Advancing Gendered Analyses of Entrepreneurship: A Critical Exploration of Entrepreneurial Activity among Gay Men and Lesbian Women

TLDR: In this article, the authors explored self-employment among gay men and lesbians in the UK and found no differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals in their likelihood of being entrepreneurially active.

Abstract: This paper advances contemporary gendered analyses of entrepreneurial activity by exploring self-employment amongst gay men and lesbian women. Within current entrepreneurial debate, heterosexual women have become the visible embodiment of the gendered subject. Our contribution is to queer this assumption when focusing upon the entrepreneurial activity of gays and lesbians. Our core question investigates if ‘there is evidence of differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals in their likelihood of being entrepreneurially active?’ To address this question, we contrast competing notions of gender stereotypes and discrimination whilst drawing on findings from a large-scale population-based study of 163,000 UK adults. We find few differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals; this persists after examining intersectional patterns and considering if gay and lesbian entrepreneurs choose particular sectors, geographies or forms of self-employment. As our discussion highlights, the value of this study lies within its critique of contemporary analyses of gender which assume it is an end point rather than a foundation for analysing gender as a multiplicity.

Figures

Table 1 shows descriptive statistics and the results of univariate tests (chi-square and t-tests) for males and females, sorted by heterosexual women, lesbians, heterosexual men and gay men. We complement these in Table 2 with separate correlation results for both men and women. Table 1 shows that 9.1% of lesbians were self-employed; this is marginally more than the share of heterosexual women in self-employment (7.7%) but is not statistically significant. Gay men are, however, less likely (12.6%) than heterosexual men (16.8%) to be in self-employment9. Table 1 also shows that gay men are less likely to be homeowners but that both lesbians and gay men are younger, better educated, more likely to be single, have fewer children, and less likely to be white or mixed race. However, as Table 2A (females) and Table 2B (males) indicate, the correlation between variables is low10.

Full text

Edinburgh Research Explorer
Advancing gendered analyses of entrepreneurship
Citation for published version:
Marlow, S, Greene, FJ & Coad, A 2018, 'Advancing gendered analyses of entrepreneurship: A critical
exploration of entrepreneurial activity among gay men and lesbian women', British Journal of Management,
vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 118-135. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12221
Digital Object Identifier (DOI):
10.1111/1467-8551.12221
Link:
Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer
Document Version:
Peer reviewed version
Published In:
British Journal of Management
Publisher Rights Statement:
This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Marlow, S., Greene, F. J. and Coad, A. (2017),
Advancing Gendered Analyses of Entrepreneurship: A Critical Exploration of Entrepreneurial Activity among Gay
Men and Lesbian Women. Brit J Manage., which has been published in final form at
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8551.12221. This article may be used for non-commercial
purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving.
General rights
Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s)
and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and
abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.
Take down policy
The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer
content complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please
contact openaccess@ed.ac.uk providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and
investigate your claim.
Download date: 09. Aug. 2022

1
Advancing gendered analyses of entrepreneurship: a critical exploration of entrepreneurial activity
among gay men and lesbian women
Abstract
This paper advances contemporary gendered analyses of entrepreneurial activity by exploring self-
employment amongst gay men and lesbian women. Within current entrepreneurial debate,
heterosexual women have become the visible embodiment of the gendered subject. Our contribution
is to queer this assumption when focusing upon the entrepreneurial activity of gays and lesbians. Our
core question investigates if ‘there is evidence of differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals
in their likelihood of being entrepreneurially active?’ To address this question, we contrast competing
notions of gender stereotypes and discrimination whilst drawing on findings from a large-scale
population-based study of 163,000 UK adults. We find few differences between homosexuals and
heterosexuals; this persists after examining intersectional patterns and considering if gay and lesbian
entrepreneurs choose particular sectors, geographies or forms of self-employment. As our discussion
highlights, the value of this study lies within its critique of contemporary analyses of gender which
assume it is an end point rather than a foundation for analysing gender as a multiplicity.
Keywords: gender, heteronormativity, homosexuality, discrimination, stereotypes, entrepreneurship.
INTRODUCTION
Since the early 1990s, increasing attention has been afforded to the influence of gender upon
entrepreneurial activity using women as a generic proxy for gender (Henry, Foss and Ahl, 2015). This
debate has subsequently demonstrated progressive development and increasing coherence
(McAdam, 2013). The focal debate has shifted from relatively blunt analyses using founder sex as a
variable through which a male norm was utilised to negatively evaluate women’s entrepreneurial
activities (Carter and Cannon, 1992; Mukhtar, 2007) to contemporary feminist critiques (Ahl and
Marlow, 2012; Henry et al., 2015). Such critiques explore the detrimental influence of gendered
ascriptions, discrimination and related stereotypes upon women’s entrepreneurial propensity and
competencies. Despite the growing complexity of contemporary debate, the focus and direction of
this maturing strand of research adopts some troubling assumptions in that gendered analyses draw
almost exclusively upon women as the unit of analysis and assumes upon an exclusive
heteronormative binary. Thus, (assumed) heterosexual women have become synonymous with the
gendered subject and moreover, are universally categorised through the metonymy of the ‘female
entrepreneur’ placed as ‘other’ to the normative and so unlabelled (assumed) heterosexual male
entrepreneur. Also troubling is the expectation in gendered accounts of entrepreneurship that there
ought to be gender differences, even though these are often found to be empirically overstated (Ahl,
2006). As such, it is somewhat paradoxical that a critique developed to expose gender bias potentially

2
promotes the designation of women as the embodiment of the gendered subject and narrows debate
by discounting influences such as sexual orientation. Upon reflection, contemporary gendered
accounts of entrepreneurship appear partial and indeed, possibly discriminatory.
Within this paper, we advance debate and move beyond such limitations when exploring the
entrepreneurial activities of homosexuals. Our central research question asks: ‘is there evidence of
differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals in their likelihood of being entrepreneurially
active?’ Homosexuality challenges dominant socially embedded heteronormativity through same-sex
partner preference. The disruption this invokes upon normative expectations that biological sex maps
onto associated notions of masculinity and femininity (Butler, 2004; Connell, 2005) relates to socio-
economic discrimination (Pringle, 2008; Tilcsik, Anteby and Knight, 2015). In her critique of similar bias
within management research, Pringle (2008: 118) notes that ‘heterosexuality is the unstated and
unseen foundation’ requiring homosexuals to develop strategies to ‘pass’ as heterosexual or risk
discriminatory reprisals. Reflecting these arguments, we suggest prevailing assumptions that
heterosexual women are natural ciphers for the gendered subject in contemporary entrepreneurship
limit debate and theory development. Accordingly, the implications of enacting contradictory
gendered performances and/or same-sex preferences upon entrepreneurial activity require further
analytical interrogation.
To explore the degree to which, if any, homosexuality is associated with entrepreneurial
activity, we seek to open up greater debate in contemporary scholarship by challenging assumed
heteronormativity and associated discriminatory outcomes. One assumption being there is an
association between homosexuality and adjustment or reversal of stereotypical behaviours (Chung
and Harmon, 1994; Schneider and Dimito, 2010), suggesting that gays and lesbians choose to interpret
or deconstruct gender stereotypes in differing ways. Where gender stereotype reversal is enacted
through homosexuality, this can invoke stigma (Tilcsik et al., 2015) with related and diverse forms of
discrimination (Broadbridge and Simpson, 2011) which may lead gays and lesbians to consider
entrepreneurship as a refuge from discrimination (Ragins, 2004). In contrast, however, gendered
entrepreneurial differences may be exaggerated, particularly as the few studies of gay and lesbian
entrepreneurial activity suggest few differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals (Willsdon,
2005; Schindehutte, Morris and Allen, 2005).
Thus, whilst increasing attention has been afforded to the implications of normative gendered
ascriptions and discrimination upon women’s entrepreneurial activity, this analysis has rarely explored
gay and lesbian entrepreneurship, despite calls to address this lacuna (Galloway, 2012; Leppel, 2016).
In engaging with this under-researched field and in the light of the consequent novelty of this study,
we adopt a competing hypothesis approach. This approach is invaluable as it “is an effective way to

3
determine the relative merits of alternative theories” (Miller and Tsang, 2011: 140) particularly in
cases “where prior knowledge leads to two or more reasonable explanations” (Armstrong, Brodie and
Parsons, 2001: 4). Given, therefore, our exploratory focus, we develop two alternative hypotheses:
First, a null hypothesis that there are no differences in entrepreneurial activity patterns between
homosexuals and heterosexuals; and second, male and female homosexuals may be more likely to
select into self-employment as a refuge from employment discrimination and so, are more likely to be
entrepreneurially active than heterosexuals.
Although we argue that focusing on gays and lesbians as the unit of analysis challenges current
normative and gendered assumptions within entrepreneurship, we also recognise that in whatever
iteration, gender alone is a blunt instrument. As such, we seek to progress debate by recognising -
subsequent to assessing our hypotheses - a range of intersectional influences which may intrude upon
and attenuate gendered performances (Broadbridge and Simpson, 2010, Al Dajani, Carter, Marlow
and Shaw, 2015). Moreover, Tilcsik et al. (2015) argue that homosexuals respond to gender
stereotypes and homophobic discrimination by undertaking occupational choices that attenuate task
independence and resonate with their social perceptiveness. Hence, in keeping with person-job fit
research (Kristof, 1996) which suggests that individuals choose particular forms of entrepreneurial
activity, locations or sectors congruent with motivations (Markham and Baron, 2003), we also seek to
assess the validity of our hypotheses by disaggregating entrepreneurial activity into specific types and
by examining if there are differences in sectoral and geographic patterns between homosexual and
heterosexual entrepreneurs.
Empirically, to explore entrepreneurial activity amongst gays and lesbians, we use the UK
Integrated Household Survey (IHS); a large-scale population-based representative survey of 163,000
British adults conducted in 2010
1
. These data are valuable for three reasons: first, the focal question
in the survey – a self-report measure of sexuality – was subject to rigorous development, testing and
evaluation (Betts, 2008a,b; Betts, Wilmot and Taylor, 2008; Haseldon and Joloza, 2009). Second, our
data are representative of the adult UK population (Uhrig, 2014). These data are valuable as they differ
from studies reliant upon small-scale convenience sampling. One negative aspect of non-
representative convenience sampling being that it is likely to over-sample particular types of
individuals or groups. Such selection biases can accentuate differences absent within a wider group or
population (Uhrig, 2014). Finally, these population-based data contain additional information related
to entrepreneurial activity. Our measure of entrepreneurial activity is self-employment status; we
draw upon this construct as it captures a broad range of entrepreneurial activities (identifying and
exploiting opportunities, making decisions in dynamic and uncertain settings, organizing resources)

4
(Patzelt and Shepherd, 2011) and is valuable as an expression of a wider multi-layered domain in which
people construct and exploit entrepreneurial opportunities (Wiklund et al., 2011).
To explore these arguments, the paper is structured as follows: the next section develops the
theoretical framework by critiquing current approaches to defining and analysing gendered influences
upon entrepreneurial behaviour, and develops competing hypotheses using stereotype theory and
analyses of the effects of labour market discrimination. The third section outlines our data. Section
four describes the results for the two hypotheses and interrogates their robustness by examining if
intersectional factors, and contextual factors such as sector, location and different types of self-
employment, are associated with entrepreneurial activity among homosexuals and heterosexuals.
Finally, we conclude by discussing the implications of our findings, noting limitations of this study and
suggestions for future research.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK - EXPANDING UPON CURRENT GENDERED ANALYSES OF
ENTREPRENEURIAL BEHAVIOUR.
The influence of gender upon entrepreneurial behaviour has been increasingly recognised since the
early 1990s (Henry et al., 2015). Whilst this debate has moved through several iterations – from
simplistic ‘gender as a variable’ approaches to theoretically informed feminist critiques of how
gendered ascriptions shape entrepreneurial propensity, behaviour and outcomes – the focus has
remained resolutely upon women (Ahl and Marlow, 2012; Marlow, 2014). In effect, women are
positioned as exclusively gendered subjects; as Kelan (2009: 321) notes, ‘gender sticks to women’ in a
manner which does not apply to men. Whilst debate has progressed such that issues of
intersectionality (Essers and Benschop, 2009) and context (Welter, 2011) are acknowledged within
prevailing analyses of gender and entrepreneurship, the former is largely presumed to be the
homogenised property of self-employed women operating in developed economies. Moreover, a
heterosexual gendered binary dominates that presumes heteronormativity (Marlow, 2014).
These assumptions underpinning contemporary debate must be challenged if we are to advance
understanding of gendered ascriptions, discrimination and stereotypes on entrepreneurial activity.
One avenue to such theoretical advancement is to extend analyses of how gender stereotyping and
discrimination apply to those who do not confirm to the heteronormative binary. The acceptance of
same-sex preferences in many advanced economies is increasingly common (Smith, 2011) yet,
discriminatory attitudes and prejudice persist (Badgett et al., 2007; Priola et al., 2014; Tilcsik et al.,
2015). The outcome of tensions between the greater social visibility/acceptance of gay men and
lesbian women and the existence of discrimination are of importance for entrepreneurship if such

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What are the contributions in this paper?

This paper advances contemporary gendered analyses of entrepreneurial activity by exploring selfemployment amongst gay men and lesbian women. To address this question, the authors contrast competing notions of gender stereotypes and discrimination whilst drawing on findings from a large-scale population-based study of 163,000 UK adults. The authors find few differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals ; this persists after examining intersectional patterns and considering if gay and lesbian entrepreneurs choose particular sectors, geographies or forms of self-employment. As their discussion highlights, the value of this study lies within its critique of contemporary analyses of gender which assume it is an end point rather than a foundation for analysing gender as a multiplicity. 

Q2. What are the future works in this paper?

Future research on growth ventures needs to acknowledge diverse and complex articulations of gender and sexuality. To address such issues, future research using a mixed methods approach is essential to provide more fine-grained insights into the diverse multiplicity of gendered performances unavailable in this study ( Linsted and Pullen, 2006 ). In calling for further qualitative research to address the serious shortage of research on gay and lesbian entrepreneurs, the authors see that there are opportunities to develop a greater understanding of how individual gays and lesbians may negotiate heteronormative norms, may choose to queer these norms, and how gay and lesbian entrepreneurs discursively position themselves and be positioned by others either in mainstream or in gay ‘ niche ’ markets ( Ozturk, 2014 ; Galloway, 2012 ). Whilst the authors do not deny the critical importance of gender, discrimination or stereotypes as fundamental identity and life chance indicators ; they suggest that gender does not simplistically equate to women, and that evaluating how gendered representations relate to the entrepreneurial activities of individuals ( whatever their sexual persuasion ) must become the normative stance within research if they are open up new strands of theorising and crucially, to avoid creating a feminised ghetto of gender research which is marginalised from mainstream debate. 

Q3. What is the role of gender in shaping and ordering universal expectations of human behaviour?

HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENTGender stereotypes are influential in shaping and ordering universal expectations of human behaviour; so for example, through ascriptions of femininity, women are designated as ‘affectionate, gentle, loyal, tender’ whilst masculinity positions men as ‘aggressive, competitive, dominant and forceful’ (Bem, 1993; 231). 

Q4. Why does Florida suggest that gay men often co-locate in particular regions?

Florida (2002) in his ‘creative class’ thesis suggests that gay men often co-locate in particular regions because it inhibits discrimination. 

Q5. What is the significance of gendered discrimination in entrepreneurship?

The outcome of tensions between the greater social visibility/acceptance of gay men and lesbian women and the existence of discrimination are of importance for entrepreneurship if suchdiscrimination motivates entrepreneurial activity (Galloway, 2012). 

Q6. What does Priola et al. (2014: 499) argue that gay men and?

Priola et al. (2014: 499) argue that even in organizations which promote inclusivity, gay men and lesbians come up against “discriminatory practices such as silence, gossip and derogatory comments”. 

Q7. What is the effect of childcare and shared domestic labour on entrepreneurship?

Freedom from childcare and shared domestic labour may encourage over-investment in entrepreneurship, particularly asentrepreneurship is associated with longer working hours (Storey and Greene, 2010), but such effects might also encourage shorter working hours and inhibit the up-take of entrepreneurship. 

Q8. What is the role of gendered assumptions in entrepreneurship?

although there is increased evidence that leadership styles have become more androgynous (Bosak and Sczesny, 2011) and there are fewer firm-level performance differences between males and females, the influence of gendered ascriptions still matter as they channel pathways into entrepreneurship and also perceptions and assumptions regarding the role of femininity and masculinity within entrepreneurship. 

Q9. What is the significance of contrasting hypotheses?

Evaluating contrasting hypotheses is also germane to their context because it reveals opportunities for critically exploring if similarities, rather than differences, mark the entrepreneurial activities of both heterosexual and homosexual men and women; an approach under-explored in entrepreneurship research. 

Q10. How many people felt there was no wrong in same-sex partnerships?

Smith (2011) notes that in the UK, those who felt there was ‘nothing wrong at all’ in same-sex partnerships increased from 18.8% in 1991 to 36.1% in 2008. 

Q11. What is the significance of gendered stereotypes on entrepreneurship?

Where gender stereotype reversal is enacted through homosexuality, this can invoke stigma (Tilcsik et al., 2015) with related and diverse forms of discrimination (Broadbridge and Simpson, 2011) which may lead gays and lesbians to consider entrepreneurship as a refuge from discrimination (Ragins, 2004). 

Q12. What is the role of gendered avoidance strategies in entrepreneurship?

Whilst the efficacy of such avoidance strategies as a solution to organisational prejudices is limited given the ubiquity of diverse forms of socio-economic discrimination beyond the constraints of employment, the extent to which gays and lesbians might pursue self-employment to counter employment discrimination remains under-explored. 

Q13. What was the main reason for the focus on women’s business activities in the 1990s?

This prompted a focus upon women’s business activities in the 1990s, and subsequently led, in the 2000s, to a more theoretically complex gendered critique which challenged heteronormativity in entrepreneurial studies. 

Q14. What is the role of stereotyping in entrepreneurship?

The implicit sexual stereotypical framing of individuals and groups informs gendered accounts of heteronormative entrepreneurship which may help unwittingly to embed the very notions that should be challenged. 

Q15. What is the role of stereotypical categorisation in the debate?

Complicating this debate further is the role of stereotypical categorisation which shapesassumptions regarding normative characteristics and behaviours which in turn, enable us to engage in predictable and comprehensible social interaction (Ashforth and Humphrey, 1993; Greene, Han and Marlow, 2013). 

Q16. What is the reason why some individuals may decide to misrepresent their sexuality?

It is possible, although response rates to the sexuality question were high, that some individuals may decide, because of age, culture, fear of exposure, and so on to misrepresent their sexuality.