Women Technopreneurship: Perceived Barriers and Challenges

Iqra Shafi
Senior Research Fellow, Department of Management Studies, University of Kashmir, Hazaratbal, Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir, India; and is the corresponding author. E-mail: iqrashafi406@gmail.com

Farzana Gulzar
Senior Assistant Professor, Department of Management Studies, University of Kashmir, Hazaratbal, Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir, India. E-mail: farzanashahrukh@uok.edu.in

Previous studies conducted so far in the field of technopreneurship have tried to capture the experiences of actual female technopreneurs. However, studies projecting the perceptions of potential women technology entrepreneurs are rare. The aim of this study, therefore, is to develop a preliminary understanding of the perception of barriers and challenges to female technology entrepreneurship. To attain this objective, a sample of 256 potential women technopreneurs from various institutions in Northern India has been employed. The interpretive analysis of the qualitative data has been done using NVivo software. Perceived barriers were categorized into three heads, viz., Personal barriers (Individual, Skill and Familial factors), Institutional barriers (Organizational and Industry level factors) and sociocultural barriers. The potential female technopreneurs cited personal barriers more frequently, followed by institutional barriers. Very few cited sociocultural barriers.

Introduction
The pace at which women have ventured into entrepreneurship and made economic contributions has accelerated radically throughout the years, inducing researchers to make an assiduous effort to capture the dynamics and make distinctive contributions to the field of entrepreneurship. This radical surge in the number of women entrepreneurs has however been witnessed in and confined to traditional industries and sectors like lifestyle, retail, hospitality, etc. (Neumeyer et al., 2019). Women are less likely to undertake an entrepreneurial initiative in the field of technology (SET, i.e., Science, Engineering and Technology sector). This is primarily because females are incessantly seen as "the other" in both entrepreneurship and technology preserves. Entrepreneurship as an act is coded and viewed as a male domain. This is not only evinced by the fact that more men are entrepreneurs as compared to women but is also affected by the various assumption and representations made about an entrepreneur. Technology entrepreneurial identity is even more debatable for it represents the merger of two presumed male spheres (Technology and Entrepreneurship). Bruni et al. (2005) explained how "the figure of an entrepreneur, as a technologist is often written about as if it were gender neutral, but actually it is located in the symbolic universe of the male". Despite this male characterization of the technology field, many women have ventured into the SET field (Brush et al., 2018) and proved their mettle. Researchers have conducted numerous studies elucidating motivations, opportunities, support systems and experiences in the field of technopreneurship. However, most of the studies have focused on existing/actual women technopreneurs' experiences. There is a dearth of research work on perceptions of potential women technopreneurs who have the requisite qualifications but have not yet developed a salient intent to venture into the technopreneurial field. Existing women entrepreneurs developed their perceptions of various inhibiting factors/challenges or barriers based on actual/firsthand experiences, i.e., they have realistic exposure of conditions characterizing the technopreneurial field. Potential women technopreneurs develop their perceptions of the technopreneurial scenario based on vicarious exposure (such as through reading, watching or through another person). They are of particular significance and a study on them is productive because they are the most important resource and their intentions to participate in and start a technology business is a precursor to the development of the technopreneurial field. Perception, a fundamental and significant cognitive construct, is a strong determinant of entrepreneurial propensity and intention of potential women technology entrepreneurs. The relevance of cognitive processes in shaping the individual's entrepreneurial decisions and actions has been stressed elsewhere (Shaver and Scott, 1991; Krueger, 2000; Mitchell et al., 2002; and Baron, 2004). In this sense, with a fundamental focus on perceptions of potential women technopreneurs, this paper will contribute to the field by providing an exploratory idea about the various factors that are perceived as barriers and challenges in Northern India. A study of perceptions of potential women technopreneurs can help governments, practitioners, support institutions and researchers in determining whether their perceptions are close approximations and assessments of the reality or mere apprehensions and misinformed mental pictures. Based on the findings of this study, measures and initiatives can be designed and developed to create awareness and provide realistic exposure to potential women technopreneurs so that they take informed decisions when thinking of undertaking a business. The present study is based on a qualitative approach.

Literature Background
Relevance of Perceptions
The cognitive approach is acquiring great relevance nowadays to explain entrepreneurship not only at the individual level (Krueger et al., 2000), but also at the aggregate level (Arenius and Minniti, 2005). According to Mitchell et al. (2002), "entrepreneurial cognitions are the knowledge structures that people use to make assessment, judgment or decisions involving opportunity evaluation, venture creation and growth". The cognitive approach emphasizes the fact that everything we say or do as human beings is influenced by mental processes, such as motivation, perceptions or attitudes (Krueger, 2003). Perception, a central element in entrepreneurial cognition, has awakened deep interest among scholars. Perceptions are fundamental cognitive constructs. Perceptions are representations of the external environment around individuals captured through our senses and consciousness (Krueger, 2003). Perceptions, as a matter of fact, are interpretations of reality from a subjective paradigm and do not always reflect objective conditions or situations. People may develop perceptions of their individual selves, other persons' perceptions, perceptions of economic opportunities, perceptions of organizations or industries, sociocultural perceptions, etc. Multiple research studies have been conducted in entrepreneurship which validated the presumption that perceptions are far more accurate indicators of success of females in entrepreneurship rather than actual support. Pollard (2001) stated that "there is something either empowering or inhibiting in the way women perceive the obstacles and challenges they face". It is through perceptions that potential entrepreneurs tend to capture the varied influences of the environment, which then determines their behavior. We have endeavored to capture an insight of perceived barriers and challenges among potential female technology entrepreneurs because these perceptions influence their intentions of becoming actual technopreneurs.

Women in Technology Business
Advancement in technological spheres determines the educational, economic and in turn the national progress. However, an analysis of statistics in SET in India and a review of the extant literature from various sources imply explicitly that there is a large and notable difference in the ratios of men and women involved in SET sector. Research indicates that the participation of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics is on the decline despite public support (Fouad et al., 2010; and McCrea, 2010). Since women are underrepresented in SET education, instances of women venturing into technology are sparse and uncommon. Research exploring company ownership confirms that male-owned and male-run businesses predominate, while the small minority of female business owners perform primarily in non-SET sectors (Carter et al., 2001; and Marlow and McAdam, 2011). In the manufacturing trade as well as in high technology, women are encountered less often; these are the traditionally male-dominated sectors (Mayer, 2006). Literature largely agrees that women-run companies are more likely to be service-oriented or in retail (Neumeyer et al., 2019). The technology field is highly dynamic and is characterized by a forward and modern outlook, still, it essentially remains male-dominated. This can be attributed to a large number of factors. The broader society can be faulted for continuing to subtly discourage girls from science and technology pursuits (Scouts, 2001). Ticoll (2008) stated that "Young women are socially conditioned to believe that they don't have what it takes to succeed in this field". Also, cultural norms and values in science and technology remain hostile to women, and that is true of both the technology industry and science academia (Bilimoria et al., 2008). Since women are a minority in the field, it makes them feel isolated and apprehensive. This isolation mystifies their understanding of what it takes to advance (Simard et al., 2008; Hewlett et al., 2008b; and Gilbert, 2009).

Barriers to Women Technopreneurship
Previous research works have been undertaken to elucidate the various reasons behind the prevalence of this huge gender gap and imbalance in the technology industry generally and technology businesses specifically. A central focus of these studies has been to gain insights into the various visible and invisible barriers and challenges that women in a technology business face. Various kinds of barriers faced by women have been documented and discussed under different categories, viz., individual barriers, skill barriers, work-life balance barriers, firm level barriers, industry level barriers, social barriers, cultural barriers, etc. Barriers related to lack of skills, issues related to self-efficacy and fear of failure are evident in a number of studies. Cukier (2009) cited gender differences in expectations of success and self-efficacy related to mathematics and technology, girls' preference for curriculum that focuses on communication/human interaction (versus physical science and/or technology), myths about women's lack of aptitude for the technical trades and 'nerd' stereotypes that deter girls from engaging in technology, engineering and computer sciences. Challenges on the work-life front are also well documented. A survey on women in technology in Canada found that work-life balance was mentioned as a primary challenge for technology entrepreneurs (Orser et al., 2012). The demands of venture creation and management in this dynamic and fast-paced environment seem to dash any expectations of work-life balance preconceived at the onset (Parasuraman et al., 1996; and Winn, 2004). Firm-level barriers may include differential access to internal resources, support structures, professional networks, mentors and power (Adler and Izraeli, 1994; Griffith et al., 1998; Ragins and Cotton, 1999; and Schaubroeck and Lam, 2002). Literature suggests that the technology industry is male-dominated and demanding. A study of mid-level women in technology indicated that they perceived the field as deeply competitive and political (Simard et al., 2008). The establishment of a technology firm is said to be extraordinarily demanding, for both men and women, and involves dealing with technological uncertainties, obtaining regulatory approval, and coping with the scarcity of all types of capital (Elfring and Hulsink, 2003). The social and cultural expectations and stigmas that act as obstacles for women technopreneurs have been well-documented in the works of Hays (1995), Blair-Loy (2003), Masser et al. (2007), and Gatrell (2011).

Objective
The objective of this study is to develop a preliminary understanding of perception of significance of barriers and challenges to female technology entrepreneurship.

Data and Methodology
For the purpose of this study, an online survey was done in order to collect qualitative data for a research project in 2019 (see Appendix). A mailing list was developed which comprised 281 potential female entrepreneurs (students) enrolled in the final semester of various technology courses in five institutions in Northern India, viz, Indian Institute of Technology, Jammu; Indian Institute of Management, Rhotak; University of Kashmir; Institute of Technology, Srinagar; and National Institute of Technology, Srinagar. A selection bias, however, is inherent as only those females who are enrolled in technology courses have been employed as potential technopreneurs in the sample and may be sensitive to the factors in the field. The online survey collected information about the respondents' profiles (age and course enrolled in), their interest to start or not start a business, and their interest in a technology or a non-technology business.

NVivo software was employed for interpretive analysis of the collected responses. Interpretive research designs have become prevalent in entrepreneurship research (Bruni et al., 2004; and Clare and Holt, 2010). The statements were examined line by line, followed by coding, initially on sentence basis and then on concept basis. At the outset, coding categories were developed and validated by the members who were part of the project. The themes included Personal barriers (Individual, skill and familial factors), Institutional barriers (Organizational and Industrial factors) and Sociocultural barriers. Sub-themes emerged from further analysis. Thereafter, in an attempt to identify patterns (within and across categories) and locate anomalies and commonalities, results were put in a summary matrix and discussed and analyzed for the purpose of validation by experts. Finally, several responses were merged and summary displays were developed.

The primary statistics about the respondents are given in Tables 1, 2 and 3. A total of 256 responses were received. The age of respondents varied between 22 and 28 years. Approximately, 60% of the respondents were enrolled in engineering courses under different specializations, 24% in sciences and the rest in management and others in technology courses. Almost 65% (165 from a total of 256) of the respondents were interested in starting a business. However, only 46% of the interested respondents were inclined towards venturing into a technology business.

technology business?" The respondents were asked to answer this question in their own words. In all, 256 female students responded to the online survey. After excluding responses of those who were not interested in starting a business and those who were not interested in a technology business, a total of 76 relevant and usable responses were obtained, citing 136 situations collectively. The idea about possible response categories was derived from the review of literature.

Results
Based on the review of the extant literature, the responses to the question-"What are the various challenges and barriers that you expect to encounter in establishing and running a technology business?"-have been put in different categories.

Personal barriers encompassing individual, skill and familial factors were the most frequently cited (71 statements) as perceived by potential women technopreneurs. Female respondents were apprehensive about capitalizing on a worthy opportunity, skills they possess and the requirements of the industry, i.e., the skill-requirement fit. Despite being trained and qualified in core technology areas, the statements put forth suggested issues related to self-efficacy, opportunity recognition and fear of failure. They perceived a clear lack of avenues and opportunities (both formal and informal) to connect and develop relationship with people in technology businesses suggestive of poor networks. Personal level barriers included some statements which clearly attributed gender as a primary source of problems encountered in securing finances for establishing and running a technopreneurial venture. Familial and work-life balance issues found mention in several statements under the perceived personal barrier category. The statements suggested that potential female technopreneurs perceived work in technology and family as two competing and conflicting ends where familial support is hard earned and needs a lot of convincing and conviction.

Institutional barriers encompassing organizational and industry level factors were cited as the second significant set of barriers and challenges (49 statements) as perceived by potential female technopreneurs. Management issues, particularly pertaining to leading and managing male subordinates, clients and workers, were reiterated in several statements. The respondents also expected to encounter latent resistance based on gender stereotyping. The potential women technopreneurs perceived the field to be heavily male-dominated, extreme and demanding in nature. Analysis of several statements revealed that respondents hardly had any cues and awareness about the various institutions that provided support and finances specific to female technology business. The respondents reported a lack of information about or a paucity of mentors and role models (Table 4).

Sociocultural barriers were cited as least significant (16 statements) as perceived by potential women technopreneurs. Societal pressures to conform to prescribed role expectations, cultural stigma and maintaining a typical "family-oriented" image were stated as barriers/challenges under this category. The minimal importance given to these factors by potential women technopreneurs can be attributed largely to the fact that the sample included women who are highly qualified, young and have been groomed and brought up in an era of feminist ideology which is characterized by challenging and undermining orthodoxy, in genuine social and cultural expectations, impositions and restrictions.

Conclusion
The major observation that results from the analysis of the qualitative data is that personal level barriers are the most frequently cited challenges/barriers that potential female technopreneurs expect to encounter in the technopreneurial field. The institutional barriers are second in the list. The analysis of responses also reveals that gender is perceived to be a source of many barriers faced at the organizational and industry levels. A small percentage of respondents perceived and quoted Sociocultural barriers as significant. This could be attributed to the fact that the respondents are young and a feminist thought somehow influences their perceptions. The analysis also suggests that the sampled population made frequent allusions to the fact that they are not well acquainted with and aware of the realities that actually characterize the technopreneurial field. This could be interpreted from analysis of the statements in which respondents frequently employed words like "I think", "I guess", "I suppose", "I have heard or read", "People tend to", etc. clearly indicating that the possibilities of their perceptions being different from actual realities are or can be many. The study also reveals that though entrepreneurship and technology essentially entail gender disparities, the respondents answered the key question from a general perspective rather than a thorough gendered perspective because the key question was non-gendered, i.e., "what are the various challenges and barriers that you expect to encounter in establishing and running a technology business"? and did not include the phrase "As a woman" in the question, thereby limiting their sensitivity to the gender issues specifically. At last, the authors hope that the findings of this research elicit increased interest in a supposedly male-dominated sphere of technopreneurship.

Since the focus of this study is potential technopreneurs, measures should be designed and developed to spread awareness, disseminate accurate information and provide realistic exposure to the subjects. This could be done by featuring stories of successful women technopreneurs in mass media; developing training and mentorship programs and sessions for students interested in tech-business; and organizing events, particularly, technology fests in colleges and universities, where the chief guests are women who are successful names in the technopreneurial field. More and more female-centered initiatives on social media, like Facebook's initiative 'She Leads Tech', should be taken to acquaint young females with the world of technology. An elective subject, technology business, should be introduced in the final semesters of technology courses, which students interested in technopreneurship can opt for. Institutions primarily catering to females related to finance and training should be established and awareness about them should be spread through female-centric websites.

Implications: A review of the extant literature reveals that not many studies have documented the perceptions of potential women technopreneurs. Also, qualitative designs have often been used to study existing women technopreneurs and experiences. This study has employed a qualitative methodology for understanding the perceptions of potential women technopreneurs. This study and its findings would encourage further research in the technopreneurial field. The resultant themes and sub-themes of the present study could be used to develop nominal scales and carry out further quantitative investigations.

Limitations: There are certain limitations inherent in the present study. First, the present study is an exploratory investigation of potential women technopreneurs' perceptions of challenges/barriers in the field of technology. This is an obvious presumption that some of the barriers/challenges put forth in the study are in no way unique to the female population only. Further, research studies that explore the perceptions of potential male technopreneurs are an obvious next step, followed by comparing and contrasting the perceptions of the two genders towards barriers/challenges in the field of technology. Also, the results of this study are pertinent only to the sample employed, and caution should be exercised in generalizing the findings. Secondly, the results are mere perceptions and not based on actual experiences. Thirdly, we sought to balance the personal descriptions of the subjects with the analyses, these reflecting both the observed and the observer(s) (Moran, 2000). Finally, the sample population may not be representative of the larger population because the entire sample was drawn from female students enrolled in various technology courses.

References

1. Adler N and Izraeli D (1994), Competitive Frontiers: Women Managers in a Global Economy, Blackwell, Cambridge, MA, available at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nancy-Adler/publication/274578326_Competitive_Frontiers_Women_Managers_in_a_ Global_Economy/links/574ce4b408ae8bc5d15a5cd0/Competitive-Frontiers-Women-Managers-in-a-Global-Economy.pdf
2. Arenius P and Minniti M (2005), "Perceptual Variables and Nascent Entrepreneurship", Small Business Economics, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 233-247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11187-005-1984-x
3. Baron R A (2004), "The Cognitive Perspective: A Valuable Tool for Answering Entrepreneurship's Basic 'Why' Questions", Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 221-239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00008-9
4. Bilimoria D, Joy S and Liang X (2008), "Breaking Barriers and Creating Inclusiveness: Lessons of Organizational Transformation to Advance Women Faculty in Academic Science and Engineering", Human Resource Management, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 423-441. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20225
5. Blair-Loy M (2003), Competing Devotions: Career and Family Among Women Executives, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, available at https://books. google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=JkXlQBWTNygC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=Blair-Loy, +M.+(2003).Competing+Devotions:+Career+and+Family+Among+Women+ Executives.+&ots=PNn32GjtH_&sig=CpSUDsTQBtXUhgzdFLC8XZU6j3k
6. Bruni A, Gherardi S and Poggio B (2004), "Doing Gender, Doing Entrepreneurship: An Ethnographic Account of Intertwined Practices", Gender, Work and Organization, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 406-429, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2004.00240.x
7. Bruni A, Gherardi S and Poggio B (2005), Gender and Entrepreneurship: An Ethnographical Approach, Routledge, London.
8. Brush C, Edelman L F, Manolova T et al. (2018), "A Gendered Look at Entrepreneurship Ecosystems", Small Bus Econ, Vol. 53, pp. 393-408, available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-9992-9
9. Carter S, Anderson S and Shaw E (2001), "Women's Business Ownership: A Review of the Academic, Popular and Internet Literature", Report to the Small Business Service, Department of Business Innovation and Skills, HMSO, London, available at https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/16208/
10. Clare J and Holt R (2010), "The Nature Entrepreneur: A Narrative Approach to Entrepreneurial Goals", Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 69-83. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1056492609343030
11. Cukier W (2009), Attracting, Retaining and Promoting Women. Best Practices in the Canadian Tech Sector, Canadian Advanced Technology Alliance, Ottawa.
12. Elfring T and Hulsink W (2003), "Networks in Entrepreneurship: The Case of High-Technology Firms", Small Business Economics, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 409-22. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1026180418357
13. Fouad N A, Hackett G, Smith P L et al. (2010), "Barriers and Supports for Continuing in Mathematics and Science: Gender and Educational Level Differences", Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 77, No. 3, pp. 361-373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010. 06.004
14. Gatrell C (2011), "Policy and the Pregnant Body at Work: Strategies of Secrecy, Silence and Supra-Performance", Gender, Work and Organization, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 158-181. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2009.00485.x
15. Gilbert A F (2009), "Disciplinary Cultures in Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science: Gendered/Gendering Practices?", Equal Opportunities International, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 24-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02610150910933613
16. Griffith P J, MacBride-King and Townsend B (1998), "Closing the Gap: Women's Advancement in Corporate and Professional Canada", Conference Board of Canada, Ottawa. ISBN 0-88763-421-4.
17. Hays S (1995), The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
18. Hewlett S A, Luce C B, Servon L J et al. (2008b), "The Athena Factor: Reversing the Brain Drain in Science, Engineering, and Technology", Center for Work-Life Policy, New York. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lisa_Servon/publication/268325574_ By_RESEARCH_REPORT_The_Athena_Factor_Reversing_the_Brain_Drain_in_Scie nce_Engineering_and_Technology/links/556da5d808aeab7772244061.pdf?source= post_page--
19. Krueger N F (2000), "The Cognitive Infrastructure of Opportunity Emergence", Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 5-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/104225870002400301
20. Krueger N F (2003), "The Cognitive Psychology of Entrepreneurship", in Z J Acs and D B Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research: An Interdisciplinary Survey and Introduction, pp. 105-140, Kluwer, London. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(98)00033-0
21. Krueger N F, Reilly M D and Carsrud A L (2000), "Competing Models of Entrepreneurial Intentions", Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 15, Nos. 5-6, pp. 411-432. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883902698000330
22. Marlow S and McAdam M (2011), "Analyzing the Influence of Gender upon High- Technology Venturing within the Context of Business Incubation", Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 655-676. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00431.x
23. Masser B, Grass K and Nesic M (2007), "We Like You, But We Don't Want You' - The Impact of Pregnancy in the Workplace", Sex Roles, Vol. 57, Nos. 9/10, pp. 703-712. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9305-2
24. Mayer H (2006), "Economic Trends and Location Patterns of Women High-tech Entrepreneurs", in A Zacharakis (Ed.), Frontiers in Entrepreneurship, pp. 298-312, Babson College, Babson Park, MA. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Heike-Mayer/publication/228876131_Economic_trends_and_location_patterns_of_women_high-tech_entrepreneurs/links/53fc30bc0cf2364ccc046b48/Economic-trends-and-location-patterns-of-women-high-tech-entrepreneurs.pdf
25. McCrea B (2010), "Engaging Girls in STEM", available at http://thejournal.com/Articles/2010/09/08/Engaging-Girls-in-STEM.aspx?Page¼1&p¼1 (accessed November).
26. Mitchell R K, Busenitz L, Lant T, Mcdougall P P, Morse E A and Smith J B (2002), "Toward a Theory of Entrepreneurial Cognition: Rethinking the People Side of Entrepreneurship Research", Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 93-104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1540-8520.00001
27. Moran D (2000), Introduction to Phenomenology, Routledge, London. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203196632
28. Neumeyer Xaver, Santos Susana C, Caetano Antonio and Kalbfleisch Pamela (2019), "Entrepreneurship Ecosystems and Women Entrepreneurs: A Social Capital and Network Approach", Small Business Economics, Vol. 53, No. 2, pp. 475-489, Springer, August.
29. Orser B, Riding A and Stanley J (2012), "Perceived Career Challenges and Response Strategies of Women in the Advanced Technology Sector", Entrepreneurship and Regional Development: An International Journal, Vol. 24, Nos. 1-2, pp. 73-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2012.637355
30. Parasuraman S, Purohit Y S and Godshalk V M (1996), "Work and Family Variables, Entrepreneurial Career Success, and Psychological Well-being", Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 48, No. 3, pp. 275-300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1996.0025
31. Pollard R (2001), "The Role of Support on the Perception of Success for Women Entrepreneurs". [doctoral dissertation]. UMI Company: TX 5-938-538.
32. Ragins B R and Cotton J (1999), "Mentoring Functions and Outcomes: A Comparison of Men and Women in Formal and Informal Mentoring Relationships", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84, No. 4, pp. 529-550. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.4.529
33. Schaubroeck J and Lam S (2002), "How Similarity to Peers and Supervisors Influences Organizational Advancement in Different Cultures", Academic of Management Journal, Vol. 45, No. 6, pp. 1120-1136. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/3069428
34. Scouts G (2001), "The Girl Difference: Short-Circuiting the Myth of the Technophobic Girl", available at www.girlscouts.org/research/pdf/girl_difference.pdf (accessed December 2010)
35. Shaver K G and Scott L R (1991), "Person, Process, Choice: The Psychology of New Venture Creation", Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 23-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/104225879201600204
36. Simard C, Henderson H D, Gilmartin S K, Shiebinger L and Whitney T (2008), "Climbing the Technical Ladder: Obstacles and Solutions for Mid-level Women in Technology", Michelle R Clayman Institute for Gender Research (Stanford University) and Anita Borg Institute for Women and Technology, Stanford, CA.
37. Ticoll D (2008), "It Enrollments and Retention: Situation Report", Information and Communications Technology Council, Ottawa, ON.
38. Winn J (2004), "Entrepreneurship: Not an Easy Path to Top Management for Women", Women in Management Review, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 143-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09649420410529852