Lene Foss and Elisabet Ljunggren
Lene Foss and Colette Henry
This chapter critically explores how gender is conceptualized in extant innovation research scholarship. The authors analyse a selection of published research articles, categorizing them according to the various themes adopted: traditional innovation and definitional issues; management styles, performance and teams; organisational structures and networks; and gendered stereotypes, feminist resistance, and gendered processes of innovation. The chapter also considers how researchers define innovation, and how they illustrate the relationship between gender and innovation. Findings indicate that published scholarship in this field lacks a robust discussion of the relationship between gender and innovation, with few articles positioning themselves within specific gender perspectives. The field has become restricted to the extent that only male innovation norms are studied and highlighted. The authors conclude that innovation research is lagging behind in terms of its perspectives on how gender is ‘done’, compared to other fields such as entrepreneurship where feminist epistemology is more developed. Avenues worthy of future research are identified.
Tatiana Iakovleva, Elin Oftedal and Lene Foss
Lene Foss, Tatiana Iakovleva, Jill Kickul, Anne Solheim and Elin Oftedal
Colette Henry, Barbara Orser, Susan Coleman, Lene Foss and Friederike Welter
Public policy is a key element within the entrepreneurial ecosystem in that policy has the potential to shape venture creation behavior and entrepreneurial outcomes. In response to studies documenting a gender gap in entrepreneurial activity, government attention to women’s entrepreneurship has increased in the past two decades. Nevertheless, there are few cross-cultural studies to inform policy development. This 13-nation study draws on gender and institutional theory to report on the status of female-focused SME/entrepreneurship policies and to ask: How — and to what extent — do women’s entrepreneurship policies differ among countries? A common methodological approach is used to identify gaps in the policy-practice nexus, highlighting countries where policy is weak but practice is strong and vice versa. Recommendations for future research are advanced.