Negotiating stigmatised identities: Enterprising refugee women in the United Kingdom

Abstract

This article critically analyses the complexities of identity work among refugee women entrepreneurs in the United Kingdom. Once labelled as refugees, individuals are homogenised and disadvantaged by association with this stigmatised identity. We explore how women refugees undertake dynamic identity work to recreate themselves as entrepreneurs attempting to ameliorate such stigma. Using case study evidence, we find that claiming an entrepreneurial identity enables the refutation of the stigmatised refugee label and as such, it can be personally enhancing by improving well-being and socio-economic standing. The vestigial negative effects upon access to entrepreneurial resources arising from gendered constraints and a refugee background however, persist. Thus, these refugee entrepreneurs face a double-edged sword; while challenging stigmas through entrepreneurship is potentially liberating, having a refugee background acerbates the impact of enduring structural challenges upon women’s entrepreneurial activity. This has implications for venture potential and relatedly, to the sustainability of fragile entrepreneurial identities among a cohort of vulnerable women.

Keywords

gender identity work refugees stigma

Introduction

The recent refugee crisis of the early-21st century has seen the highest recorded level of forced displacement since 1945, largely from sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East (Betts et al., 2017). By 2020, the number of displaced persons seeking refuge from conflict and persecution on a global scale has reached approximately 79.5 m (United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), 2020); while most are displaced internally or to neighbouring countries, a minority have reached the global north (Desai et al., 2020). Regardless of their final destination, most displaced persons face a range of wicked problems including persecution, discrimination, poverty, limited access to housing, healthcare and employment (Alrawadieh et al., 2019; Fong et al., 2007; Kone et al., 2020). These are accentuated for those journeying to the global north who are also likely to face language barriers, unfamiliar institutional norms and protracted claims for asylum (Alrawadieh et al., 2019; de Lange et al., 2020). In contrast to other host nations in the Global North, the United Kingdom prohibits those seeking asylum from working during the period in which the application is being considered. For those for whom the outcome is not rejection and deportation, this process can comprise a series of rejections and re-applications over a period of several years until the right to remain is granted and they are recognised as refugees. During this time, they remain subject to the strictures of the asylum process. Refugee status is a temporary position, insomuch that it is capped at five years, at which point the refugee is eligible to apply for indefinite leave to remain. However, the challenges faced on arrival in the United Kingdom negatively impact upon the options available for refugees to overcome poverty and exclusion through economic participation. Even if granted leave to work, accessing employment in the face of such diverse barriers is challenging; added to which are problems of accrediting prior experience and formal qualifications. Consequently, many refugees may turn to entrepreneurship to circumvent employment-related barriers and discrimination (Desai et al., 2020; Kone et al., 2020).

While empirical research focused upon refugee entrepreneurship is scarce (Desai et al., 2020), a self-employment strategy is precarious given that the culmination of limited access to entrepreneurial capital, market constraints and weak legitimacy would generate poor returns with implications for longer term sustainability (Al-Dajani and Marlow, 2013; Al-Dajani et al., 2015). An overriding attraction of entrepreneurship, however fragile, may be the ability for refugees, drawing upon their skills and experience, to utilise personal agency to generate income; thus, facilitating an enhanced status while simultaneously refuting the refugee label and associated negative connotations (Kone et al., 2020). Within this article, we contribute to such arguments by exploring how entrepreneurial activity can act as a conduit for positive identity work. This enables individuals subject to a highly stigmatised identity, that of refugee, to refute this ascription by reconfiguring themselves as entrepreneurial actors and, in so doing, to distance the self from this damaging label that taints all other life experiences. In addition, we add a gender dimension by focusing upon women who carry the dual burden of subordination and privation that arises from the stigmatised intersection of being refugees and women.

Evidence is unequivocal that in conflict situations women are highly likely to have been subject to specific forms of gender-based violence and, as refugees, bear the brunt of caring responsibilities while coping with poverty in contexts where male family members struggle to gain employment due to the stigma of the refugee label (Office of the High Commissioner United Nations for Human Rights (OHCHR), 2020). These experiences provide a specific context which distinguishes refugee women from the wider immigrant population that will, in turn, ‘alter the nexus of identities available to the self’ (Prasad and Prasad, 2002: 59). We seek to delve into the notion of how those homogenised and stigmatised by their gender and social status use entrepreneurship for income generation but also, to reconfigure their identities. Consequently, our underpinning research objective is to ‘critically analyse the identity work undertaken by women refugees in the UK to refute their stigmatised refugee identity using entrepreneurial activity’. Using an intersectional positional lens, we analyse how refugee women use self-employment to inform dynamic identity work to reconfigure present and future identities and so, challenge their status which strips them of their individual biographies, reducing them to a stigmatised generic identity. We adopt an interpretist ontology to explore how our case study participants make sense of their experiences as refugees in the United Kingdom and the identity work they employ as they reposition the self through entrepreneurial activity. Our findings illustrate how entrepreneurial activity is critical for our participants in refuting the stigmatised identity of the refugee. Yet, while they may claim entrepreneurial identities, the negative connotations of their refugee backgrounds persist in constraining the accrual of capital and access to markets; these aspects are, in turn, exacerbated by the specific gendered constraints encountered by such women.

To explore these issues, the article is structured as follows: first, we review the extant theories which inform our theoretical lens, developing a framework that combines intersectionality and related transnational positionality, and identity work. Together, they capture the power dynamics of the agency-structure debate that is evident within entrepreneurship. Second, we explore the following streams of literature as helpful in understanding the identity work undertaken by refugee women entrepreneurs: structure and agency, entrepreneurial legitimation, refugee entrepreneurship and women’s entrepreneurship. Having outlined our methodology and presented our findings, we discuss the implications for policymakers and business support providers based on the theoretical insights gained into identity construction among refugee women entrepreneurs as well as opportunities for further research.

Identity work: rejecting stigma, embracing entrepreneurship

Central to the notion of identity work is narrative; individuals maintain their self-identity or personal narrative by relating to the social identities within ‘public narratives’ (Somers, 1994: 619) that are encountered at home, in work and throughout society (Watson, 2009). Importantly, identity work is relational and dialogic as individuals shape their identities in contestation with actual people or ‘in our minds with the arguments of human others’ (Watson, 2001: 23). Not only do reflexive individuals undertake identity work to enhance their comfort with certain identities (Lewis, 2015), but also to legitimise their identities which ‘requires contextualised recognition and approval for the self as a credible subject within a particular setting or across a cultural and symbolic milieu’ (Marlow and McAdam, 2015: 794). Understandings of identity vary greatly depending on one’s ontological and epistemological position (Brown, 2017). Social psychologists have traditionally viewed an individual’s self-concept as ‘relatively stable, coherent and unproblematic’ (Ashforth and Schinoff, 2016: 112). However, scholars with a critical and post-structuralist orientation argue that there is no single unified self and identities only appear to be stable and coherent as a result of power operations (Ramarajan, 2014). In keeping with the latter view, this study recognises that identities are in continuous flux and are ‘the ongoing achievements of human interactions’ (Watson, 2001: 223, original emphasis). This view of identity as the temporal result of a dynamic process (Schultz and Hernes, 2013), which is informed by memories of the past and affected by present and future identity claims (Gioia et al., 2000; Hatch and Schultz, 2002), is widespread in the individual and organisational literatures.

Adopting a dynamic perspective on identity and identity work raises the issue of whether identities are chosen by or ascribed to individuals (Brown, 2017; DeRue and Ashford, 2010). We acknowledge that individuals have a certain degree of agency in terms of how they identify, while also recognising that ‘identities exist and are acquired, claimed and allocated within power relations’ (Jenkins, 2008: 45). Individuals have a self-identity, defined as the ‘the individual’s own notion of who and what they are’, which is shaped and influenced by their array of social-identities, defined as the ‘cultural, discursive or institutional notions of who or what any individual might be’ (Watson, 2008: 131). Accordingly, identity work is a dynamic interplay between ‘internal self-reflection and external engagement—through talk and action—’ (Watson, 2008: 130) with other individuals and with the cultural and institutional forces that prescribe certain subjectivities (Foucault, 1980).

There is a well-established literature exploring notions of an entrepreneurial identity and related identity work undertaken to legitimise the self in this context (Marlow and McAdam, 2015; Powell and Baker, 2014; Watson, 2009). An entrepreneurial identity can satisfy the individual psychological need to be distinct, facilitate autonomy and enhance their self-esteem (Shepherd and Patzelt, 2018); however, their entrepreneurial activities and behaviours must align sufficiently with societal and sector norms and stakeholder expectations to ensure they possess entrepreneurial legitimacy (Marlow and McAdam, 2015; Swail and Marlow, 2018) which in turn reinforces the entrepreneurial identity. Given that the relationship between entrepreneurial activity and entrepreneurial identity is found to be mutually reinforcing, the enactment of an entrepreneurial identity and how that process develops, becomes of greater relevance (Down and Giazitzoglu, 2014). Yet, this debate largely ignores the context in which such identity work occurs. In the global north, suffused with a neoliberal ideology, entrepreneurship is promoted as individuals are encouraged to be their entrepreneurial selves (Bröckling, 2005; du Gay, 1991) and entrepreneurs are afforded status and esteem (Treanor et al., 2020). However, the focus remains upon the destination identity: that of the entrepreneur, with little consideration of how existing ascribed identities shape the motivation for, and experiences of, identity work.

There is also a bias within the identity literature towards research that focuses on positive identities and yet, it is evident that there exist identities which are deemed non-normative, negative or stigmatised (Brown, 2015; Stets and Burke, 2014). A stigma is recognised as a severely discrediting attribute that positions an individual in a place of ‘differentness’ and renders them ‘not quite human’ (Goffman, 1963: 4 and 5). Physical, social or personal marginalising differences such as disability, addiction, unemployment, race and religion are the basis of stigma which can be individualised or held against groups. However, it is understood that stigmas exist and develop in relation to specific contexts and as a result of stereotypes, processes of labelling and discrimination (Link and Phelan, 2001; Zetter, 1991, 2007). Within the arena of unequal power dynamics where individuals negotiate their identities, personal social interactions, institutional procedures, cultural norms, industry practices and government policies are influences which determine identities to be inferior and marginalised (Toyoki and Brown, 2014; van Amsterdam and van Eck, 2019). In turn, those who hold stigmatised identities, actively work to challenge or fix the negative effects of the stigmas imposed on them and in so doing manage their self-identities. Thus, a response to stigmatisation or stigma management is incorporated into the reparatory strategies used within identity work (Lutgen-Sandvik, 2008; Toyoki and Brown, 2014). For those allocated a stigmatised identity, such as refugees who face ensuing barriers to employment, the attraction of entrepreneurship as a means of income generation, autonomy and enhanced social and self-esteem is easily comprehended.

Refugee entrepreneurship

Public discourse promotes entrepreneurship as capable of empowering, emancipating and integrating marginalised groups (Bearne, 2017; Kloosterman et al., 1999; Rindova et al., 2009). Faced with challenges of integrating into an unfamiliar environment, marginalisation, difficulties in finding employment and poverty, many refugees are drawn towards self-employment. However, analyses of refugee entrepreneurs have mostly been subsumed within the more established body of literature on immigrant or ethnic minority entrepreneurship (Desai et al., 2020). This extant literature has developed in complexity and sophistication since the 1980s moving from a generic focus upon ‘immigrants’ or ‘ethnic minorities’ to far more nuanced analyses recognising heterogeneity, super diversity and contextual influences (Ram et al., 2017; Vertovec, 2019). Subsequent calls for a similar approach to refugee entrepreneurship are not unsurprising (Essers et al., 2017: 10–11; Wauters and Lambrecht, 2008).

Within this emergent body of refugee entrepreneurship literature (Bizri, 2017; Wauters and Lambrecht, 2008), there is increasing acknowledgement of heterogeneity and the influence of context, with research exploring: entrepreneurship in refugee camps (Jacobsen, 2006), the influence of gender upon displaced women entrepreneurs (Al-Dajani and Marlow, 2013; Al-Dajani et al., 2015; Refai et al., 2018), entrepreneurial intention among refugees (Lazarczyk-Bilal and Glinka, 2021; Mawson and Kasem, 2019) and refugee business support programmes in developed economies (Meister and Mauer, 2019; van Kooy, 2016). Research conducted into the refugee experience of entrepreneurship in European host countries found that refugee entrepreneurs face greater barriers to their endeavours than economic migrants; being less likely to access extensive social networks in the host country or return to their home country to access funds, capital or labour for their ventures and having left with little or no preparation, refugees often arrive with no valuables or certificates of credentials (Fong et al., 2007; Gold, 1988; Wauters and Lambrecht, 2008). Thus, this emerging strand of research within the broader discipline of ethnic minority or immigrant entrepreneurship acknowledges how the experiences of conflict, displacement and refugee ascription generate a specific context for exploring entrepreneurial behaviour that is further influenced by issues such as place, gender and social positioning.

We contribute to this debate with a focus upon how gender intersects with refugee status to position women’s entrepreneurial activities. The contemporary body of evidence analysing gender and entrepreneurship now acknowledges the impact of context and the need to challenge assumptions that mature western economies form the normative institutionalised backdrop for such activities (Imas et al., 2012; Welter, 2011). Thus, there is a greater focus upon women’s entrepreneurship on a global basis – for example, work focused on Africa (Spring, 2009; Welsh et al., 2013), the Middle East (Bastian et al., 2018; Dechant and Lamky, 2005; McElwee et al., 2003) and Pakistan (Roomi and Parrott, 2008) as examples. A focus on refugee women in the United Kingdom adopts a novel stance by analysing how gender intersects with context and status to shape entrepreneurial experiences and related identities. While gender and ethnicity are fundamental universal identity markers (Butler, 2004), it is now acknowledged that each is enacted through an intersectional matrix of other social categories (Essers and Benschop, 2009). Using an intersectional positional lens provides the opportunity to analyse how refugee status, and associated fracturing of identity, influence women’s experiences of entrepreneurship. This draws upon past, present and future identities, spaces and experiences while recognising the social, cultural and historical contexts associated with identity and its construction (Down and Giazitzoglu, 2014). This offers the possibility of assessing women refugee entrepreneurs as something other than passive victims of subordination and disadvantage but as those able to use agency to refute stigmatised identities.

Refugee identities reflected in the media and constructed by other entities within the United Kingdom refugee system depict among varying images, a ‘helpless, defenceless, individual’ and ‘incompetent’ standing potentially in contrast to the economic migrant (Phillips and Hardy, 1997: 176–177). This discourse surrounding the construction of various refugee identities assigned to refugees is an example of a social construct with which they must contend and use to redefine their own sense of identity (Phillips and Hardy, 1997). The implications of such labels on the individual’s ability to engage in entrepreneurial activities and their identity work, is unknown. We argue that this distinction which can be seen in the experience of displaced migrants crossing borders in search of safety and arriving in host countries where they may be subject to a negative societal reception, is reinforced in the process of identity construction as refugees develop and renegotiate their identities.

Intersectionality, translocational positionality and identity work

Intersectionality acknowledges the co-existence of multiple social categories of exclusion and systems of oppression (Essers and Benschop, 2007; Lassalle and Shaw, 2021). It captures difference and highlights the ‘multidimensionality of marginalized subjects’ (Crenshaw, 1989: 139) lived experiences. In its original form, rooted in Black feminism (Crenshaw, 1991, hooks, 1981), it was concerned with the intersection of non-dominant race or ethnicity and gender categories. However, intersectionality has subsequently been used to explore the interlocking, rather than additive, relationship between multiple exclusionary social categories, such as those experienced by refugee women, who are positioned in the intersect between gender, ethnicity and complex status ascriptions. It is argued that the complexity of intersectionality as a construct presents both ontological and epistemological challenges in its application when conducting intersectional research, which ultimately limits its explanatory power (Geerts and Van der Tuin, 2013; Nash, 2008).

Research approaches that are individual-focused, emphasising the marginalised position of, and which give voice to, those from marginalised groups are critiqued for their exclusivity and limited ability to offer ‘generalizable explanations of patterns or behaviours to alternative intersectional positions’ (Atewologun et al., 2016: 225). However, we would echo Atewologun et al. (2016) in arguing that when combined with identity work, intersectionality offers scope to analyse in greater depth the multiplicity and dynamism of interactions with social structures, thus, offering a better understanding of how individuals respond and relate to external structures of power. Applied within the context of entrepreneurial identities, intersectionality advances our understanding of how multiple identities are constructed within different settings of power dynamics and behaviours, particularly given the agentic nature of entrepreneurship. Thus, an entrepreneurial identity itself might be perceived as an advantage that can be used to positively challenge another disadvantaged category. Exploring how oppression and privilege intersect and operate simultaneously can therefore, promote a more robust conceptualisation of identity and challenge criticisms related to the limitations of intersectionality as a theory (Nash, 2008).

A logical extension of the intersectionality framework has been captured by Anthias (2008, 2013) in the notion of translocational positionality. This construct explores the social spaces that reflect a broad landscape of social categories such as gender, race, class and their consequences, recognising that they are ‘context, meaning and time-related’ (Anthias, 2008: 5). Such spaces are then mapped onto the social positions (outcomes) and positioning (processes comprising of practices, actions and meaning) emerging as agency intersects with structure (Anthias, 2013: 15). This approach affords an additional temporal and contextual lens which permits a conceptualisation of social categories as spaces which are shifting, rather than fixed, and that intersect (Villares-Varela and Essers, 2019). Positionality thereby addresses the operational limitations of intersectionality, facilitating a dynamic analysis of how agents negotiate constraining structures. Through this framework, the experience of refugee women can be conceptualised in terms of their positionality in various spaces; their social position (structure) and their social positioning (agency). Although the issue of class is not typically explored in relation to entrepreneurship, in this context, it is appreciable that a refugee woman may have enjoyed a privileged class position in her home country, based on education, wealth and social status (Savage et al., 2013); yet, her social position will shift downwards as social class intersects with an assigned refugee status and racial identity upon her arrival in the host country. The outcome of this changed social position may be disadvantage and exclusion with the woman now experiencing restrictions to social, economic and cultural resources that, within her prior home context, she may have readily been able to access. For the purposes of this article, we focus this analysis upon the process of identity work undertaken by refugee women entrepreneurs.

Methodology

This article seeks to ‘critically analyse the identity work undertaken by women refugees in the UK to refute their stigmatised refugee identity using entrepreneurial activity’. This necessitates delving into how women designated as refugees use particular forms of identity work to refute this stigma and claim an entrepreneurial identity, as such, an interpretist stance is axiomatic. We adopt a social constructionist perspective, seeking insight and understanding of the identity work and sense-making processes undertaken by participants over time. As such, we recognise the entrepreneur ‘as an active agent who shapes or constructs his or her own reality, and as such is simultaneously the driver of the entrepreneurial process operating within a reality which sets limits on choice of action possibilities’ (Chell, 2000: 66). We also recognise that entrepreneuring and identity work are processes. To understand the contextual influences and the individual’s process of identity construction or reconstruction, and the identity work necessitated therein, we adopted a case study approach.

Case studies facilitate detailed analysis of individuals within their contemporary context (Yin, 2014) and align with a social constructionist position (Chell, 2000). We undertook purposive sampling (Guest et al., 2006) and this article reports our findings from five detailed case studies undertaken with women, who had come to the United Kingdom from Zimbabwe, Cameroon, Iran and Syria, and engaged in entrepreneurial activity (see Table 1 for participant profiles). Refugee women entrepreneurs are a hard-to-reach population; consequently, it was necessary to liaise with refugee associations and refugee entrepreneur networks to recruit participants. Furthermore, in recognition that refugee women are a group that includes vulnerable individuals, we sought to build rapport and trust with participants (Ellard-Gray et al., 2015). The case studies comprised three personal interviews undertaken over a period of 12 months which were complemented by visits to, and observations undertaken at, their place of business. Initial interviews were unstructured to facilitate rapport building; subsequent interviews were semi-structured, exploring four broad areas: a personal history and profile, the story of the business, the business and other areas of their lives and how they see themselves in relation to their business. All interviews were conducted in English reflecting the sampling criterion for participants to have a basic proficiency in English. In addition to the interviews, participants were asked to draw a visual stress timeline which was then used to cross-reference stigmatisation and experiences of adversity (Mazzetti and Blenkinsopp, 2012).

Table 1.

Participant profile.

	Year of migration to the United Kingdom	Country of origin	Age	Life situation	Business type	Number of years in the United Kingdom prior to start of business	Business age (years)
Aliya	2012	Syria	31–40	Married with three younger children	Food manufacture	2	4–6
Zendaya	2002	Zimbabwe	51–60	Married. Accompanied by young adult son, other adult children remain in Zimbabwe	Membership organisation *(SE)	8	10+
Zendaya	2002	Zimbabwe	51–60		Fashion design	9	7–9
Azadeh	2013	Iran	41–50	Single/none	Upcycling art/craft for wellbeing of disadvantaged women *(SE)	6	0–1
Anashe	2001	Zimbabwe	31–40	Married/one young child	**Youth charity	5	10+
					Consultancy	17	2/3
					Handbag design	16	2–3
Floriane	2002	Cameroon	41–50	Married/five older to younger	Restaurant/bar	12	4–6

SE: social enterprise.

Outside the scope of study.

Reflexive, intersectional researchers emphasise the importance of being sensitive to the position of researchers during the research process (Martinez Dy et al., 2014; Sultana, 2007). In this study, rapport-building was enabled in the first instance as the first author who conducted interviews was able to establish shared experiences based on gender, motherhood and ethnic minority status. Positions of power and authority were, therefore, negotiated more equitably as she could be both an ally as well as a researcher. As an academic with business experience, she was able to demonstrate understanding of the business issues while offering support and reassurance when needed, particularly during the time of the COVID-19 pandemic. Consequently, this allowed the women to speak more openly about some of the challenges faced. Each encounter with the participants allowed a deeper appreciation of the meanings of constructs such as resilience and stigma as they were made tangible in the context of their lives. There were opportunities to reflect on differences in experiences despite similarities in profile and these were at times highlighted by the respondents themselves, reinforcing the interactive and dynamic nature of the process. The researcher was, therefore, also able to simultaneously engage in, and reflect upon, her own identity work based on interactions with the women.

To analyse the data within and across the case studies, we employed thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006, 2017); level one coding occurred within cases with level two coding relating to key themes appropriate across cases (see Appendix 1 for an illustration of the emergent data structure). The key themes identified, under which we will present our findings in the subsequent section, reflect the process undertaken by the women from their designation as refugees upon arrival in the United Kingdom, through to their reflections upon their entrepreneurial identities. The themes are being a refugee woman and bearing the stigma, becoming an entrepreneur – an identity work project, and finally, being an entrepreneur – the persistent challenges.

Findings

In this section, we draw upon brief excerpts from interviews with the women that are related to the themes outlined (see Appendix 2 for additional supporting quotations). This enables us to demonstrate how refugee women entrepreneurs in the United Kingdom engage in identity work and in so doing, challenge the stigma and discrimination associated with their various identities.

Being a refugee woman and bearing stigma

The experience of being labelled a refugee is a dominant feature of the identity project for the women on arrival in the United Kingdom. The stigmatisation and negativity emerging from societal views of refugees as well as the legal implications surrounding the asylum-seeking process, provide the backdrop against which the women begin a process of reassessing and legitimising who they are and who they can become in the host country (Link and Phelan, 2001; Marlow and McAdam, 2015; Toyoki and Brown, 2014). The verbal abuse and mistrust they encountered on arrival were underpinned by assumptions that refugees are in the country illegally and are a burden to the society. Zendaya explains,

We were labelled people with complex needs. You know they saw us as strangers, we were thieves, people coming to reside on benefits . . . Because nobody bothers to listen to where you are coming from. They see you here as a poor refugee . . . looking for mercy . . . looking to be helped. We are always seen from a begging perspective, not as people who can do things better than they can do, we are looked at as, ‘Poor them or, they have killed their people, their people have died’, things like that. So, it’s what puts us at risk in terms of growing the business and getting to do what you intended to do.

Here, Zendaya is acutely aware of the causes of what she refers to as ‘negative socialization – negative people talking to me in a negative way’. She anticipates having to face continued consequences of this stigmatised refugee identity as she develops her business. Whether stigmatised as ‘criminals’ or beggars, the implications are that she is made to feel without worth. Indeed, three of the women were detained in immigration detention centres and spoke of these experiences and similar encounters with the police as direct attacks on their freedom, integrity and humanity.

In addition to a stigmatised refugee identity, the women also faced gender bias:

We went to a farm shop and when we got in, it was an old man sitting down and he looked at us in a really strange way and he said ‘aah you immigrants coming here to get money . . .’ I said, ‘no, no I am not coming here to get money, I am coming here just to introduce our product if you want to buy it’. Then he said, ‘you are a woman, you should be just in the mills baking and doing pies’.

This example highlights the additional barriers and stigmatisation faced by women refugees since the reality of a gendered bias is not always experienced in isolation but is often entwined with a racialised stigma and a general sense of being ‘othered’. The assumption of the farmer was that as a woman, Aliya ought to be restricted to a domestic environment, baking rather than engaging in industrial food production. The patriarchal logics from both home and host countries provide a discriminatory framework which the women must navigate. So, for example, Zendaya spoke about the disadvantage that women like her faced due to their status in Zimbabwe and the cultural implications for African women once they were in the United Kingdom:

(In Zimbabwe) we never had an ID; my mother never had an ID until 1980. She never had an ID because as women we were not seen as people who can stand in court, we were nothing. You know, so I was so shocked . . . that when you go to court in the UK you should keep eye contact. You look in someone’s eyes and that demonstrated that you are telling the truth. But where I come from, you cannot look in an older man’s eyes, it is showing disrespect. So, the cultures differ.

This difference in terms of how women behave in formal settings where men hold the power, is pertinent not only during the asylum-seeking process where they might be in a court room or police interview room, but also as women engage in entrepreneurial activities such as pitching an idea to a panel or requesting funding.

Becoming an entrepreneur: An identity work project

Pursuing an entrepreneurial identity: Resisting a stigmatised identity

Problems accessing the labour market served as a key motivator for all the women to pursue entrepreneurship (Carter et al., 2015; Kone et al., 2020). Creating work for oneself represented survival, both financially and in terms of well-being. For example, Aliya, whose husband’s asylum application took longer than her own, felt that there was no alternative other than to start her own business if she was to support her family:

So, university I cannot do, college I cannot do . . . I need to pay for that, and I don’t have the money. That made me think I need to do something for myself after a year searching for a job. I cannot do volunteer work as I’ve got kids to look after, I have a family . . . My qualifications have not been recognised. I applied for loads of jobs, but nobody accepted me. Then I started to think that I need to do something.

Aliya exercises her entrepreneurial agency when constrained by the system, her assigned refugee label and faced with the responsibility of providing for a family. For Anashe, Azadeh and Zendaya, volunteering commenced this transition towards engaging in entrepreneurial action. Their voluntary work while awaiting the outcome of their asylum application challenged the notion of dependency and resisted the saliency of the refugee label, while laying the foundations for their future enterprise. For example, Anashe says,

I decided to not put immigration status as a measurement to success, but rather to do voluntary work and set up an organisation, running it as a volunteer and developing skills or developing my brand; in this way I could start something.

Not only did this strategy serve as a stepping-stone in terms of capacity building for her to establish her businesses, but it also allowed her to contribute to her local communities. For Azadeh, this became the source of opportunity for her business which provides craft therapy for disadvantaged women, many of whom come from a refugee background. Zendaya, through her business ventures which started as voluntary community programmes, has been able to employ other refugee women and support others into self-employment. In so doing, she has contributed to the local economy and enabled others to do the same.

Identifying an entrepreneurial identity: repositioning a stigmatised identity

All the women self-identified with a higher social class in their country of origin than that ascribed to them as refugees in the United Kingdom. Consequently, they drew on their past education and business experience to develop businesses in areas in which they felt competent and, during this process, constructed an entrepreneurial identity (Fauchart and Gruber, 2011). In the case of Aliya, her degrees provided the knowledge with which to understand the requirements of the food production industry and issues of health and safety. Although, she had only previously assisted her husband with his business, this exposure fostered confidence that she was able to run her own business:

People think refugees come here and they are just like having miserable life. And they want to take them out of this miserable life. But people are coming here with lots of rich civilization, history, experience and skills . . . So, (in my business) this is where my studies and background in the laboratory and then pharmacology helped me to understand the bacteria, handling food, what can make food not good for consumption. So, for me, it . . . was like not making a recipe, it was science, understanding more about protein and all that stuff.

Aliya has drawn on the privileged aspects of the scientist identity, she held prior to becoming a refugee in the United Kingdom as she created her venture. In so doing, she challenged stigmatising assumptions which prioritised a homogeneous refugee identity negating her history, background and heritage. Her entrepreneurial venturing enabled her to resurface such aspects of the self and so, enabling her to constitute a complex and nuanced identity distanced from the pejorative refugee label. In our study, four of the five women drew upon their background and ethnic identity as a source of opportunity for at least one of their businesses. In Aliya’s case, the lack of all-year availability of a traditional Middle Eastern food product prompted her to target this as a product gap that needed to be filled. She positioned it as a Middle Eastern food product made with authentic British ingredients, making it complementary to the British palette. Thus, she reclaimed positive aspects of her ethnic heritage as a strength. Similarly, Zendaya used African textiles and paired them with western-influenced fashion designs. She has also re-positioned the bright and bold African prints as ‘therapeutic materials’ for interior designs in hospitals and other healthcare environments.

Validating an entrepreneurial identity: rejecting a stigmatised identity

Consistent with the notion that the entrepreneurial identity exists in relation to that of others (Leitch and Harrison, 2016) and is enacted by individuals in dialogue with others (Lewis, 2015), some of the women purposefully self-presented as businesswomen before they had established their businesses. To illustrate this, we turn to excerpts from Zendaya and Aliya. First, Zendaya explains that she was engaging in advocacy work while awaiting her asylum application to be granted:

I was becoming a businessperson from portraying myself as an African woman who is directing the integration of African people . . . so with that I would make myself as a businessperson. I was an asylum seeker, but no-one would have listened to me without the badge of Director. I was the Director of the women’s forum, so yes, they would want to talk to businesspeople.

Self-presentation was a form of securing validation for the entrepreneurial identity which she was constructing. At times, this involved hiding her immigration status in order that she might enact a more legitimate identity. This was then reinforced by others, for example Zendaya was asked to chair meetings with the local authority and other community groups and was called upon to be a speaker at events as an expert on women refugee issues.

In a similar way, gaining industry awards and exhibiting at shows demonstrated the credibility of an enterprise. For example, Aliya stated that she was searching for a way ‘to certify what I am doing’ as she realised that at trade shows, other exhibitors often enquired about the provenance of her business. Within the first year of trading, she entered an international award for her produce and won a bronze award. This affirmation was essential both in terms of validating her produce and in legitimising her as an entrepreneur. Consequently, she gained media attention as well as recognition from a celebrity chef and politicians who saw her success story as a refugee entrepreneur. Under such circumstances, Aliya’s standing was enhanced given her achievements in overcoming the disadvantages and stigmatisation of her refugee status in becoming a successful entrepreneur. She felt respected by her local community and by people in Syria who had heard of her success. Aliya refuted the refugee identity to impose her own sense of self and identity upon her achievement; discussing the book she was writing about her experiences, she commented,

I don’t want to have it as a refugee story. It’s a story of resilience and that you can make things happen . . . I don’t want people to look at it and cry and feel like oh, sorry poor person, No, I am a more of a positive person than negative.

Here, we can see how Aliya does not want to be distinguished by what she perceives to be a ‘pitiful refugee’ status despite her success. Rather, she wanted to focus on other aspects of her identity that would be reflected in the book such as her ability to create a successful venture and her expertise as a food producer which combined to support and justify her entrepreneurial identity.

Consolidating the entrepreneurial identity: circumventing a stigmatised identity

As the women engage in entrepreneurial activity, they frequently reported attempting to avoid the discrimination that accompanies being a refugee, compounded by racism. Zendaya, for example, explained her approach in relation to expanding her target market to include more of the White host community:

sometimes I think that maybe if I put a white face when I want white businesses, this would help me to deal with white people. I have been thinking about it. I searched an agency, they supply to hospitals and home care, and they understand that maybe I need a white face. So, in the next few months, I will be using a white face so that I can penetrate the market.

This ‘whitewashing’ is intrinsically offensive as it is assumed that trust is associated with race; those who do not have the privilege of Whiteness have to manufacture it by using contrived images and names (Martinez Dy et al., 2018). Although Zendaya considered this a necessary strategy to expand the business it represents a fundamental assault upon her subject being when having to denigrate and deny her identity as a Black woman who is also a refugee. Thus, she has to work through multiple stigmas in order to position herself, and her business as legitimate.

Being an entrepreneur: persistent challenges

While entrepreneurship may offer a pathway to escape a stigmatising identity, the trappings of this stigma in terms of accessing resources, achieving legitimacy and the general challenges of business management remained and indeed, were exacerbated by refugee status. We draw out some of these key challenges.

Financial challenges

The most prominent challenge facing all the women was the lack of access to finance. Although this is universally recognised as a barrier facing most entrepreneurs particularly, women and other marginalised entrepreneurs (Carter et al., 2015; Ram et al., 2017; Leitch et al., 2018), these women’s experiences were exacerbated by their refugee status. The continued uncertainty associated with being permitted to stay in the United Kingdom for an initial five years once refugee status is granted, means that during this period it is not feasible to approach banks for start-up or growth funding. Aliya spoke of the inaccessibility of bank funding:

I could not go to the bank because I don’t have permanent residency and the business is not built up, so the bank will not give me a loan . . . this even made us stop production for a couple of months and the business could easily be ruined . . . because I have no other options. None of the banks will lend me money . . . even getting a mortgage for your premises is challenging because you only have five years.

Here, we see the precarious position in which Aliya found herself due to having limited access to finance. Although crowdfunding was suggested as an alternative solution, she was reluctant to engage with this source of funding as she felt it placed her in a position of begging, thus, reinforcing a negative refugee stereotype.

Navigating conflict with a gendered maternal identity

A key challenge for the respondents related managing the tensions that emerged between the gendered maternal identity and that of the entrepreneur (Brush et al., 2009) within the gendered framework of expectations of home and host country cultures. Anashe spoke of having to fit her business commitments around her family as she retained most of the caring and domestic responsibilities:

It is very hard managing, because obviously, everything I do I have to work around my son or my family. My husband’s work is demanding. And he as a man, a Zimbabwean man, naturally or unfortunately, I don’t know, I have to work around them more than they work around me. That’s the challenge I have. I am the one shifting around everybody in the house . . . So, here is what I do; I fit in meetings with the understanding that it has to be around all of them.

In the early years, Aliya highlights that starting her business was as demanding as caring for a baby; such demands have increased to the extent that she is considering curtailing her entrepreneurial activity to spend more time with her young children and handing control of the business over to her husband. While work life balance is a common challenge facing women in business (Jayawarna et al., 2020), the cultural expectations upon many African and Middle Eastern women is that their maternal role will be dominant and assume primacy (Al-Dajani and Marlow, 2010; Spring, 2009). Given the success of her business, Aliya was considering stepping back to enable her husband to run it so she could spend more time with her children reflecting traditional gender roles.

Continued lack of access to information and networks

Another source of structural constraint experienced by the women was a lack of access to information. The social positioning of the women puts them at further disadvantage in terms of the paucity and weakness of their networks (Pichler and Wallace, 2009). Despite their enhanced status by creating new ventures, the women remained primarily embedded within refugee groups limiting networks to those who were in similar situations. Reflecting on the impact of this, Zendaya stated, ‘maybe if I had partnered with someone who had papers and worked behind that person, then, maybe I could have thrived quicker’. This would have provided her with greater access to information and understanding of processes through a more established partner. In describing the greatest challenge faced as a businesswoman, Anashe refers to

accessing the right information and also the proper networks and relationships that will help me build my business . . . I spent years trying to connect with the right people so that I can be in a better position.

These findings highlight the gap caused by an inability to access relevant business networks that will strengthen the entrepreneurial identity and in so doing, lessen the stigmatising effects of a refugee identity.

Limited economic benefit

Finally, our findings show that despite escaping economic poverty, many of the women still had not achieved the socio-economic standing they had held in their home countries as their businesses were generating limited profits. Aliya explains,

We are still not making massive or noticeable profits. I don’t have extra each month. Each month I stretch to not spend everything, but I can say that the kids are doing gymnastics and this year we managed to go for one vacation. Actually, I want to have bigger house. We’re living now in two bedrooms, so I want the kids to have their own rooms . . . to live the good life we had there (in Syria).

Although having her business has contributed financially to the household and permitted some additional activities for the children, Aliya continues to experience fluctuating profits and is particularly vulnerable to the negative effects of economic crises. Particularly during the COVID-19 crisis, it is evident that she experienced a heightened sense of responsibility towards her employees not only in terms of their livelihood but also in respect of their well-being:

Most of the employees were scared by the full lockdown and I thought why do I need to risk them? If they don’t want to come to work, then I don’t want to force them . . . I told them I don’t want you to go by public transportation. I don’t want them to get any virus (coming) to work. Then they stayed at home for a couple of weeks and gradually they started to come back to work and we offered to transport them between work and home, so they feel secure.

Having been able to access government support and focus on online sales, Aliya states that her business is ‘surviving, but it is not growth’. Evidently, this will have implications for both her employees and the aspirations she has for her family. However, the ongoing challenges of running business and a sense of responsibility for staff add to Aliya’s burden rather than entrepreneurship providing a route to security, empowerment or liberation.

Discussion

This article sought to critically analyse the identity work undertaken by women refugees in the United Kingdom to refute their stigmatised refugee identity using entrepreneurial activity. Adopting an intersectional approach to analysis, informed by translocational positionality, we were able to appreciate the stigmatising effects of their multiple categories of social belonging upon their experiences, as gender compounded the stigma attached to their refugee status, ethnicity and nationality. Thematic analysis of interview data assisted in illustrating the stigmatising effect of the ascribed refugee label, the discrimination and ‘othering’ experienced as a consequence and the effects of this upon their entrepreneurial decision and subsequent identity work undertaken when becoming and being a refugee woman entrepreneur in the United Kingdom.

We offer a theoretical contribution through advancing understanding of the effects of a stigmatised identity and how identity work offers a means to actively seek agency within the constraints of social structures and discourse which suggest marginalisation and difference (Tomlinson, 2010); thus, permitting the individual to ‘become’ rather than accept a single, given, fixed identity. Our findings highlight the dual process of identity work undertaken by this group of women as they simultaneously incorporate a recognised entrepreneurial identity and refute the stigma of being refugee women. The women are intentional about how they present themselves in response to how they are perceived, emphasising the tense balancing act they must perform as they selectively draw upon various strategies used to navigate the construction of their identities in the host country. Enacting an entrepreneurial identity serves to resist and reject the stigmatised refugee identity as is demonstrated by Zendaya. Yet, there is a perpetual struggle evident as she resorts to whitewashing her business in order to increase her chances of accessing White, host country customers. While being intentional in her quest to legitimise and expand her business, she must hide her identity as the owner and face of the business to circumvent the racism that may limit her access to a wider market. The complexity of this identity work undertaken by the women was further demonstrated by Aliya who, having attained success as a refugee entrepreneur whereby the refugee label has been repositioned, now feels that the entrepreneurial identity is too much in conflict with her gendered identity as a mother. This highlights the intersectional challenges that the women encounter as they undertake identity work.

Building on intersectionality and using a translocational positionality approach, we illustrate that, for all these women, their previous social positionings served as incentives to develop or repair their identities. Within our sample, social positioning illuminates how prior levels of human and social capital, in particular their social class (e.g. Aliya’s middle-class background afforded her a high level of educational attainment) facilitated a relative degree of privilege to some refugee women in the host country. This highlights the heterogeneity within the refugee community and individual experiences (Ram et al., 2017). It also affords insight into the complexity of the identity and entrepreneurial processes through recognising both being and becoming (Anthias, 2008); the women drew on aspects of who they were in their home country as a resource in their identity work to move from being a refugee to becoming a socially acceptable, agentic and autonomous entrepreneur through engaging in entrepreneurial action in their new context. This extends work of Anthias (2008) on translocational positionality by building on the contradictory processes of advantage and disadvantage. It moves beyond an amplification of practices of subordination to illuminate further the highly contradictory processes that can affect an individual’s identity work (Anthias, 2008: 16). We show how a prior (social class) positionality can serve as a resource for motivation for entrepreneurial action and resilience in the host country, while simultaneously, the individual is subjected to the disadvantage associated with a lower social class status.

Previous research has identified the reconfiguring of stigmatising stereotypes as resources used for entrepreneurial action (Malheiros and Padilla, 2015) or the use of a professional privilege as a buffer against stigmatised identity (Doldor and Atewologun, 2020). Our contribution is the extension of this theorising by using positionality to illustrate the role of privilege, across time and space, that can be employed as a resource to resist the stigmatised refugee identity which imposes a lower social status on the women. Positionality also highlights the structural constraints that create entrepreneurial disadvantages which continue to plague the women as they try to access resources such as finance or information networks. These inequalities, conferred on the women by their stigmatised identities, reinforce their ascribed social positioning at the bottom of the pecking order. Earlier studies from Essers and Benschop (2009) and Villares-Varela (2017) provide a basis for exploring the strategies used in the construction of entrepreneurial identities given the multiple social categories negotiated by the individual. Our study highlights that positionality and intersectionality provide an appropriate framework to critically examine a similar group, namely refugee women, with a focus not only on their identity construction but also on the persistent implications for their entrepreneurial activities and ensuing resource access (Martinez Dy, 2020).

There has been substantial research on the benefits of entrepreneurship for marginalised groups (Verduijn and Essers, 2013) with the assumption that entrepreneurship is a meritocratic and agential endeavour (Ahl and Marlow, 2012). While we have observed that the women in this study have experienced restored respect within their local communities, have created employment for themselves and in some cases for others and have reaped some economic benefit, the latter is limited and negative structural forces prevail. Options for business growth are restricted due to limited access to finance and particularly during challenging economic times, there is an increased sense of vulnerability due to the ongoing challenges that they face as refugee women entrepreneurs and the consequential stress from the fear they will lose everything they have worked towards.

This research is not without limitations. Our study comprises a small number of refugee women entrepreneurs; a larger scale, cross-national study would be useful to determine the influence of different institutional frameworks and gendered regimes upon the experiences, outcomes and identity work of such women. Building on an intersectional identity work approach in such future research would prove useful in expanding our understanding of how marginalised women refugees undertake identity work and yet, it is a broad enough framework to adapt to other dominant social categories as required. The inclusion of analysis that incorporates oppression and privilege provides the opportunity for future research that compares the intersectional identity work of male refugee entrepreneurs. We contend that through an integrated intersectional identity work framework, such as is proposed in this article, entrepreneurship research has the potential to become more clearly situated in the social world; an important step given the agentic nature of the entrepreneur.

Conclusion

This article has explored how women refugees can use entrepreneurial activity to challenge the stigma attached to the homogenising and negative refugee identity. In the current neoliberal era, entrepreneurship is feted as a positive choice with scope to exploit personal agency and generated socio-economic benefits on a broader scale. Thus, for refugee women who have a double stigma in terms of their gender and status, creating new ventures not only offers opportunities for independence, income generation and enhanced social standing it can also act as a gateway to specific forms of identity work. By identifying themselves as entrepreneurs, such women claim a privileged identity while distancing themselves from the negative connotations associated with ascribed refugee status. Yet, we instil a note of caution; despite the potential positive identity aspects associated with entrepreneurship, it should not be considered as a seamless pathway to economic empowerment, autonomy and freedom. The respondents acknowledged that their entrepreneurial ventures remain constrained by the vestiges of the stigmatised identity allocated upon their arrival to the host country; this restricted access to resources, encouraged ‘white washing’ to gain customers and demanded high levels of time investment to the detriment of family life. It is not an easy option and the precarity of the enterprises undertaken by many, mirrors the precarity of the entrepreneurial identity sought, in part, as a means of reparation and distancing from the stigmatised refugee identity they were assigned upon arrival in the host country.

The study of refugee women entrepreneurs through a lens of intersectionality challenges the primarily ethnocentric approach that has driven much of the research to date in migrant entrepreneurship. This has the potential to have an impact upon both policymakers and business support organisations who may be challenged to consider women refugee businesses beyond the constraints of ethnic enclaves (Wilson and Portes, 1980). Just as there is a need for analytical frameworks to be used to make visible and give voice to refugee women entrepreneurs within the field of entrepreneurship, so there must be freedom for this group of entrepreneurs to construct authentic identities. This freedom should allow them to be represented as they are: multidimensional, entrepreneurial individuals.

Footnotes

Appendix 1 Appendix 2. Additional representative quotations

Overarching themes	Level 2 code	Level 1 code	Additional representative quotations
Stigmatised refugee identity	Discrimination/stigmatisation		‘We don’t see racism only in the street. It’s institutionalised. They’ve put policies in place that is racially discriminating people’. Zendaya
	Criminalisation/dehumanisation	Detention/legal restrictions	‘You know they saw us as strangers, we were thieves, people coming to reside on benefits . . . refugee, these people they only think that we are criminals’. Zendaya‘being in that place where when we were in Yarls Wood detention, the way they treated us . . . You are not treated like a human being’. Anashe
	Exclusion	Lack of access to basics in society	‘when I arrived, I was treated as an outcast because I had no right to work, I wasn’t allowed to go to school, so was treated as an outcast’. Anashe
	Uncertainty	Lack of autonomy	‘I felt like I was losing my identity because I couldn’t dress the way I used to . . . I had no one to direct. I had no children around me to share the grief’. Zendaya
		Mental health issues	‘I would be explaining and telling my story to each and every Tom, Dick and Harry I meet . . . it affected me. I became anxious, I became unstable’. Anashe‘And sometimes I was ill . . . because I was mentally, really, really down’. Floriane
	Gender biases	Gendered work/domestic roles	‘Men from Africa did not find me okay. They thought that I was not supposed to be saying things that I was saying or doing things that I was doing’. Zendaya‘he actually said I thought you were a man. Why is that? Because the work you are doing I would expect a man to do that’. Anashe
Identity work: Constructing entrepreneurial identity	Intention to pursue an entrepreneurial identity	Motivation	‘I just felt anyway I need to expand myself because I needed more income’. Anashe (starting the second business)
	Identifying an entrepreneurial identity: Self-efficacy	Experience and knowledge in the chosen fields	‘I finished that Master’s, I finished my second Bachelors and I was working very well. I was working building innovations and part of my first Degree, I could work as an interior architect. Then I started interior architecture and did some exterior as well because of experience’. Azadeh‘pride in being a former businesswoman’. Zendaya‘I had no help at all. No business advice. I used to own a business over there, a restaurant and bar’. Floriane
	Self-presentation	Acting the role of the entrepreneur	‘ . . . I introduced myself as a black African woman who has interest in the integration of African women and their children. So, the judge got very much interested in me, but I did not say I was an asylum seeker [laughs]’. Zendaya‘So obviously, I have to act as a businessperson’. Anashe
	Validating entrepreneurial identity	Need to validate	‘This is one of the things I’ve noticed when I was in the trade show people when they ask for how long will be business. Did your parents do this business . . . I thought, how can I certify what I’m doing?’ Aliya‘So, with the business I’m thinking how? how should I convince people to trust me, that I can deliver?’ Anashe
		Awards/shows	‘And then we found out that we did win the Bronze Prize for the product award . . . Everything changed’. Aliya‘I got the award which draws a lot of money . . . I was the first refugee to be appointed this business award . . . which was almost £45,000’. Zendaya
Identity work: Challenging stigmatised identity	Resisting stigma	Explicit challenge to discrimination/stigmatisation	‘Since arriving since I came here, you fight racism’. Zendaya.‘I am not a begging person. I have got a brain. So, I can use my brain to create opportunities for myself’. Zendaya
	Re-positioning to a positive ethno-social identity	Drawing on more positive identities	‘I’ve always said I am a citizen of the world. Yes, I was born in Iran, I lived in different countries. Any part I live, I like. I try to be flexible . . .’. Azadeh.
	Circumventing	Non-confrontational challenge to stigma	‘The best way I used is to work around everything. I work around the system . . . I have managed to build my own system within their system’. Zendaya‘It was very, very tough, but I would find myself scaling things and navigating things’. Zendaya
		Whitewashing	‘The previous place I used to be was called H0266242621997033-Bar. But people told me that it looks a bit African. Do something that everyone can feel like they are at home. So, we named this one 0266242621997033x Bar . . . and we are doing every effort to change the style’. Floriane‘I had to change my name to a kind of Westernised, so now it is Nina, so Nina can be from here or can be from any European country, perhaps more Eastern European’. Azadeh
	Reject or deny stigma	Hiding or denying an identity	‘I didn’t face much negativity, it’s usually been either normal or positive’. Aliya‘So, I don’t concentrate on refugee. I just say let’s make a change. So, that’s how I think I challenge that concept or labelling of refugee’. Anashe
Persistent challenges	Finance	Lack of start-up funds	‘So now, when I need to run a business and I asked for a loan, I was told, you are not capable to get one’. Anashe
		Limitations of bank dealings	‘I could not go to the bank because I don’t have permanent residency and the business is not built up, so the bank will not give me a loan . . .’ Aliya
		Refugee – impact on credit rating	‘I was negatively socially discriminated, I could not access the creative quarters. (saying I) did not pay the council tax since 2002 and that disqualified me. But I knew that during the time I was seeking sanctuary, the local authority has a duty of care and I didn’t need to pay tax’. Zendaya
	Knowledge/networks	Lack of access to information	‘a lack of information, timely information. So, I would go round and round trying to find . . . once I have the right information I will be able to work with time’. Anashe
	Navigating conflict with a gendered maternal identity	Family relationships and tensions	‘ . . . as a mother, as a wife as a business woman. It’s not easy because your mind keeps running every minute . . . you have certain commitments and as a mother you have to advise them, you have to make sure you check on them. It is your responsibility to check on your kids’. Floriane‘There is no point to make a successful business without making successful kids’. Aliya
	Limited economic benefit	Insufficient household income	‘I am not getting as much income out of it as I would want’. Anashe‘It’s not that big money that you are going to have savings or big savings, no, it’s to pay bills and enjoy yourself with the rest – look after your family . . . it is not as much as we were expecting and not as much as back home’. Floriane
Outcome: Respected	Empowering	Recognition from the host community	‘The reward for running the business . . . you know you have been lost and you find yourself and this is like having a respected view from people, because this is really been important for me because people when they look at you. Who you are a Syrian? Okay? They don’t care what or how you used to live in Syria. The refugee words. Very low level and people looking at you . . . as though you are just bad . . . I wasn’t used to people looking at me in this way. So, having the business at least that made us confident, telling that we are fighting. We exist. We can do something, and we are proving that we are not taking other’s money or other’s opportunity’. Aliya

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Nkechi Adeeko

Lorna Treanor

Author biographies

Nkechi Adeeko is a PhD candidate at Nottingham University Business School. Her research interests lie in the broad areas of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial behaviours with a particular focus upon the identity work undertaken by women entrepreneurs.

Lorna Treanor is Assistant Professor of Entrepreneurship and Innovation at Nottingham University Business School; her research interests focus upon diversity and inclusion in entrepreneurship and innovation with a particular focus upon the influence of gender upon women’s entrepreneurial behaviour and experiences. Her work has been published in Human Relations; Gender, Work & Organization; Technological Forecasting and Social Change and the International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research among others.

References

Ahl

Marlow

(2012) Exploring the dynamics of gender, feminism and entrepreneurship: Advancing debate to escape a dead end? Organization 19(5): 543–562.

Al-Dajani

Marlow

(2010) Impact of women’s home-based enterprise on family dynamics: Evidence from Jordan. International Small Business Journal 28(5): 470–486.

Al-Dajani

Marlow

(2013) Empowerment and entrepreneurship: A theoretical framework. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 19: 503–524.

Al-Dajani

Carter

Shaw

, et al. (2015) Entrepreneurship among the displaced and dispossessed: Exploring the limits of emancipatory entrepreneuring. British Journal of Management 26: 713–730.

Alrawadieh

Karayilan

Cetin

(2019) Understanding the challenges of refugee entrepreneurship in tourism and hospitality. The Service Industries Journal 39(9–10): 717–740.

Anthias

(2008) Thinking through the lens of translocational positionality: An intersectionality frame for understanding identity and belonging. Translocations: Migration and Social Change 4(1): 5–20. Available at: http://roar.uel.ac.uk/3331/1/Vol_4_Issue_1_Floya_Anthias.pdf

Anthias

(2013) Hierarchies of social location, class and intersectionality: Towards a translocational frame. International Sociology 28(1): 121–138.

Ashforth

Schinoff

(2016) Identity under construction: How individuals come to define themselves in organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 3: 111–137.

Atewologun

Sealy

Vinnicombe

(2016) Revealing intersectional dynamics in organizations: Introducing ‘intersectional identity work’. Gender, Work & Organization 23(3): 223–247.

10.

Bastian

Sidani

El Amine

(2018) Women entrepreneurship in the Middle East and North Africa: A review of knowledge areas and research gaps. Gender in Management 33(1): 14–29.

11.

Bearne

(2017) Refugees turned entrepreneurs: ‘I need to think about the future’. The Guardian, 28 February. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/small-business-network/2017/feb/28/refugees-turned-entrepreneurs-future-business-perserverance

12.

Betts

Bloom

Kaplan

, et al. (2017) Refugee Economies: Forced Displacement and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

13.

Bizri

(2017) Refugee-entrepreneurship: A social capital perspective. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 29(9–10): 847–868.

14.

Braun

Clarke

(2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101.

15.

Bröckling

(2005) Gendering the enterprising self: Subjectification programs and gender differences in guides to success. Distinktion: Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory 6(2): 7–25.

16.

Brown

(2015) Identities and identity work in organizations. International Journal of Management Reviews 17(1): 20–40.

17.

Brown

(2017) Identity work and organizational identification. International Journal of Management Reviews 19(3): 296–317.

18.

Brush

De Bruin

Welter

(2009) A gender-aware framework for women’s entrepreneurship. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship 1(1): 8–24.

19.

Butler

(2004) Undoing Gender. Abington: Routledge.

20.

Carter

Mwaura

Ram

, et al. (2015) Barriers to ethnic minority and women’s enterprise: Existing evidence, policy tensions and unsettled questions. International Small Business Journal 33(1): 49–69.

21.

Chell

(2000) Towards researching the ‘opportunistic entrepreneur’: A social constructionist approach and research agenda. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 9(1): 63–80.

22.

Crenshaw

(1989) Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum 1: 8.

23.

Crenshaw

(1991) Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review 43(6): 1241–1299.

24.

de Lange

Berntsen

Hanoeman

, et al. (2020) Highly skilled entrepreneurial refugees: Legal and practical barriers and enablers to start up in the Netherlands. International Migration. Epub ahead of print 30 June. DOI: 10.1111/imig.12745.

25.

Dechant

Lamky

(2005) Toward an understanding of Arab women entrepreneurs in Bahrain and Oman. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship 10(2): 123–140.

26.

DeRue

Ashford

(2010) Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity construction in organizations. Academy of Management Review 35(4): 627–647.

27.

Desai

Naudé

Stel

(2020) Refugee entrepreneurship: Context and directions for future research. Small Business Economics. Epub ahead of print 25 March. DOI: 10.1007/s11187-019-00310-1.

28.

Doldor

Atewologun

(2020) Why work it when you can dodge it? Identity responses to ethnic stigma among professionals. Human Relations. Epub ahead of print 21 January. DOI: 10.1177/0018726719895552.

29.

Down

Giazitzoglu

(2014) Identity and entrepreneurship. In: Welter

Baker

(eds) Routledge Companion to Entrepreneurship. London: Routledge, pp.102–115.

30.

du Gay

(1991) Enterprise culture and the ideology of excellence. New Formations 13: 45–61.

31.

Ellard-Gray

Jeffrey

Choubak

, et al. (2015) Finding the hidden participant: Solutions for recruiting hidden, hard-to-reach, and vulnerable populations. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 14(5): 1–10.

32.

Essers

Benschop

(2007) Enterprising identities: Female entrepreneurs of Moroccan or Turkish Origin in the Netherlands. Organization Studies 28(1): 49–69.

33.

Essers

Benschop

(2009) Muslim businesswomen doing boundary work: The negotiation of Islam, gender and ethnicity within entrepreneurial contexts. Human Relations 62(3): 403–423.

34.

Essers

Dey

Tedmanson

, et al. (eds) (2017) Critical Perspectives on Entrepreneurship: Challenging Dominant Discourses. Oxon: Taylor & Francis.

35.

Fauchart

Gruber

(2011) Darwinians, communitarians, and missionaries: The role of founder identity in entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Journal 54(5): 935–957.

36.

Fong

Busch

Armour

, et al. (2007) Pathways to self-sufficiency: Successful entrepreneurship for refugees. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Diversity in Social Work 16(1–2): 127–159.

37.

Foucault

(1980) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977. New York: Pantheon Books.

38.

Geerts

Van der Tuin

(2013) From intersectionality to interference: Feminist onto-epistemological reflections on the politics of representation. Women’s Studies International Forum 41: 171–178.

39.

Gioia

Schultz

Corley

(2000) Organizational identity, image, and adaptive instability. Academy of Management Review 25(1): 63–81.

40.

Goffman

(1963) Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

41.

Gold

(1988) Refugees and small business: The case of Soviet Jews and Vietnamese. Ethnic and Racial Studies 11(4): 411–438.

42.

Guest

Bunce

Johnson

(2006) How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 18(1): 59–82.

43.

Hatch

Schultz

(2002) The dynamics of organizational identity. Human Relations 55(8): 989–1018.

44.

hooks

(1981) Ain’t I a Woman: Black Women and Feminism. Boston, MA: South End Press.

45.

Imas

Wilson

Weston

(2012) Barefoot entrepreneurs. Organization 19(5): 563–585.

46.

Jayawarna

Marlow

Swail

(2020) A gendered life course explanation of the exit decision in the context of household dynamics. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Epub ahead of print 24 July 2020. DOI: 10.1177/1042258720940123.

47.

Jacobsen

(2006) Refugees and asylum seekers in urban areas: A livelihoods perspective. Journal of Refugee Studies 29(3): 273–286.

48.

Jenkins

(2008) Rethinking Ethnicity Arguments and Explorations, Second Edition. London; Thousand Oaks, CA; New Delhi, India; Singapore: Sage.

49.

Kloosterman

Van Der Leun

Rath

(1999) Mixed embeddedness: (In) formal economic activities and immigrant businesses in the Netherlands. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 23(2): 252–266.

50.

Kone

Ruiz

Vargas-Silva

(2020) Self-employment and reason for migration: Are those who migrate for asylum different from other migrants? Small Business Economics. Epub ahead of print 22 January. DOI: 10.1007/s11187-019-00311-0.

51.

Lassalle

Shaw

(2021) Trailing wives and constrained agency among women migrant entrepreneurs: an intersectional perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Epub ahead of print 3 February 2021. DOI: 10.1177/1042258721990331.

52.

Lazarczyk-Bilal

Glinka

(2021) What determines the entrepreneurial intentions of highly-skilled women with refugee experience? An empirical analysis in the context of Sweden. Administrative Sciences 11(1): 2.

53.

Leitch

Welter

Henry

(2018) Women entrepreneurs’ financing revisited: Taking stock and looking forward: New perspectives on women entrepreneurs and finance. Venture Capital 20(2): 103–114.

54.

Leitch

Harrison

(2016) Identity, identity formation and identity work in entrepreneurship: Conceptual developments and empirical applications. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 28(3–4): 177–190.

55.

Lewis

(2015) Enacting entrepreneurship and leadership: A longitudinal exploration of gendered identity work. Journal of Small Business Management 53(3): 662–682.

56.

Link

Phelan

(2001) Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology 27(1): 363–385.

57.

Lutgen-Sandvik

(2008) Intensive remedial identity work: Responses to workplace bullying trauma and stigmatization. Organization 15(1): 97–119.

58.

McElwee

Al-Riyami

Al-Fahal

(2003) Women entrepreneurs in Oman: Some barriers to success. Career Development International 8(7): 339–346.

59.

Malheiros

Padilla

(2015) Can stigma become a resource? The mobilisation of aesthetic–corporal capital by female immigrant entrepreneurs from Brazil. Identities 22(6): 687–705.

60.

Marlow

McAdam

(2015) Incubation or induction? Gendered identity work in the context of technology business incubation. Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice 39(4): 791–816.

61.

Martinez Dy

(2020) Not all entrepreneurship is created equal: Theorising entrepreneurial disadvantage through social positionality. European Management Review 17(3): 687–699.

62.

Martinez Dy

Martin

Marlow

(2014) Developing a critical realist positional approach to intersectionality. Journal of Critical Realism 13(5): 447–466.

63.

Martinez Dy

Martin

Marlow

(2018) Emancipation through digital entrepreneurship? A critical realist analysis. Organization, 25(5), 585–608.

64.

Mawson

Kasem

(2019) Exploring the entrepreneurial intentions of Syrian refugees in the UK. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 19: 1128–1146.

65.

Mazzetti

Blenkinsopp

(2012) Evaluating a visual timeline methodology for appraisal and coping research. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 85(4): 649–665.

66.

Meister

Mauer

(2018) Understanding refugee entrepreneurship incubation – An embeddedness perspective. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 25: 1065–1095.

67.

Nash

(2008) Re-thinking intersectionality. Feminist Review 89(1): 1–15.

68.

Office of the High Commissioner United Nations for Human Rights (OHCHR) (2020) Women’s human rights and gender-related concerns in situations of conflict and instability. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Women/WRGS/Pages/PeaceAndSecurity.aspx (accessed 22 December 2020).

69.

Phillips

Hardy

(1997) Managing multiple identities: Discourse, legitimacy and resources in the UK refugee system. Organization 4(2): 159–185.

70.

Pichler

Wallace

(2009) Social capital and social class in Europe: The role of social networks in social stratification. European Sociological Review 25(3): 319–332.

71.

Powell

Baker

(2014) It’s what you make of it: Founder identity and enacting strategic responses to adversity. Academy of Management Journal 57(5): 1406–1433.

72.

Prasad

(2002) Otherness at large: Identity and difference in the new globalized organizational landscape. In: Aaltio

Mills

(eds) Gender, Identity and the Culture of Organizations. London: Routledge, pp.57–71.

73.

Ram

Jones

Villares-Varela

(2017) Migrant entrepreneurship: Reflections on research and practice. International Small Business Journal 35(1): 3–18.

74.

Ramarajan

(2014) Past, present and future research on multiple identities: Toward an intrapersonal network approach. Academy of Management Annals 8(1): 589–659.

75.

Refai

Haloub

Lever

(2018) Contextualizing entrepreneurial identity amongst Syrian refugees in Jordan: The emergence of a destabilized habitus? The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation 19: 250–260.

76.

Rindova

Barry

Ketchen

Jr (2009) Entrepreneuring as emancipation. Academy of Management Review 34(3): 477–491.

77.

Roomi

Parrott

(2008) Barriers to development and progression of women entrepreneurs in Pakistan. Journal of Entrepreneurship 17(1): 59–72.

78.

Savage

Devine

Cunningham

, et al. (2013) A new model of social class? Findings from the BBC’s Great British Class Survey Experiment. Sociology 47(2): 219–250.

79.

Schultz

Hernes

(2013) A temporal perspective on organizational identity. Organization Science 24(1): 1–21.

80.

Shepherd

Patzelt

(2018) Entrepreneurial identity. In: Shepherd

Patzelt

(eds) Entrepreneurial Cognition. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71782-1_5

81.

Somers

(1994) The narrative constitution of identity: A relational and network approach. Theory and Society 23(5): 605–649.

82.

Spring

(2009) African women in the entrepreneurial landscape: Reconsidering the formal and informal sectors. Journal of African Business 10(1): 11–30.

83.

Stets

Burke

(2014) The development of identity theory. In: Thye

Lawler

(eds) Advances in Group Processes, vol. 31. Bingley: Emerald Publishing, pp.57–97.

84.

Sultana

(2007) Reflexivity, positionality and participatory ethics: Negotiating fieldwork dilemmas in international research. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies 6(3): 374–385.

85.

Swail

Marlow

(2018) Embrace the masculine; attenuate the feminine – Gender, identity work and entrepreneurial legitimation in the nascent context. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 30(1–2): 256–282.

86.

Tomlinson

(2010) Marking difference and negotiating belonging: Refugee women, volunteering and employment. Gender, Work & Organization 17(3): 278–296.

87.

Toyoki

Brown

(2014) Stigma, identity and power: Managing stigmatized identities through discourse. Human Relations 67(6): 715–737.

88.

Treanor

Jones

Marlow

(2020) Is time up for the hero male entrepreneur? A review of enterprise discourse and its effects. State of the Art Review No. 34. London: Enterprise Research Centre. Available at: https://www.enterpriseresearch.ac.uk/publications/is-time-up-for-the-hero-male-entrepreneur-a-review-of-enterprise-discourse-and-its-effects-sota-no-34/ (accessed 5 May 2020).

89.

United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) (2020) Figures at a glance, statistical yearbooks. UNHCR. Available at: https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/figures-at-a-glance.html

90.

van Amsterdam

van Eck

(2019) ‘I have to go the extra mile’. How fat female employees manage their stigmatized identity at work. Scandinavian Journal of Management 35(1): 46–55.

91.

van Kooy

(2016) Refugee women as entrepreneurs in Australia. Forced Migration Review 53: 71–73.

92.

Verduijn

Essers

(2013) Questioning dominant entrepreneurship assumptions: The case of female ethnic minority entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 25(7–8): 612–630.

93.

Vertovec

(2019) Talking around super-diversity. Ethnic and Racial Studies 42(1): 125–139.

94.

Villares-Varela

(2017) Negotiating class, femininity and career: Latin American migrant women entrepreneurs in Spain. International Migration 56(4): 109–124.

95.

Villares-Varela

Essers

(2019) Women in the migrant economy. A positional approach to contextualize gendered transnational trajectories. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 31: 213–225.

96.

Watson

(2001) In Search of Management: Culture, Chaos and Control in Managerial Work. Andover: Cengage Learning EMEA.

97.

Watson

(2008) Managing identity: Identity work, personal predicaments and structural circumstances. Organization 15(1): 121–143.

98.

Watson

(2009) Narrative, life story and manager identity: A case study in autobiographical identity work. Human Relations 62(3): 425–452.

99.

Wauters

Lambrecht

(2008) ‘Barriers to refugee entrepreneurship in Belgium: Towards an explanatory model’. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 34(6): 895–915.

100.

Welsh

DHB

Memili

Kaciak

(2013) Sudanese women entrepreneurs. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship 18(2): 1350013.

101.

Welter

(2011) Contextualizing entrepreneurship – Conceptual challenges and ways forward. Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice 35(1): 165–184.

102.

Wilson

Portes

(1980) Immigrant enclaves: An analysis of the labor market experiences of Cubans in Miami. American Journal of Sociology 86(2): 295–319.

103.

Yin

(2014) Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

104.

Zetter

(1991) Labelling refugees: Forming and transforming a bureaucratic identity. Journal of Refugee Studies 4(1): 39–62.

105.

Zetter

(2007) More labels, fewer refugees: Remaking the refugee label in an era of globalization. Journal of Refugee Studies 20(2): 172–192.