to being entrepreneurial are the same for everyone. Further, recent popular books about lean start-ups presuppose that all entrepreneurs have the same resources, abilities and access to implement the steps noted (Reiss 2011). The reality is that an entrepreneur’s ability to execute on these practices is contingent to some degree on access to networks and markets, as well as capabilities and skills. Following these prescriptions may not be possible for a low income, African-American woman entrepreneur from a rural area. This persistent and untrue narrative that the process is the same for all entrepreneurs becomes the foundation for umbrella policies applying equally to men and women, when in fact there are significant differences. It also contributes to stereotypes and gender biases, reinforces social dominance and the power structure regarding the allocation of resources and holds women back as to what is possible for them (Pratto et al. 2006).

Another persistent narrative relates to women’s access to financing. Successful women entrepreneurs are now more frequently gracing the covers of magazines and receiving online headlines, leading to the perception that they are doing very well in business ownership. In the USA, there are about 12.4 million women-owned firms, but nearly 70 per cent of companies led by women report a lack of access to financial capital, especially growth capital (Coleman and Robb 2012, 2016). On the debt side, there are fewer disparities in women’s access to capital when a researcher controls for sector, age of business and stage of business development (Coleman and Robb 2016). However, on the equity side, even though the narrative is that women and men do equally well in raising growth capital, it is not as simple as this may seem. For instance, in crowdfunding, women do very well. Several studies examining crowdfunding campaigns find that women are nearly two times as likely to meet their funding campaign targets (Vismara et al. 2016; Greenberg and Mollick 2017; Johnson et al. 2018). However, the average investment is about $10,000 USD per campaign and fewer than ten per cent of entrepreneurs raise more than this amount. In the angel investment arena, which is also for companies that are growth-oriented, approximately 17–27 per cent of women CEOs receive angel funding, with an average investment of about $350,000 (Manolova et al. 2014). But when it comes to venture capital, where billions of dollars are invested each year, research in the USA shows that of the more than 7000 companies funded by venture capital each year, only three per cent have a woman CEO, and these numbers have not changed in 20 years (Brush et al. 2018). While it is comparatively rare for any company to receive venture capital, in fact less than.0001 percent of all US companies receive venture capital.Footnote 4 The average investment in these companies per round exceeds $12 million. Venture-capital funded companies often create significant wealth for the founders and the investors, of which 85 per cent of all founding teams and 92 per cent of investors are male (Brush et al. 2018). This narrative that women entrepreneurs are equally able to attain financing actually raises a different set of challenges because under this narrative, when women do not receive growth capital, the reason presented is that the women are less qualified, they need to change, or some combination of the two explanations. Instead, a careful look at the homophily and male dominance in the industry might be a better way to approach this issue, where systemic change may be needed (Brush et al. 2018; Brush 2019).

Possibly the most referenced narrative about entrepreneurship is the assumption that most entrepreneurial ventures are destined, or at least targeted, towards launching high-growth technology businesses, funded by venture capital and headed for a high-value liquidation event to recoup equity investments. These entrepreneurs are presented as almost entirely white, young and male. This stereotype leads to a definition of entrepreneurship that fits a very narrow band of businesses in the world. Even in a town such as Austin (Texas, USA), renowned for technology start-ups, technology companies (as defined through their NAICS codes) represent only nine per cent of Austin establishments (Civic Analytics 2015). While these businesses are an important part of the economy and innovation systems, they are the minority. Given that most entrepreneurial education programmes, and indeed, entrepreneurial ecosystems, are targeted to this group, it places asset accumulation in the hands of a small, powerful, homogeneous group. A related narrative is about women’s leadership. Women’s leadership is often stereotypically described in the management literature as being ‘softer’ and more collaborative, but when it comes to entrepreneurial leadership, the definition is already a challenge. Public policy requires that to be a ‘women-owned’ business, women must own 51 per cent or more of the company. Other more expansive definitions have begun to come into play (partially to be able to account for more growth-oriented and often venture-funded or seeking venture-capital firms), including woman-owned, woman-founded, woman-led and woman-managed (Aidis and Schillo 2017).

While these numerically based definitions may identify which women are in a position of leadership, it still leaves questions about leadership behaviours including: ‘What is the difference between “leadership”-’ and ‘entrepreneurial leadership’? A general dictionary definition of leadership will run something like:

leadership is the art of motivating a group of people to act towards achieving a common goal. (Ward 2019)

Within the body of entrepreneurship literature, definitions for entrepreneurial leadership include:

the dynamic process of presenting vision, making commitment among followers and risk acceptance when facing opportunities that cause efficient use of available resources, along with discovering and utilising new resources with respect to leadership vision. (Hejazi, Malei, and Naeiji 2012; in Henry, Foss, Fayolle, Walker, & Duffy 2015, p. 582); and

influencing and directing the performance of group members toward achieving those organizational goals that relate to recognizing and exploiting contingencies. (Renko, Tarabishy, Carsrud, & Brannback, 2015; in Henry, Foss, Fayolle, Walker, & Duffy 2015, p. 582)

Each of these definitions builds on the key leadership factors of followers/following while specifically adding in the entrepreneurial components of opportunities/contingencies and risk. These differences suggest the need to consider both definitional aspects, that of general leadership (as differentiated from management), plus skills related to the entrepreneurial recognising and ‘exploiting’ of opportunities. The definitions of both leader and entrepreneur are gendered (Harrison et al. 2015), both following the pathway of the ‘heroic male’, a narrative that causes stereotypes and gender blindness (Lewis 2015). Given that the image of a successful entrepreneur is masculine, the resultant qualities attached to entrepreneurship are risk-taking, achievement-orientation, independent, decisive, etc. (Bird and Brush 2002; Balachandra et al. 2019). More specifically, entrepreneurial leadership tends to omit the ‘feminine’ in language, whereas the language is about exploiting, winning and competing rather than solving a problem, win-wins and collaboration (Bem 1974).

Finally, another narrative is concerned with business models. There is a recent popularisation of the business model (e.g. Osterwalder et al. 2010; Zott et al. 2011). The narrative suggests that if entrepreneurs follow the prescribed steps to size the target market, confirm that their product/service solves a problem, create a value proposition, test channel strategy and other steps, their businesses will succeed. It is a given that businesses need to have a robust business model because they need to be able to deliver a product/service that customers value and do so economically. Yet, the emphasis in most business model descriptions is an objective summary of the elements that matter (e.g., economic value, governance, profit, value stream, logistics, structure, etc.) (Zott et al. 2011). However, received literature just occasionally refers to ‘how’ these business models are operationalised, and elements such as the culture of the organisation (how to intentionally create a culture that supports the business model) and a positive employee environment are notably absent (Greene and Brush 2018).

In another example, one of the authors of this chapter participated in a programme to assess a group of businesses for the CNBC Disruption Panel, where 50 businesses were evaluated based on the extent to which they were ‘disrupting’ industries with new business models, new ideas and new distribution channels. Of the 50 businesses, approximately 37 were transaction-based businesses that used artificial intelligence to better target customers so that mega-retailers could encourage customers to buy more, or could do a better job of creating efficiencies in large companies. This meant that the problems being solved were efficiency-based rather than substantive (such as water pollution, health or medical). When one thinks about business models, where are the businesses that are doing something to solve world problems like those meeting the needs of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals?Footnote 5 A few important examples of women-founded businesses include Rothy’s shoes, which has repurposed more than 32 million water bottles into stylish shoes and Taylor Custom who designs jewellery out of lab grown diamonds.Footnote 6 In other words, most business models are somewhat dated, plus they are slow to recognise women’s participation, culture, environmental changes and family and work–life integration. In sum, the narratives presented are reflected in all parts of the entrepreneurial process. The next section provides a general framework for entrepreneurship and suggests a way forward with implications for practice, education and training, policy and research.

Framework

One of the challenges in identifying and understanding differences between women and men entrepreneurs and their respective businesses (and the relevance of those differences), is the limited number of framework discussions to link the varied approaches. A basic approach is through the process model proposed in earlier Diana Project research (Brush et al. 2020). The original model was developed to organise thinking about the hurdles women entrepreneurs face in growing their businesses, recognising that all entrepreneurs must face similar hurdles; however, the hurdles can be at different heights for different groups of people (Brush et al. 2004). The model illustrated the relationships between the individual entrepreneur (along with their goals, capabilities, aspirations and commitments), the venture concept (including a consideration of the potential of the business), the resources needed (specifically categorised as financial, social, organisational and technological), all set in a sectoral context and leading towards growth. Differences were then posited for varying strategic choices (Brush et al. 2004). This model was subsequently elaborated by Hechavarria et al. (2019) to reflect conditions driving high growth for women entrepreneurs.

The model in this chapter draws from both of these models and make three adaptations. First, consistent with Hechavarria et al. (2019), the importance of considering the founding team is recognised, as opposed to just the entrepreneur as individual. The stereotypes driving much of the existing entrepreneurship narrative is that ventures started by teams tend to be more financially successful and that women are less likely to start their ventures as a team. While women are less likely to start as a team, recent research findings raise questions about who makes more money—ventures started by an individual or a team (Greenberg and Mollick 2018). Second, the concept of opportunity is refined by recognising that the opportunity may be identified or created. Importantly, many entrepreneurs create opportunities where they did not exist prior (Alvarez and Barney 2007). When it comes to evaluation of opportunities, it is important to consider how one identifies an opportunity and how one assesses such, in other words deciding whether what might be done is just an idea or an actual viable business opportunity. And third, the outcome from that of ‛growth’ to ‛success’ is expanded, recognising potential differences between women and men in what is considered to be the desired end result. As such, specific variables of sales, employment, market share, satisfaction and sustainability are included. Differences in practices, those based on stereotypes and those on reality, are found in every aspect of the process model as shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
A model diagram presents two levels, environment and geographic location, and industry sector. It depicts the interconnection between 4 types of components that lead to success.

Entrepreneurial process: Women’s engagement in entrepreneurship

Full size image

Implications for Practice

There is no single profile for women entrepreneurs—the intersectionality of race, gender and a number of other demographic attributes means that their capabilities, education, motivations, commitment and other human capital factors vary widely. Further, their motivations may not be the same as those for men, as women are more often being motivated by necessity rather than opportunity (Elam et al. 2019). But, even necessity may be considered in different ways. Most often as discussed in theory, necessity is considered as an economic imperative. However, women business owners often talk about the need for more flexibility in their lives, usually to accommodate family and household care. Entrepreneurship is seen as a potential pathway to meet that need. And the team may also be considered from different perspectives—the ownership, possibly founding team, and the team (employees) that are the human capital of the company. In addition, it is often that the team is comprised of a family who provides the social support, and other resources to launch and grow the business (Elam et al. 2019). Each of these things can be inputs and outputs for the strategic decisions guiding the venture, starting from the basic opportunity.

Opportunity creation, identification and assessment are increasingly taught in entrepreneurship practitioner training programmes, with an emphasis on developing opportunity-related skills that are used constantly in the venture: opportunity work being an ongoing business need rather than a once and done entry point for the venture. Activities such as hackathons and other brainstorming events are common to help people share ideas around new possibilities. This type of practice enhances the likelihood of business sustainability in a range of contexts, from long-term market changes to unexpected sudden and devastating market chaos from the Covid-19 pandemic. Practice-related differences between women and men have largely been identified as stemming from differences in women’s social networks and differences in their prior work lives (Sullivan and Meek 2012). Each provides different frames of reference with the potential for impacting where and how opportunities are recognised. Some differences in recognition may also be related to the opportunity. For instance, if the opportunity is in a sex-segregated industry (one in which participants are more likely to be men or one in which they are more likely to be women), there may be differences. Finally, there are cultural and contextual differences where women’s roles may be more focused on home care and family, possibly narrowing the scope of areas where women may pursue or investigate opportunities (Brush et al. 2014). Hence, one cannot assume that opportunity access is equal for all women and men. If the opportunity is in an industry dominated by men, the industry norms may be more related to male role expectations in terms of behaviours (e.g. transactional approaches, long work hours, etc.) and the same is true for an industry dominated by women.

Reflecting on the narratives and realities noted above and connecting these to the entrepreneurial process, one key resource needed to pursue an opportunity is procuring the necessary capital through the most relevant funding model. Instead of trying to exactly fit into the existing equity funding industry and networks, it is time to consider new approaches that disrupt the funding environment, making equity growth capital available to qualified women entrepreneurs. One such example is Portfolia,Footnote 7 which creates investment funds to support diverse entrepreneurial companies by inviting 249 investors to commit a minimum of $10,000 each. The funds are targeted to industries and markets that are women and family-focused, including femtech and active ageing, while also targeting the inclusion of a diverse set of women entrepreneurs. Investments are managed by investment professionals, while new investors have access to webinars and other training materials and programmes to learn about the investing process, including due diligence, term sheets, etc. Portfolia’s mission is to increase the number of women investing in other women’s businesses, while also expanding the range of types of technologies and businesses that receive funding. Portfolia is one example, but there are also a number of women-focused angel groups such as Golden Seeds,Footnote 8 which is one of the most active early stage angel groups in the USA, with more than 275 members who have invested more than $100 million in 150 companies. Further, there are efforts to train more women investors. For example, Pipeline AngelsFootnote 9 trains women philanthropists to become angel investors through a training programme, mentoring and practice, while 37 AngelsFootnote 10 offers a four-month bootcamp that teaches women the art of angel investing through workshops and case studies.

Stereotypes abound not only in the financing ecosystem, but throughout the venture and growth process. Differences between women and men in their strategic choices impact differences in outcomes in start-up (venture creation) and business performance. Women tend to borrow less, and their businesses tend to be more capital efficient than those owned by men (Brush and Greene 2020). Yet, the stereotype is that women do not ask for enough money. Measures of success tend to focus on growth, jobs created and money earned. These performance measures are all rooted in economics, which is consistent with the prototype of the successful (male) entrepreneur, returning to the stereotype that a successful venture is a high tech and venture-capital funded. Reality shows that these are a minority of businesses. Reality also shows that there are differences in how groups of people may define business success, whether it be in revenue targets, jobs created or a social value created in the world. It is time to recognise that a focus on financial performance metrics is not appropriate for all populations of entrepreneurs, some of whom have motivations beyond money, or for all types of businesses, especially those in the future which will solve societal, environmental and health challenges.

Implications for Education and Training

As noted earlier, women are equal or majority owners of 45 per cent of US companies, but women students, especially younger women students, often feel like the world of business or entrepreneurship is not for them. And if they do, the next question is whether separate programmes for women and men are advisable or preferred. Early research suggested that some women entrepreneurs prefer separate programmes, at least for particular topics (Godwyn et al. 2005). Other research continues the discussion of gender-based programme design without reaching a definite conclusion (Ely et al. 2011). These questions may be considered from both a more general approach (differential confidence levels regarding entrepreneurial tasks and skills) or more specific concerns such as real or perceived differences in financial literacy. For either, the question of how entrepreneurial education is approached is critical. From a college or university perspective, programmes exist such as the Women Innovating Now (WIN) Lab created by Babson College’s Center for Women’s Entrepreneurial Leadership. This five-month programme is in its seventh year and focuses on helping women entrepreneurs develop opportunity resources, including learning how to build a network in the local ecosystem, develop confidence through mastery experiences and gain advice from successful women entrepreneurs. Overall, they have the opportunity to work on both strategy and tactics for the growth of their businesses through a rigid milestone planning process.Footnote 11 Participants have raised millions of dollars and their businesses are disrupting sectors, plus solving social and economic problems.

Outside the formal education system, the last decade has seen a growth of private programmes as well as public–private partnerships. The Goldman Sachs 10,000 Women programme was launched to accelerate the growth of women-owned businesses around the world, readily surpassing their initial goal of 10,000 participants.Footnote 12 The final programme curriculum included an emphasis on opportunity identification and tools for the development of strategic goals that linked personal and business goals, as well as skill development for not only growing their own businesses, but investing in the businesses of other women. The programme also emphasised the development of social resources, resulting in a multiplier effect in that each participant mentored an average of eight other women along their own growth pathway. Each of the curricula for these programmes, along with many others, was designed and developed to help women discover their own sense of business success and then make the subsequent venture decisions to achieve the particular goal they hold at that point in time. In addition, a high percentage of businesses in these programmes have raised significant funds (either equity funding or bank loans), expanded markets and hired new employees.

Implications for Policy

Policy works best when there is a clear understanding of the challenges, particularly when set in the context of the impacted populations. Accurate definitions and data help to provide that understanding. This may be seen in the USA in two different ways, one which has worked well and one which needs continued attention. First, over the past few years, the US Small Business Administration (SBA) has adjusted the ways in which it talks about ‘failure rates’ of small businesses, recognising that they have no data on ‘failure rates’, only continued/discontinued statuses. SBA documents and tools no longer reference ‘failure’, instead relying on the more accurate terminology that matches their data. Second, various groups are exploring the definition of majority-owned. For the required certification of minority ownership status, as required for participation in most minority business programmes, a woman or women must own 51 per cent of the company. For high-growth equity funded businesses, such ownership often becomes unfeasible as capital is raised, meaning that the larger companies are not counted in the women’s ownership categories and these companies may be differentially impacted for inclusion in government procurement policies.

While definitions may begin to prescribe boundaries, other types of policies can also increase participation by women in larger growth strategies for entrepreneurial ecosystems. For instance, in 2018 the US government changed a law which opened doors for more women to become equity investors. The original Investment Company Act of 1940 (amended in 1999) limited the number of investors in a venture-capital fund to 99 investors. The 2018 change increased that number to 249. This change is particularly useful for the new model of women’s angel funds that are working to increase participation through education and mitigated risk. Many opportunities remain for policy to advance entrepreneurial growth, with some particularly unique to women and their families. The provision of family leave is a prime example of a significant challenge waiting to be solved. Most developed countries have a national paid leave programme—for employees. For the USA, this offering is more like a patchwork quilt, with paid leave offered in some states, some cities, some businesses and more recently, for federal employees. The particulars vary greatly and, in most places, it remains a challenge for small business owners to offer on their own. It is also much more difficult to figure out how to provide paid leave for the small business owner herself. While a woman may be able to receive funds (although not under every system), it is far more difficult to figure out a policy approach for the provision of time.

Implications for Research

When it comes to improving practice, policy and education and training, having good data is essential in order for these to be effective. In other words, to initiate any change in women’s entrepreneurship, there is a need to better understand similarities and differences between women and men, among groups of women, and variations in gender and entrepreneurship generally. As noted earlier, less than ten per cent of all academic research includes or focuses on gender and women’s entrepreneurship. Not only does this contribute to the assumptions of homogeneity in entrepreneurship that all entrepreneurs are the same (therefore all prescriptions for practice, policy and education apply equally to all populations), but also what is known is based almost exclusively upon one population—that of men and the masculine approach (de Bruin et al. 2007; Jennings and Brush 2013). There is a need to determine first IF there are differences among groups, then IF these matter. Further, instead of looking at gender and women’s entrepreneurship through the deficit lens, there is a need to focus on what can be learned about entrepreneurship generally by studying these populations.

To date, one significant effort is the Diana International Research Conference that was launched in 2003 for the purpose of providing a platform from which to develop, conduct and share a global research agenda, and to create an international community of scholars dedicated to answering questions about women entrepreneurs and growth-oriented businesses. Since its inception, there have been 13 conferences, each with a different theme, which were hosted in 8 different countries.Footnote 13 The first gathering in 2003 brought together 20 scholars from 13 countries.Footnote 14 Nearly every person participating in that first event has been active in Diana International Conferences since then. As of 2018, more than 600 scholars from 47 countries have attended and presented scholarly work at Diana International Conferences. Collectively more than 11 books were published with chapters written by 160 unique authors from 28 countries and 18 editors (Brush et al. 2019). Ten special issues of academic journals have been published, producing nearly 10,000 citations as of December 2018. There is no question that this research has impacted gender and women’s entrepreneurship, and entrepreneurship generally.

Conclusion

The approach to this chapter was to explore differences between women and men entrepreneurs, both those evident in stereotypes and those that represent reality. An expanded version of a process model was used to organise the discussion, with the primary concepts relating to the entrepreneur and team, opportunities, resources, venture creation/business ownership and success. An extensive discussion of implications was organised into four categories: practice, education and training, policy and research, but the ambition is to spur more connection between each of these. One pathway might flow as research which guides education and especially training, impacts practice, and informs policymaking. Any of the other connections would work as well. Enacted policy might include data collection, supporting research, guiding practice and ending up in the classroom. The essential need is for those working in these arenas to accept the obligation to be informed and to act on that information as a virtuous knowledge system. The topic of women entrepreneurs and their businesses is multi-faceted with ongoing opportunities and challenges embedded in research, practice, education and policy. Emphatically, all of these areas going forward need to take careful consideration of two criteria: ‘women’ does not describe a homogenous group and ‘gender’ does not mean women. The need is to both recognise differences, and then understand what and how those differences may contribute to a better entrepreneurial model—for all.