Entrepreneurial learning: gender differences

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the differences in the entrepreneurial experiences between male and female entrepreneurs. The study investigates what entrepreneurs learn, how they learn, who they learn from and what prompted such learning. Design/methodology/approach – The data under analysis is drawn from a qualitative study which involves in-depth, semi-structured interviews conducted longitudinally as a case study in ten firms over a period of five years. The case study findings are analysed and discussed using a learning framework. Findings – The findings suggest some differences in the learning experiences between male and female entrepreneurs. Whilst male entrepreneurs were more likely to challenge and depart from industry norms, thus utilising double-loop learning process, female entrepreneurs were more likely to engage in “routinised” learning which enhances confidence, thus adopting the single-loop learning process. Research limitations/implications – The main implication of the study for policy makers is that unique training, networking and support programmes should be designed for women entrepreneurs. The study is limited to the extent that it can be generalised to a wider population of small businesses. Originality/value – To date, there have only been speculations and little understanding about whether there are differences in the entrepreneurial learning experiences between men and women. Thus, policy makers have little guidance as to whether or not unique training and support programmes should be designed for female entrepreneurs. The study is novel in so far as it was conducted longitudinally over a period of five years to sufficiently follow the learning behavioural pattern of entrepreneurs in different business sectors.

Training Female Entrepreneurs: A Self-Governed or Tutor-Driven Learning Process?

“…Despite the assumption of a decreasing role of a contentdriven pedagogy in entrepreneurial training (Löbler, 2006), the major share of learning activities in the Women Entrepreneurs training program takes place in this field. It exhibits clearly the preference of female business owners for the "routinized" (Ekanem, 2015) and constant (Carwile, 2009) learning in opposite to their male comparts. From the students' side, the activities of this type include submitting assignments, taking quizzes, information sharing in forums and collective database, etc.…”

“…Thus, empirical research indicates gender differences in entrepreneurial learning. Namely, information sharing and collaborative resources, personal and business mutual relationships, emotional exposure gain greater importance for formal knowledge acquisition of female business owners (Schaper and Casimir, 2007, Kailer, 2007, Ekanem, 2015, Pittaway and Cope, 2007, Coyle and Ellinger, 2001). This implies the importance of community in online learning environments and instructor-student interactions as a vital component for its active cumulation (Black et al, 2008).…”

Understanding internationalisation approaches and mechanisms of diaspora entrepreneurs in emerging economies as a learning process

“…Examples of these features include the circumstances and rationale leading to internationalisation. They also included critical incidents which triggered the learning process, what was learned, how it was learned and from whom (Ekanem, 2015). Categories were then established and developed into typology.…”

“…For example, the use of gut-feeling, judgement, experiences, resources, reliance on pre-existing materials at hand, families and friends by owner-managers with respect to internationalisation behaviour emerged from field notes and transcriptions. It also involved examining whether there were inconsistencies or contradictions between ownermanagers' beliefs or attitudes and what they do (Ekanem, 2015). Explanation-building technique allowed series of linkages to be made and interpreted in the light of the explanations provided by each respondent.…”

“…The respondents were not informed beforehand of the second interviews. The longitudinal element enabled the researcher to identify when the learning actually took place (Ekanem, 2015).…”