Post-Secondary Institution Level and Control: Effect on Women’s Proportion of Entrepreneurship Degrees

Abstract

This study examines the influence U.S. college/university level (2-year/4-year) and control (public/private) have on the female-awarded proportion of their entrepreneurship degrees and certificates (EDCs). It also examines trends over a decade, 2006-2016. Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) data on U.S. institutions awarding Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) 52.07 (Entrepreneurship and Small Business degrees/certificates) in 2006, 2011, and/or 2016 is analyzed using ANOVA/ANCOVA/repeated measures methods. Surprisingly, even with the growing focus on female entrepreneurship, results did not show significant increases in the female-awarded proportion of EDCs over the ten years. Closer examination of 2016 data shows 2-year public institutions confer a significantly larger percentage of their EDCs to women compared to both 4-year public and private institutions providing evidence that institution level and control influence the proportion and suggesting that 4-year institutions may still be gendered in terms of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship education has been empirically shown to augment entrepreneurial human and social capital, which is of key importance in entrepreneurship, particularly high-growth potential female businesses. For this reason, these results have important implications for post-secondary institution leaders and entrepreneurship educators, and serves as a call to action to pro-actively assess their environments and curriculum for potential gender biases. Suggestions provided.

Keywords

female entrepreneurship entrepreneurship education human and social capital institution level institution control gendered institutions

Introduction

Over the past few decades, the focus on female entrepreneurship has been significantly increasing as evidenced by the worldwide plethora of organizations, programs, and research initiatives specifically developed to examine and promote female entrepreneurship in general and, more specifically, female participation in high-growth entrepreneurial endeavors (Shaw & Hess, 2018). This aim is due in part to the empirically shown positive impact female participation in entrepreneurship can have on economies, communities, the individual, and families, both in terms of economic and personal welfare (Brush et al., 2009; Clark, 2013; Terjesen & Lloyd, 2015).

At the same time research has shown women face significant barriers in starting their own business including but not limited to access to capital (Brush et al., 2020). In addition, other factors hinder female choice of entrepreneurship as a career path (Jennings & Brush, 2013) including lack of female role models (Pérez-Quintana et al., 2017), lower self-efficacy, and limited, although growing, support of entrepreneurship as a viable career choice for women due to its historic portrayal as a masculine career field in both education and popular media (B. Bird & Brush, 2002). This masculine stereotype has negatively influenced potential female entrepreneurs (Meyer et al., 2017), resource providers (Marlow & Patton, 2005), researchers (Ahl & Nelson, 2010) and the way entrepreneurship is discussed (Wheadon & Duval-Couetil, 2017) and measured (Weber, 2014; Zolin et al., 2013).

Entrepreneurship research has shown that the founder’s human and social capital are of key importance in the entrepreneurial process and launch of a venture, particularly high growth-potential endeavors and innovation (Hechavarria et al., 2019; Morris et al., 2013). Increased levels of education, more specifically entrepreneurship education (EE), has been empirically shown to increase an individual’s entrepreneurial human capital including related skills, knowledge, competencies, and experiences (Barringer & Ireland, 2011; Cabrera & Mauricio, 2017). It also provides opportunities to build social capital (Brush et al., 2001) including networks of entrepreneurial contacts. Entrepreneurship-based human and social capital gained through formal education have been strongly linked to greater entrepreneurial intentions, self-efficacy, and access to resources including financial resources which have been traditionally seen as barriers to female entrepreneurship (Bae et al., 2014; Carter et al., 2003; Sánchez, 2011), most especially high-growth endeavors (Brush et al., 2020).

Entrepreneurship education in the United States is well established. In addition to informal and formal mentoring programs, the typical higher education model for U.S. universities and colleges is to develop programs to foster foundational knowledge as well as developing entrepreneurial talents, skills, and mindsets (Yu, 2018). Over the last decade in the U.S., there has been a significant emphasis on supporting and increasing female entrepreneurship and related educational programs (Ughetto et al., 2020). However, there is a research gap in understanding female students’ pursuit of post-secondary entrepreneurship degrees and certificates (EDCs) in the United States. Tegtmeier and Mitra’s (2015) review of female entrepreneurship literature with a focus on university education found that only two articles included the terms ‘university,’ ‘entrepreneurship education,’ and ‘woman/women or female(s),’ excluding gender as a control. They call for further research to fill this gap including disadvantages in education. Additionally, Brush et al. (2020) notes more research is needed on how institutional environment gendering factors into women’s pursuit of entrepreneurship. To explore this gap, the authors used a similar analytical framework to that used by McConnell et al. (2016) to examine the effects of institutional characteristics on the percentage of MBA degrees earned by women at U.S. universities. Hence, this study analyzes if educational institution characteristics, level (2- or 4-year) and control (public or private), influence female attainment of EDCs and, if so, what implications this may have. To this end, the female-earned proportion of EDCs awarded by post-secondary educational institutions over a decade at three specific years; 2006, 2011, and 2016 is examined to study changes over time as the focus on EE and female entrepreneurship have increased. These five-year intervals, along with an examination of 2016 data which includes all awarding institutions, also allows for an investigation of whether gender bias still exists, as suggested by extant literature (S. R. Bird, 2011; Cochran, 2019).

Catalyzed by the empirically shown benefits of entrepreneurial human and social capital gained through post-secondary EE and the need for additional research, this study is significant because it examines female EE from another perspective, the institution, rather than evaluating a single program or course. Doing so provides insight into the EDC graduation patterns of women in this important decade of growth in EE (Finkle & Katragadda, 2017; George Washington University Center for Entrepreneurial Excellence, 2014). Having a greater understanding of female entrepreneurship degree trends and patterns could inform academic institution leaders, advisors, and entrepreneurship faculty of potential biases and assist them in their decision-making, strategies, enrollment goals, student advisement and curriculum development decisions. This study also contributes by including 2-year institutions and not limiting to, for example, AACSB schools.

Literature Review

In countries around the world, women-owned businesses contribute to their economies and family wealth (Brush et al., 2009). In addition, studies have shown the emancipatory effect entrepreneurial activities can have on women including empowerment, social acceptance, improved self-perceptions, and improved economic conditions (Datta & Gailey, 2012). However, in the U.S., women are only half as likely as men to form an entrepreneurial venture (Fetsch et al., 2015). According to the 2017 State of Women-Owned Business Report there has been a positive rate of growth in the number of female-owned businesses; however, they employ only 8% of the total U.S. private workforce and generate 4.2% of the U.S. total commerce revenue (American Express, 2017). This indicates that women often start and own businesses that are smaller and less growth oriented and, in turn, begs the question of why many women are still not reaching their full potential of starting high growth-potential, innovative endeavors. In a 2015 Kauffman Foundation Entrepreneurship Policy brief, it was noted that if actions are taken to accelerate the participation rate of women in entrepreneurship, it could have a positive Gross Domestic Product (GDP) effect (Fetsch et al., 2015) and be a “catalyst for growth in America,” especially if they engage in high growth-potential opportunities (Robb et al., 2014) which are market expanding (Acs et al., 2014).

Female Entrepreneurship

In academia, female entrepreneurship as a field of research has been expanding rapidly (Hughes et al., 2012) and has primarily focused on contextual factors, inhibitors and enablers, heterogeneity of female entrepreneurs, and female innovation (e.g. Ahl, 2006; Jennings & Brush, 2013). While space limits an exhaustive review, of particular importance to this study is the academic literature on barriers faced by potential female entrepreneurs that may be overcome with increased human and social capital.

One primary barrier to female high-growth business endeavors, identified in numerous studies, is access to capital and high-growth venture support (Malmström et al., 2017) even though the predominately relational leadership-style of women could provide advantages in leveraging human and financial capital for high-growth (Devine et al., 2019). Men begin with twice as much capital and are about four times more likely to approach their personal networks for funding (Fetsch et al., 2015) while female high-growth entrepreneurs are more likely to use business equity and personal funds to grow their business (Yacus et al., 2019). Researchers have stated that women need to garner more knowledge in business (human capital), particularly financing, in order to knowledgeably converse business terms with potential funders and help overcome barriers to financing (Brush et al., 2004; Gatewood et al., 2009). In addition, entrepreneurial-based networking can facilitate female entrepreneurs’ access to financial resources (Brush et al., 2009; Carter et al., 2003; Hechavarria et al., 2019) and can greatly benefit women in their business endeavors (Morris et al., 2013) which demonstrates the need for females to develop expanded social networks i.e. social capital. Unfortunately, women are less likely than men to have, for example venture capitalists, in their networks since financers are primarily men (Gatewood et al., 2009).

Another important barrier is based on the longstanding assumption of association between entrepreneurship and perceived risk (Brockhaus, 1980). Academic studies have shown that women are more risk adverse than men (e.g. Byrnes et al., 1999). Knowledge and improved skills i.e. human capital can reduce risk and/or the perception of risk (Delmar & Shane, 2003; Sánchez, 2011) which can enable women to move past this barrier.

The longstanding traditional portrayal of entrepreneurship as a masculine career field is represented in the overtly dominate portrayal of successful male entrepreneurs in both popular media and the classroom. These environmental observations thus support the perception that entrepreneurship is a masculine activity and males are more likely to succeed in it (B. Bird & Brush, 2002; Newbery et al., 2018), especially commercial high-growth entrepreneurship (Gupta et al., 2019). As a reflection of this, when women succeed in high-growth enterprises, they are more likely in “feminine-industries” rather than “non-feminine” ones (Yacus et al., 2019). Additionally, entrepreneurship theories and their constructs have often been based on male entrepreneurs and often neglected gender differences which can lead to study results that suggest women are less successful business owners or potential entrepreneurs (Brush et al., 2009; Hechavarria et al., 2019; Hughes et al., 2012). This has hindered female participation and has led to additional barriers including lack of self-efficacy (Wilson et al., 2007), perceived feasibility and competency (Lanero et al., 2011). Empirical research has shown that increased human and social capital of potential female entrepreneurs can assist in overcoming these and other ‘masculine career’ driven barriers (Brush et al., 2009; Lo et al., 2012).

While these are only a few of the barriers faced by potential female entrepreneurs, it calls attention to the ability to overcome some of the barriers through increased knowledge and social networks i.e. human and social capital which can be garnered through post-secondary EE. Studies suggest that in order to unlock women’s potential, relevant organizations such as educational institutions need to empower them (Robb et al., 2014) and public policy focused on promoting entrepreneurship in minority or disadvantaged groups should invest in the augmentation of knowledge (Shane, 2000).

Entrepreneurship Education

Entrepreneurship requires a wide range of skills in order to be successful (Begley & Boyd, 1987) and is therefore a complex process (Baron et al., 2016). Becker and Murphy (1992) argued that for most activities, specialized versus general information is more useful and Martin et al.’s (2013) meta-analysis suggested academic-oriented entrepreneurship programs may have stronger outcomes compared to training-focused ones (Winkler et al., 2018). Academic entrepreneurship programs strive to provide entrepreneurial awareness, skills, and characteristics (Pittaway & Cope, 2007; Reeves et al., 2019).

Empirical research has shown that increasing levels of post-secondary education is associated with an increased likelihood to pursue entrepreneurial opportunities (Davidsson & Honig, 2003), expanded entrepreneurship socialization (Fox et al., 2018; Liguori et al., 2018), improved decision-making (Cutler & Lleras-Muney, 2006), increased likelihood of better entrepreneurial performance and survival (van der Sluis et al., 2008), and greater capability to launch and manage high growth-potential businesses (Acs et al., 2014; Bates, 1990) since these more advanced entrepreneurial endeavors require higher levels of resources, skills and individual-level aspirations (Clark, 2013; Terjesen & Lloyd, 2015). In addition, these relationships are more likely to be positive for females (van der Sluis et al., 2008).

Entrepreneurship education accelerates the collection and processing of new information and skills (Unger et al., 2011), provides knowledge and skills that are useful in the day-to-day operations of a business such as bookkeeping, marketing, management of employees, logistics and pricing (Barringer & Ireland, 2011) and may produce or improve other competencies (Fayolle & Gailly, 2015; Lee et al., 2018; Morris et al., 2013) that are needed to successfully navigate in the context of entrepreneurship such as resource leveraging (Morris et al., 2013), networking (Brush et al., 2001), problem-solving (Murphy et al., 2019; Reeves et al., 2019), critical thinking (Hylton et al., 2020), and risk mitigation (Delmar & Shane, 2003) leading to improved or accelerated business start-up skills (Greene & Saridakis, 2008; Neck & Corbett, 2018) and long-term positive impacts on venture performance, financial success, job creation, and personal income (Lange et al., 2014; Martin et al., 2013; Unger et al., 2011) contributing to economic growth.

Prior studies have provided evidence for a positive relationship between EE and intentions to start a business (Bae et al., 2014; Baluku et al., 2019; Liñán & Fayolle, 2015; Martin et al., 2013; Sánchez, 2011), especially for women (Rienke van Ewijk & Belghiti-Mahut, 2019). Participation in EE has also been found to have a positive effect on one’s ability to better conceptualize and communicate business ideas (Chandler & Broberg, 2019), as well as on perceived entrepreneurship feasibility, a feeling of personal competency (Lanero et al., 2011; Lee et al., 2018), self-efficacy (Wilson et al., 2007), pro-activeness (Verzat et al., 2017), awareness (Pittaway & Cope, 2007), risk-taking (Sánchez, 2011), perceived behavioral control (Liñán et al., 2011; Rauch & Hulsink, 2015) and perceptions/attitudes towards entrepreneurship (Greene & Saridakis, 2008; Rauch & Hulsink, 2015). However, there exists findings to the contrary (Martin et al., 2013) and methodological concerns (Rideout & Gray, 2013). With that said, literature and top entrepreneurship educators generally support that EE develops students' entrepreneurial skill set and mindset in varying degrees based on the intervention (Neck & Corbett, 2018). Nabi et al. (2017) conducted a systematic review of 159 articles published between 2004 and 2016 on the impact of EE in higher education on a variety of outcomes. They found that most articles show a positive relationship between EE and subjective or objective outcome indicators such as attitudes, improved skills and knowledge, intentions, business start-up activity, uncertainty/ambiguity tolerance, and venture performance. Again, these outcomes are often found to have a stronger impact for females compared to males (Wilson et al., 2007) which can lead to overcoming traditional barriers.

Besides providing increases in human capital, educational institutions, particularly advanced degree institutions provide opportunities to build a network of relationships (Neck et al., 2014a; Pittaway et al., 2015) and can furnish exposure and thus ties to entrepreneurs and small business resource providers (Rideout & Gray, 2013) which can lead to greater access to resources (Shane & Cable, 2002), industry knowledge, and opportunity identification (Pittaway & Cope, 2007; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000; Unger et al., 2011). Overall EE is intended to provide entrepreneurial competencies, skills, behaviors, mindset, and practice for pursuit of entrepreneurial endeavors (Neck & Corbett, 2018), but may also complement other disciplines (Hylton et al., 2020) and provide life skills (Neck & Corbett, 2018).

Recent entrepreneurship literature highlights the need to better understand female entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial ecosystems in order to improve entrepreneurial conditions and the success of women-owned businesses. Since increasing human and social capital of a potential high-growth business founder is of key importance, it goes without saying that formal educational institutions offering EDCs can play a key role in encouraging women to enter the field of entrepreneurship and fostering high potential female entrepreneurs (Acs et al., 2014).

Based on this discussion and the growing focus on female entrepreneurship particularly in high growth-potential ventures, it is important to examine post-secondary EDCs earned by females and how educational institution characteristics might influence this; potentially providing some insights and a starting point for further discussion. In addition, many programs and initiatives both internal and external to higher education have been created and implemented to encourage women to pursue entrepreneurship as a career choice. Examining trends and graduation patterns over the past decade will demonstrate if these efforts are translating into increased participation of females in EE, as indicated by awarded EDCs. This motivates the following hypotheses.

Hypotheses

The percentage of women obtaining post-secondary degrees at U.S. colleges and universities has continued to increase since the first few women were allowed a university education in the early 1800 s (McConnell et al., 2016). Taken at face value, this trend appears to be positive; however, McConnell et al. (2016) more deeply examined MBAs earned by women at U.S. higher education institutions to determine if there were differences based on institutional characteristics such as institutional type and found statistically significant differences for all of the factors examined. This finding is important because it signals a need to go below the surface of aggregate numbers to provide more meaningful insights for educational institutions and policymakers as they invest resources to increase female participation in entrepreneurship. Similar then to McConnell et al. (2016) one must ask if there are significant differences in the proportion of EDCs awarded to women based on institutional characteristics. The percentage (proportion) of an institution’s EDCs that is earned by females is a good measure because it shows if women are earning entrepreneurship degrees/certificates comparable to men. In addition, using proportion allows for an ‘apples to apples’ comparison of institutions by eliminating external factors contributing to a woman’s choice of a 2- or 4-year and public or private institution. Overall, female entrepreneurship degree attainment has not been examined in depth to determine how control (public or private) and level (2-year or 4-year) of the institution contribute to the institutional proportion of EDCs earned by females. Two-year institutions (2-year) are defined as requiring at least two years but less than four years while four-year institutions (4-year) are defined as four plus year colleges and universities.

Unlike McConnell et al. (2016) which examined the female-awarded percentage of MBAs based on Carnegie classification, the number of EDC observations in the IPEDS data does not permit such granular analysis. As such the more general characteristics of level and control allow for greater inclusion while still providing meaningful analysis. In addition, there were too few data points to divide, for example, private schools into private for-profit and private not-for-profit as analyzed in McConnell et al. (2016). Notwithstanding these data constraints, these institutional characteristics hold relevancy based on the accumulation of entrepreneurial human and social capital they afford (Lee et al., 2018) and the gendered institutional differences that may exist between them (Gardner, 2013; Jennings & Brush, 2013) influencing female participation thus EDC awards.

With the growing focus on female entrepreneurship, it is expected that female participation in EE has significantly increased over the decade between 2006 and 2016; as female participation increases the relative female proportion should increase. Therefore, the authors hypothesize the following.

H1a: There is a significant increase in the overall institutional proportion of EDCs earned by women across a 10-year time period (2006, 2011, and 2016).

H1b: There is a significant increase over time (2006, 2011, and 2016) in the institutional proportion of EDCs earned by females based on level and control of the institution (2-year public, 4-year public, and 4-year private).

While the requisite of human and social capital support the need to examine institutional characteristic effects, Acker’s theory of gendered organizations provides the reason to examine them. Acker (1992) defines a gendered institution as an entity in which “gender is present in the processes, practices, images and ideologies, and distributions of power in the various sectors” (p. 567) or substructures. When an organization such as an academic institution is gendered, it means patterns exist that make distinctions between female/feminine and male/masculine (Acker, 1990; S. R. Bird, 2011), which often lead to the advantage or disadvantage of a particular gender. Gendered academic organizations provide yet another potential barrier faced by female students in their choice and pursuit of traditionally masculine career fields, including entrepreneurship (Cochran, 2019).

Recent studies have shown that an increasing number of women are starting their own businesses; however, they have also shown that a majority are starting low-growth ventures. While low-growth businesses have their positive contributions, clearly some women are not reaching their potential and innovative ventures are being left on the table, with typically less than 10 percent of high-growth ventures being founded by women (Fetsch et al., 2015; Robb et al., 2014). These statistics may indicate that women, in general, are not receiving the higher-level entrepreneurial skills and competencies as well as garnering extended business-related social networks obtainable through increasing levels of education, particularly EE; since advanced human and social capital is of key importance in the launch and maintenance of high-growth businesses.

One partial explanation for educated women starting low-growth businesses in greater numbers might be that the increased focus on female entrepreneurship may be motivating more women to obtain the basic entrepreneurial skills needed to start a business through 2-year more vocational-focused colleges, thus leading to a larger proportion of their EDCs awarded to women. In contrast, 4-year institutions have been recognized as gendered organizations (Gardner, 2013; Jennings & Brush, 2013) stemming from their origins as male-dominated structures and shaped to conform with a masculine milieu (S. R. Bird, 2011). As such, 4-year female students have expressed their discomforts with pursuing or persisting in traditionally male disciplines, including entrepreneurship (Cochran, 2019) and they are continuing in large part to obtain degrees in female-acceptable fields (McConnell et al., 2016). The meager growth in female-owned high-growth endeavors may be reflective of this continued gendered culture in 4-year institutions, leading the authors to hypothesize the following.

H2: The overall 2016 institutional percentage of EDCs earned by females in 2-year institutions is significantly greater than in 4-year institutions.

As demonstrated in McConnell et al.’s (2016) study of MBAs earned by women, there can be a significant difference in the institutional percentage of degrees awarded to females based on whether the institution is public or private. Historically when women began to enter business schools, U.S. public schools were primarily co-educational, while private schools often created separate male and female colleges (McConnell et al., 2016). Even though most are now co-educational, there may be some lingering institutionalized conscious or unconscious inclinations that certain business disciplines are more appropriate for one gender or the other. As previously noted, entrepreneurship has historically been portrayed and perceived as a masculine career field and these perceptions may hinder the promotion of entrepreneurship as a field of study for female students and/or the proactive presentation of the subject as gender equal (Pérez-Quintana et al., 2017).

Considering the history of public schools embracing co-education earlier than private institutions coupled with the historical perception of entrepreneurship as a masculine career choice, the authors hypothesize the following.

H3: The overall 2016 institutional percentage of EDCs earned by females at public institutions is significantly greater than private institutions.

The intersect of the logic for H2 and H3 provide the basis for the following hypotheses H4-6 comparing 2-year public, 4-year public, and 4-year private institutions. In examining the data, there are too few cases of 2-year private institutions to support meaningful analysis; therefore, no hypotheses involving 2-year private institutions are proposed. As previously hypothesized in H2, 4-year institutions will have a lower proportion of their EDCs awarded to women compared to 2-year institutions; however, 4-year institutions will also differ from each other based on control, public or private, since public schools were traditionally more co-educational possibly lessening the gendered structure compared to private 4-year institutions.

H4: The overall 2016 institutional percentage of EDCs earned by females is significantly greater for 2-year public institutions compared to 4-year public institutions.

H5: The overall 2016 institutional percentage of EDCs earned by females is significantly greater for 2-year public institutions compared to 4-year private institutions.

It is expected that while 2-year public institutions’ female-awarded proportions would be significantly greater than 4-year public (H3) and 4-year private (H4) institutions, the difference for H3 would be less than the difference in H4 due to the compounded effect of public versus private. The difference in 4-year institutions is captured in the following hypothesis.

H6: The overall 2016 institutional percentage of EDCs earned by females is significantly greater for 4-year public institutions compared to 4-year private institutions.

Method

Data for the dependent and independent variables was obtained through the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) databank. All U.S. post-secondary institutions who participate in the Federal Student Aid program are required to report. For this study U.S. institutions that awarded Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) 52.07 Entrepreneurship and Small Business degrees and certificates in 2006, 2011, and/or 2016 are included in the analyses (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2018). IPEDS’ award levels categorize the type of degree or certificate (i.e. associates-2 year, bachelors-4 year, etc.). Award level (AW) 15 includes all awarded degrees and certificates from full-time, part-time, and executive programs. Award level (AW) 12 excludes certificates. Data from these two award levels are used in the analyses. Doctoral degrees are excluded as were institutions that only awarded certificates above baccalaureate since one institution awarded most of these certificates. Due to the lack of 2-year private institutions for meaningful analysis, they were removed from the analyses.

There were 632 institutions remaining which were represented in at least one of the three years examined. None of the institutions that made up the final dataset were all-male or all-female institutions. Percentage earned by females was calculated for each institution by dividing total awards (AW15 or AW12) by the corresponding total awarded to females. As an interesting side note, in the dataset there were 265 institutions reporting EDCs in 2006, 378 in 2011, and 520 in 2016. This indicates that the number of EDC-awarding institutions is growing; however, when the 2016 count is compared to the total number of institutions in the dataset, it indicates that 112 institutions awarding in 2006 and/or 2011 are no longer awarding EDCs for reasons unknown.

The dependent variable is institutional percentage (proportion) of EDCs awarded to females. Independent variables include level and control of the institution. Level of institution (2-year or 4-year) was selected because of its important human and social entrepreneurial capital implications for female entrepreneurship activities, access to resources, and potential for high-growth ventures. Control of institution (public or private) was selected because of the historical differences in embracing co-education and possible influences this may have on explicitly portraying and promoting entrepreneurship as gender equal. Additionally, to examine trends, three time periods were selected which represented five-year intervals over the last decade of available data (2006, 2011, and 2016). To study institution factors over time, data for these analyses only include institutions that awarded degrees and/or certificates in all three time periods. In order to provide a more comprehensive examination of the current institutional proportion of EDCs earned by females, this study separately analyzed 2016 data which included all post-secondary institutions awarding CIP 52.07 in that year. Lastly, size of institution and female percentage of student population, based on the institution’s total full-and part-time degree-seeking enrollment, were used as controls. Tests for robustness used alternate controls based on the institution’s total full-time enrollment only.

Results

Hypotheses 1a-b are addressed using a repeated measures ANOVA. This methodology requires that only U.S. institutions reporting CIP 52.07 degrees and/or certificates in all three time periods (n = 170) be included in the analyses. Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics for H1a-b segmented by time, level of institution, and control of institution. Mauchly’s test of sphericity indicated the assumption of sphericity was met χ2(2, n = 170) = 3.2, p = .205.

Table 1.

Percentage of EDCs Earned by Females by Time, Level of Institution, and Control of Institution.

Year	Level of institution	Control of institution	n	Mean	SD
2006	4-year	Public	50	.553	.301
		Private	46	.295	.229
		Total	96	.429	.297
	2-year	Public	74	.584	.330
	2-year	Total	74	.584	.330
	Total	Public	124	.571	.318
		Private	46	.295	.229
		Total	170	.497	.320
2011	4-year	Public	50	.489	.245
		Private	46	.319	.164
		Total	96	.407	.226
	2-year	Public	74	.621	.277
	2-year	Total	74	.621	.277
	Total	Public	124	.568	.271
		Private	46	.319	.164
		Total	170	.500	.270
2016	4-year	Public	50	.516	.220
		Private	46	.349	.237
		Total	96	.436	.242
	2-year	Public	74	.594	.279
	2-year	Total	74	.594	.279
	Total	Public	124	.562	.259
		Private	46	.349	.237
		Total	170	.505	.270

Results indicate that there has not been a significant increase over the last decade in the overall institutional percentage of EDCs earned by females, nor has 2-year public, 4-year public, nor 4-year private institutions shown significant change over time. Therefore, H1a-b are not supported. Figure 1 shows the estimated marginal means for the three institution categories over the three time periods 2006, 2011, and 2016.

Figure 1.

Percentage of EDCs Earned by Females: Comparison of 2-Year Public, 4-Year Public, and 4-Year Private Institutions Over Three Time Periods 2006, 2011, and 2016.

Estimated marginal means show that only 4-year private educational institutions have shown a small, non-significant, but steady increase in the institutional proportion of EDCs earned by females over the three time periods of 2006, 2011, and 2016 (30%, 32%, and 35% respectively). The percentage earned by females at 4-year public institutions hovers slightly above 50%. Mean percentage in 2016 (52%) is slightly lower than 2006 (55%). Two-year public institutions averaged 59% in 2006, slightly up in 2011 (62%), and falling back to 59% in 2016. Results from H1a-b are surprising given the increased focus on female entrepreneurship over the past decade. These findings signal a need for further investigation as to what efforts might change the course of future findings over the next decade.

Certificates were included in the primary study because oftentimes educational institutions add entrepreneurship to their offerings as a certificate program before launching into a full degree program. As an exploratory measure, an additional analysis was employed using only the female institutional percentage of entrepreneurship degrees, excluding certificates, as the continuous dependent variable. There were 99 U.S. institutions that reported CIP 52.07 degrees (AW12) in all three time periods.

Results once again show a non-significant interaction effect between the change over time (2006, 2011, and 2016) in the institutional percentage of entrepreneurship degrees earned by females and the level*control of the institution, F(4, 192) = .412, p = .800. Figure 2 shows the estimated marginal means for the three institutional categories over the three time periods for entrepreneurship degrees only.

Figure 2.

Percentage of Entrepreneurship Degrees Earned by Females: Comparison of 2-Year Public, 4-Year Public, and 4-Year Private Institutions Over Three Time Periods 2006, 2011, and 2016.

Upon examining the results, percentages and trends were similar to those that included certificates for both 4-year private and 2-year public institutions. What was most interesting was the decrease in women’s institutional proportion in 4-year public institutions when certificates were no longer included. While previous percentages ranged from 49–55% with certificates, overall institutional percentages for entrepreneurship degrees only were below 50% in all years examined, ranging from 40–46%; however, there is an upward non-significant trend over the decade similar to 4-year private institutions. The shift in the estimated marginal means of 4-year public institutions when removing certificates warrants further investigation into possible causes but it is outside the scope of this study.

Again, in order to examine change over time, only those institutions awarding EDCs in all three periods could be included. Drawing conclusions on the differences between subjects after 2006 would not provide an accurate analysis since the many institutions that began to award CIP 52.07 after 2006 are not included. Thus extracting 2016 results from the previous analysis would not provide a complete nor valid picture of the current difference between institution types. Therefore, the following analyses includes all U.S. post-secondary educational institutions that awarded CIP 52.07 in 2016. Once again, 2-year private institutions were removed from the analysis because there were too few to provide meaningful results.

Hypotheses 2-6 are examined using one-way between-groups analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the 520 institutions that awarded EDCs in 2016. Control variables are added as covariates in separate ANCOVAs. For each test, data were normally distributed and Levene’s Test was not significant indicating the assumption of homogeneity of variances was not violated. Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics for H2-6 segmented by level and control of institution.

Table 2.

Percentage of EDCs Earned by Females by Level and Control of Institution in 2016.

Level of institution	Control of institution	N	Mean	SD
4-year	Public	137	.457	.273
	Private	149	.407	.306
	Total	286	.431	.291
2-year	Public	234	.629	.314
2-year	Total	234	.629	.314
Total	Public	371	.565	.310
	Private	149	.407	.306
	Total	520	.520	.317

H2: The results indicate a significant difference in the 2016 institutional percentage of EDCs earned by females at 2-year (63%) compared to 4-year institutions (43%), F(1, 517) = 54.731, p < .000, in support of H2. This mean difference of almost twenty percentage points demonstrates that, if a larger proportion is the goal, 2-year institutions are doing a much better job of attracting and awarding EDCs to women within their institution enrollment.

As a robustness check, those institutions that had 0% or 100% of their EDCs earned by females were removed from the analysis. This removed, for example, those institutions that reported only one award and; therefore, would be on the extreme ends of the percentages. There were 366 institutions remaining. While the spread between the means is less, the results indicate a statistically significant difference, F(1, 363) = 50.414, p < .000. Therefore, the test for robustness supports the original finding.

H3: Results indicate a significant difference in the 2016 percentage of EDCs earned by females at public institutions (57%) compared to private institutions (41%), F(1, 517) = 21.132, p < .000, in support of H3. This sixteen percentage-point mean difference indicates that on average private institutions are awarding a statistically significant smaller proportion of their EDCs to women compared to public institutions. To test for robustness, institutions with 0% or 100% were removed and results confirmed support for H3, F(1,363) = 24.022, p = .000.

H4-6 Results indicate that there is a statistically significant difference between groups, F(2, 517) = 28.660, p < .000. The Partial Eta Squared of .100 indicates a moderate to large effect size. Using the Bonferroni post hoc multiple comparison test, significant differences at a less than .05 level were indicated for the comparison of 2-year public and 4-year public institutions, p < .000, as well as the comparison of 2-year public and 4-year private institutions, p < .000, providing support for both H4 and H5 with an overall mean percentage of EDCs earned by females at 2-year public institutions of 63% versus 46% for 4-year public and 41% for 4-year private institutions. H6 comparing 4-year public to 4-year private institutions was not significant. Figure 3 offers a visual comparison.

Figure 3.

Mean Percentage of EDCs Earned by Females (n = 520).

Table 3 provides a summary of the various ANOVA and ANCOVA models examining 2016 data. Model 1 is EDCs with no controls. Models 2 – 5 add controls; total full-and part-time degree-seeking enrollment, total full-time enrollment, female percentage of institution’s total full- and part-time degree-seeking enrollment, and female percentage of institution’s total full-time enrollment, respectively. These controls for size of the institution and female percentage of enrollment showed no difference in significances. As a robustness check, Model 6 removes cases with 0% or 100% of their EDCs earned by females and results confirm support for the initial findings. Model 7 present the results for entrepreneurship degrees only. This did not change the significant differences, again supporting the original findings.

Table 3.

Pairwise Comparison of Estimated Marginal Mean Differences (I-J) (n = 520).

(I) Level control	(J) Level control	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6	Model 7
4-year public	4-year private	.050	.062	.071	.064	.066	.047	.020
4-year public	2-year public	−.172***	−.162***	−.149***	−.163***	−.182***	−.114***	−.158**
4-year private	2-year public	−.222***	−.224***	−.220***	−.228***	−.249***	−.161***	−.178***
n =		520	519	518	519	518	366	332

Based on estimated marginal means

*The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

**The mean difference is significant at the .01 level.

***The mean difference is significant at the .001 level.

Discussion & Implications

Norms and behaviors are shaped in part by environmental factors including policies, organizations, initiatives, and institutions (Brush et al., 2009). They can signal acceptable choices and can frame what women view as the best career opportunities (Brush et al., 2009). With the growing focus on female entrepreneurship, one would expect there to be significant increases in the institutional percentage of EDCs awarded to females; however, this study finds that over the decade between 2006 and 2016, there has not been a significant increase for any of the post-secondary institutions be it 4-year public, 4-year private, or 2-year public implying that efforts to increase female participation in entrepreneurship have not been reflected in the EDCs of post-secondary educational institutions as one might expect. This is certainly not good news for those who have invested in the promotion of female entrepreneurship with a goal of increasing participation thus balancing the proportion of male and female-owned businesses, particularly high-growth endeavors.

While this study does not prescribe what female proportion of EDCs is ideal, based on the empirically shown link between increased levels of EE and greater entrepreneurial human and social capital, key ingredients for high-growth business endeavors, this study’s findings that the female proportion of 2016 awarded EDCs at 4-year private (41%) and 4-year public (46%) institutions is significantly less than 2-year public institutions (63%), may provide a partial explanation for why we are still not seeing greater gender balance in the representation of women starting high growth-potential endeavors while at the same time seeing a growth in the number of female-owned low growth businesses. Further, the high proportion in 2-year institutions demonstrates that females are interested in entrepreneurship, it also suggests that in general 4-year, markedly private institutions, continue to be gendered organizations in terms of entrepreneurship. Cochran’s (2019) study provides support for this finding. In her research, interviews and observations of female entrepreneurship students were conducted in a U.S. 4-year university with a well-established entrepreneurship program to examine their gendered experiences. Cochran found that most experienced a different treatment than men and felt they had to prove themselves. They also expressed feelings of isolation and apprehension in studying entrepreneurship as well as a devaluation of their ideas by their peers. This signifies that 4-year institutions may be able to do more to support female participation and facilitate high-growth potential female entrepreneurs.

As previous noted, the trend analysis only included those institutions that awarded in all three periods (n = 170), thus those starting after 2006 could not be included in the repeated measure analysis. Comparing proportions from the final year (2016) of the trend analysis with the 2016 (n = 520 all EDC awarding institutions) results is interesting as it suggests that age of the program may play a role in the level of gendering. The results show 4-year private 35%, 4-year public 52% (46% when certificates removed), and 2-year public 59% in the trend analysis compared 41%, 46%, and 63% respectively using 2016 (n = 520) data. What this may indicate for 4-year private institutions is that newer entrepreneurship degree programs may be less gendered. While outside the scope of this paper, it warrants further investigation as noted in the future research section of this paper which also includes a discussion of the anomaly found in 4-year public institutions.

Based on these results it is pertinent to note that greater awareness and acceptance of entrepreneurship as a rightful career choice may, in part, be driven by popular media; however, as part of the entrepreneurial ecosystem (Desai, 2018), educational institutions also play a key role in promoting or discouraging the legitimacy of entrepreneurship as an acceptable career path for women. Since entrepreneurship has traditionally been held as a masculine career (Ahl, 2006; B. Bird & Brush, 2002) and this stereotype has had a profound negative effect on female intentions (Gupta et al., 2009), including women’s intention for high-growth endeavors (Sweida & Reichard, 2013), 4-year educational institutions should explore ways to encourage female participation. The first step is recognizing the need (S. R. Bird, 2011) which this study’s findings support. Universities should then begin by pro-actively examining potential predispositions and the way entrepreneurship is discussed (Wheadon & Duval-Couetil, 2017) within their institution since the gendered sub-culture within a 4-year university may be invisible, with little awareness that the organizational environment is being defined by men (Cochran, 2019). Once recognized, an institution can proceed with evaluating materials, course design, etc. and building educational support. Favorable institution support can lead to higher entrepreneurial intentions (Liñán et al., 2011), notably in improving female entrepreneurial intentions (Turker & Selcuk, 2009).

Gupta et al. (2008) found that actions that explicitly (blatantly) present entrepreneurship as having both male and female characteristics are needed in order to overcome the masculine stereotype and its subliminal impact on female intentions and opportunity evaluation (Gupta et al., 2013). Subtle presentation only serves to have individuals react in stereotypical ways (Gupta et al., 2013). This means that in order to draw women into their entrepreneurship degree programs, institutions may need to nullify traditional entrepreneurship perceptions by explicitly promoting entrepreneurship as an acceptable, gender-equal field of study and potentially beneficial career choice; not doing so may continue to inhibit female participation.

Examining an entrepreneurship degree program to uncover whether or not it is a gendered organization (Cochran 2019) is a valuable exercise. The increasing focus on student learning outcomes and thus assessment for quality improvements provide an exceptional opportunity for institution leaders and entrepreneurship educators to examine their entrepreneurship programs, activities, curriculum, and pedagogy for gendering. Utilization of more holistic and inclusive educational assessment-based scales such as Gedeon and Valliere’s (2018) Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy scales could be used along with demographic information to assess if female outcomes are similar to their male counterparts and, where needed, identify areas for improvement, discuss changes to bridge the gender disparities, and ensure quality improvement for female students by implementing changes and reassessing to determine effectiveness. If examined based on gender, continuous improvement models such as Action Research which is a cycle of planning, action, observing, and reflecting may also assist in improving EE environments (Winkler et al., 2018) by providing a better understanding of female student needs and potential educator and institution biases.

Based on the findings of their assessments, institutions may need to establish measures to develop awareness, guidance, and mentorship which can serve as a call to action for leadership, student advisors, and entrepreneurship educators. In addition, there may be a need to provide training to reduce unconscious and conscious biases that may exist among faculty and administrators (S. R. Bird, 2011; Wheadon & Duval-Couetil, 2017).

After conducting research on EE’s effect on entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intentions, Shinnar et al. (2014) concluded that current EE programs may need to be redesigned in order to effectively impact females. Moving towards the utilization of entrepreneurship frameworks such as the Heptalogical Model of Entrepreneurship which assumes entrepreneurship is open to all types of people and cultural settings by focusing on ideas and problems rather than a particular person profile or context can serve well to provide inclusive EE (Murphy et al., 2019).

In extant literature, there is a growing call for increases in female entrepreneurship faculty and role-models due to the positive impact they can have on female’s self-efficacy (BarNir et al., 2011; Cochran, 2019; Kickul et al., 2008); although there is an acknowledgement that this may be difficult due to the lack (McGowan et al., 2015), especially high-growth female entrepreneur role models. Also, one must have a cautious eye that they are not perpetuating male-stereotypes (Byrne et al., 2019). Critically evaluating how to build positive entrepreneurial identity for female students (Komulainen et al., 2020) and portraying a balanced view of women and men as successful entrepreneurs by adding female entrepreneur representation in textbooks, case studies, guest speakers, and other learning activities (Flynn et al., 2015; Pérez-Quintana et al., 2017), may also contribute to similar intentions to pursue entrepreneurship (B. Bird & Brush, 2002; Gupta et al., 2009).

There is a need for entrepreneurship professors to tailor their courses to the characteristics of their students (Liñán et al., 2018). Since females often identify with enterprises with a social impact (Gupta et al., 2019), entrepreneurship service-based experiential learning as described in Santos et al. (2019) may serve to empower female students while benefitting low-income entrepreneurs. The authors echo Santos et al.’s (2019) call for more empirical testing of Empowerment-based Entrepreneurship Education. In addition, promoting the social and community contributions as well as relational aspects of entrepreneurship may be effective in peaking female student interest and help them self-identify as entrepreneurs (Devine et al., 2019; Liñán et al., 2018). It is through the answering of this call to action that we may see the proportion of female to male awarded EDCs begin to shift to a more balanced level in 4-year institutions.

The findings of this research provide a signal to accrediting institutions, policymakers, education leaders, entrepreneurship faculty, and funders to increase support for the inclusion of gender in assessment measures and the development of explicit gender-equal strategies in 4-year educational institutions.

Lastly, the results of this study indicate that fewer women in comparison to men are receiving the higher-level entrepreneurial skills and competencies as well as extended business networks that 4-year college/university EE affords. This may have important implications for the growth or lack of growth of female-owned high-growth endeavors as loosely implied in this study; however, there is a need for federal and state policymakers as well as educational institutions and researchers to measure and track levels of EE and business start-up outcomes by gender to obtain a better understanding of the relationship between women’s participation in higher levels of EE and the launch of female-owned high growth-potential businesses.

Contributions

This study supports the implications of McConnell et al. (2016) to consider institutional characteristics when examining differences in student populations. It also contributes to the limited literature on post-secondary female EE (Tegtmeier & Mitra, 2015) by examining it from another perspective, the institution, rather than evaluating a single program or course. Additionally, it adds to extant lit by casting a wider net to include 2-year colleges for a greater understanding of female-awarded EDCs and by answering Brush et al.’s (2020) call to examine the gendering effects of institutions on female entrepreneurship. Above all, the findings of this study suggest that there is still institutionalized gendering which continues to act as a barrier; to the disadvantage of high-potential female entrepreneurs. Importantly, it demonstrates to what degree this gendering exists by comparison, thus calling attention to a continued need for academic leaders of 4-year institutions to examine their potentially systemic gendered substructures i.e. EE and to take actions to ameliorate the issue in order to further female pursuit of entrepreneurship.

Limitations, Future Research, and Conclusion

The authors acknowledge that EE is not the only factor that influences a woman’s attitude towards entrepreneurship and her ability to start and succeed in a new venture; however, this study aimed to specifically examine EE due to findings in extant literature which demonstrate its positive relationship to improved human and social entrepreneurial capital leading to a strengthened ability to overcome historical barriers and improve entrepreneurial outcomes. This is particularly important in the aim to increase the number of high-potential female entrepreneurs.

Schools who offer entrepreneurship as a concentration rather than a degree or certificate are not represented under CIP code 52.07 and are; therefore, not represented in the data. Future research may consider using other data sources to include these missing institutions. In addition, while online degrees can build human capital, they do not offer the same opportunities to build broader human and social capital; unfortunately, due to limited reporting of completely online EDCs over the period examined, they could not be removed from the data. As the reporting of online programs becomes more consistent in IPEDS, future studies should address this.

The drop in 4-year public institutions’ proportion when certificates were removed in the trend analysis warrants further investigation and may reveal an interesting insight into female participation. One possible explanation, although speculative, is that in earlier years 4-year public institutions, in general, relied more heavily on certificates than degrees and females could participate without fully diving in; allowing them to pursue a more ‘female appropriate’ major.

Future research could examine other factors that might explain why 4-year institution entrepreneurship programs appear to be more gendered as well as what is driving women to obtain 2-year college EDCs in greater numbers compared to men, for example, age of institution and/or entrepreneurship degree, historical factors, number of female entrepreneurship faculty or role models, or other institutional characteristics. A possible extension of this research would be to replicate Cochran’s (2019) study by conducting interviews and observations of female entrepreneurship students in 2-year public and 4-year public and private institutions, potentially providing more insight into the differences found in this study.

This study also suggests that researchers consider including educational institution characteristics as variables or controls in their examinations of inhibitors and promotors of female participation in EE. Examining these factors may lead to a better understanding of female EE and may inform and influence academic institutions and policymakers to make fruitful changes.

Lastly, this study provides a point of reflection that solutions may not just lie within an entrepreneurship program or curriculum but may need to be extended to an examination of the institution.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Desarae Mueller-Fichepain

References

Acker

(1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4(2), 139–158.

Acker

(1992). From sex roles to gendered institutions. Contemporary Sociology, 21(5), 565–569.

Acs

Szerb

Autio

(2014). The global entrepreneurship and development index. The GEDI Institute. www.thegedi.org

Ahl

(2006). Why research on women entrepreneurs needs new directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(5), 595–621.

Ahl

Nelson

(2010). Moving forward: Institutional perspectives on gender and entrepreneurship. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 2(1), 5–9.

American Express. (2017). The 2017 state of women-owned businesses report. https://about.americanexpress.com/sites/americanexpress.newshq.businesswire.com/files/doc_library/file/2017_SWOB_Report_-FINAL.pdf

Bae

T. J.

Qian

Miao

Fiet

J. O.

(2014). The relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions: A meta-analytic review. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(2), 217–254.

Baluku

M. M.

Matagi

Musanje

Kikooma

J. F.

Otto

(2019). Entrepreneurial socialization and psychological capital: Cross-cultural and multigroup analyses of impact of mentoring, optimism, and self-efficacy on entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 2(1), 5–42.

BarNir

Watson

W. E.

Hutchins

H. M.

(2011). Mediation and moderated mediation in the relationship among role models, self-efficacy, entrepreneurial career intention, and gender. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(2), 270–297.

10.

Baron

R. A.

Franklin

R. J.

Hmieleski

K. M.

(2016). Why entrepreneurs often experience low, not high, levels of stress: The joint effects of selection and psychological Capital. Journal of Management, 42(3), 742–768.

11.

Barringer

B. R.

Ireland

R. D.

(2011). Entrepreneurship: Successfully launching new ventures. 4th ed. Prentice Hall.

12.

Bates

(1990). Entrepreneur human capital inputs and small business longevity. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 72(4), 551–559.

13.

Becker

Murphy

(1992). The division of labor, coordination costs, and knowledge. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(4), 1137–1160.

14.

Begley

T. M.

Boyd

D. P.

(1987). A comparison of entrepreneurs and managers of small business firms. Journal of Management, 13(1), 99–108.

15.

Bird

Brush

(2002). A gendered perspective on organizational creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(3), 41–65.

16.

Bird

S. R.

(2011). Unsettling universities' incongruous, gendered bureaucratic structures: A case‐study approach. Gender, Work & Organization, 18, 202–230.

17.

Brockhaus

(1980). Risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs. The Academy of Management Journal, 23(3), 509–520.

18.

Brush

C. G.

Carter

N. M.

Gatewood

E. J.

Greene

P. G.

Hart

M. M.

(2004). Clearing the hurdles: Women building high-growth businesses. Financial Times Prentice Hall.

19.

Brush

C. G.

de Bruin

Welter

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

20.

Brush

C. G.

Greene

P. G.

Welter

(2020). The Diana project: A legacy for research on gender in entrepreneurship. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 12(1), 7–25.

21.

Byrne

Fattoum

Diaz Garcia

(2019). Role models and women entrepreneurs: Entrepreneurial superwoman has her say. Journal of Small Business Management, 57(1), 154–184.

22.

Byrnes

J. P.

Miller

D. C.

Schafer

W. D.

(1999). Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(3), 367–383.

23.

Cabrera

E. M.

Mauricio

(2017). Factors affecting the success of women’s entrepreneurship: A review of literature. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 9(1), 31–65.

24.

Carter

Brush

Greene

Gatewood

Hart

(2003). Women entrepreneurs who break through to equity financing: The influence of human, social and financial Capital. Venture Capital, 5(1), 1–28.

25.

Chandler

G. N.

Broberg

J. C.

(2019). Using a new venture competition to provide external assessment of a university entrepreneurship program. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 2(2), 96–122.

26.

Clark

(2013). Wind beneath my wings: Policies promoting high-growth oriented women. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 5(1), 36–59.

27.

Cochran

S. L.

(2019). What’s gender got to do with it? The experiences of U.S. women entrepreneurship students. Journal of Small Business Management, 57(sup1), 111–129.

28.

Cutler

D. M.

Lleras-Muney

(2006). Education and health: Evaluating theories and evidence (Working paper, 12352). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w12352

29.

Datta

P. B.

Gailey

(2012). Empowering women through social entrepreneurship: Case study of a women’s cooperative in India. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(3), 569–587.

30.

Davidsson

Honig

B. L.

(2003). The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(3), 301–331.

31.

Delmar

Shane

(2003). Does business planning facilitate the development of new ventures? Strategic Management Journal, 24(12), 1165–1185.

32.

Desai

(2018, March 21). “Uncommon methods & metrics” portfolio kicks off new research focus. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. https://www.kauffman.org/currents/2018/03/uncommon-methods-and-metrics-portfolio-kicks-off-new-research-focus?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=iaw_12_20_2018

33.

Devine

R. A.

Molina Sieiro

Holmes

R. M.

Jr. Terjesen

S. A.

(2019). Female-led high‐growth: Examining the role of human and financial resource management. Journal of Small Business Management, 57(1), 81–109.

34.

Fayolle

Gailly

(2015). The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial attitudes and intention: Hysteresis and persistence. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(1), 75–93.

35.

Fetsch

Jackson

Wiens

(2015, July 20). Women entrepreneurs are key to accelerating growth (Entrepreneurship Policy Digest). Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. https://www.kauffman.org/-/media/kauffman_org/resources/2015/entrepreneurship-policy-digest/july-2015/women_entrepreneurs_are_key_to_accelerating_growth.pdf

36.

Finkle

T. A.

Katragadda

(2017). Opportunities in entrepreneurship education. Global Journal of Entrepreneurship, 1, 64–79.

37.

Flynn

P. M.

Cavanagh

K. V.

Bilimoria

(2015). Closing the gender gap (BizEd March/April, 38–40). AACSB. https://bized.aacsb.edu/articles/2015/03/closing-the-gender-gap

38.

Fox

Pittaway

Uzuegbunam

(2018). Simulations in entrepreneurship education: Serious games and learning through play. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 1(1), 61–89.

39.

Gardner

S. K.

(2013). Women faculty departures from a striving institution: Between a rock and a hard place. The Review of Higher Education, 36(3), 349–370.

40.

Gatewood

E. J.

Brush

C. G.

Carter

N. M.

Greene

P. G.

Hart

M. M.

(2009). Diana: A symbol of women entrepreneurs’ hunt for knowledge, money, and the rewards of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 32(2), 129–144.

41.

Gedeon

S. A.

Valliere

(2018). Closing the loop: Measuring entrepreneurial self-efficacy to assess student learning outcomes. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 1(4), 272–303.

42.

George Washington University Center for Entrepreneurial Excellence. (2014). The National Survey of Entrepreneurship Education: An overview of 2012–2014 survey data. http://www.nationalsurvey.org/

43.

Greene

F. J.

Saridakis

(2008). The role of higher education skills and support in graduate self-employment. Studies in Higher Education, 33(6), 653–672.

44.

Gupta

V. K.

Turban

D. B.

Bhawe

(2008). The effect of gender stereotype activation on entrepreneurial intentions. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1053–1061.

45.

Gupta

V. K.

Turban

D. B.

Pareek

(2013). Differences between men and women in opportunity evaluation as a function of gender stereotypes and stereotype activation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(4), 771–788.

46.

Gupta

V. K.

Turban

D. B.

Wasti

S. A.

Sikdar

(2009). The role of gender stereotypes in perceptions of entrepreneurs and intentions to become an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 33(2), 397–417.

47.

Gupta

V. K.

Wieland

A. M.

Turban

D. B.

(2019). Gender characterizations in entrepreneurship: A multi-level investigation of sex-role stereotypes about high-growth, commercial, and social entrepreneur. Journal of Small Business Management, 57(1), 131–153.

48.

Hechavarria

Bullough

Brush

Edelman

(2019). High‐growth women’s entrepreneurship: Fueling social and economic development. Journal of Small Business Management, 57(1), 5–13.

49.

Hughes

K. D.

Jennings

J. E.

Brush

Carter

Welter

(2012). Extending women’s entrepreneurship research in new directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(3), 429–442.

50.

Hylton

J. B.

Mikesell

Yoder

J. D.

LeBlanc

(2020). Working to instill the entrepreneurial mindset across the curriculum. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 3(1), 86–106.

51.

Jennings

J. E.

Brush

C. G.

(2013). Research on women entrepreneurs: Challenges to (and from) the broader entrepreneurship literature? Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 663–715.

52.

Komulainen

Siivonen

Kasanen

Räty

(2020). “How to give a killer pitch?” Performances of entrepreneurial narratives as identity models in higher education. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 3(3), 214–235.

53.

Kickul

Wilson

Marlino

Barbosa

(2008). Are misalignments of perceptions and self-efficacy causing gender gaps in entrepreneurial intentions among our nation’s teens? Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15(2), 321–335.

54.

Lanero

Vázquez

J. L.

Gutiérrez

García

M. P.

(2011). The impact of entrepreneurship education in European universities: An intention-based approach analyzed in the Spanish area. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 8(2), 111–130.

55.

Lange

Marram

Jawahar

A. S.

Yong

Bygrave

(2014). Does an entrepreneurship education have lasting value? A study of careers of 3,775 alumni. Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, 25(2), 1–31.

56.

Lee

Kreiser

P. M.

Wrede

A. H.

Kogelen

(2018). University-based education and the formation of entrepreneurial capabilities. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 1(4), 304–329.

57.

Liguori

Winkler

Winkel

Marvel

M. R.

Keels

J. K.

van Gelderen

Noyes

(2018). The entrepreneurship education imperative: Introducing EE&P. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 1(1), 5–7.

58.

Liñán

Ceresia

Bernal

(2018). Who intends to enroll in entrepreneurship education? Entrepreneurial self-identity as a precursor. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 1(3), 222–242.

59.

Liñán

Fayolle

(2015). A systematic literature review on entrepreneurial intentions: Citation, thematic analyses, and research agenda. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(4), 907–933.

60.

Liñán

Rodríguez-Cohard

J. C.

Rueda-Cantuche

J. M.

(2011). Factors affecting entrepreneurial intention levels: A role for education. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(2), 195–218.

61.

Sun

Law

(2012). Comparing the entrepreneurial intention between female and male engineering students. Journal of Women’s Entrepreneurship and Education, 1(2), 28–51.

62.

Malmström

Johansson

Wincent

(2017). Gender stereotypes and venture support decisions: How governmental venture capitalists socially construct entrepreneurs’ potential. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(5), 833–860.

63.

Marlow

Patton

(2005). All credit to men? Entrepreneurship, finance, and gender. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(6), 717–735.

64.

Martin

B. C.

McNally

J. J.

Kay

M. J.

(2013). Examining the formation of human capital in entrepreneurship: A meta-analysis of entrepreneurship education outcomes. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(2), 211–224.

65.

McConnell

Rush

Gartland

(2016). Investigating MBA degrees earned by women: A decade of change. Journal of Education for Business, 91(6), 318–326.

66.

Mcgowan

Cooper

Durkin

O’kane

(2015). The inﬂuence of social and human capital in developing young women as entrepreneurial business leaders. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(3), 645–661.

67.

Meyer

Tegtmeier

Pakura

(2017). Revisited: How gender role stereotypes affect the image of entrepreneurs among young adults. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 9(4), 319–337.

68.

Morris

Webb

Singhal

(2013). A competency‐based perspective on entrepreneurship education: Conceptual and empirical insights. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(3), 352–369.

69.

Murphy

P. J.

Hood

A. C.

(2019). The heptalogical model of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 2(3), 188–213.

70.

Nabi

Liñán

Fayolle

Krueger

Walmsley

(2017). The impact of entrepreneurship education in higher education: A systematic review and research agenda. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(2), 277–299.

71.

Neck

H. M.

Corbett

A. C.

(2018). The scholarship of teaching and learning entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 1(1), 8–41.

72.

Neck

H. M.

Greene

P. G.

Brush

(2014a). Teaching entrepreneurship: A practice-based approach. Edward Elgar Publishing.

73.

Newbery

Lean

Moizer

Haddoud

(2018). Entrepreneurial identity formation during the initial entrepreneurial experience: The influence of simulation feedback and existing identity. Journal of Business Research, 85, 51–59.

74.

Pérez-Quintana

Hormiga

Martori

J. C.

Madariaga

(2017). The influence of sex and gender-role orientation in the decision to become an entrepreneur. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 9(1), 8–30.

75.

Pittaway

A., & Cope

(2007). Entrepreneurship education: A systematic review of the evidence. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 25(5), 479–510.

76.

Pittaway

L. A.

Gazzard

Shore

Williamson

(2015). Student clubs: Experiences in entrepreneurial learning. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 27(3–4), 127–153.

77.

Rauch

Hulsink

(2015). Putting entrepreneurship education where the intention to act lies: An investigation into the impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial behavior. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 14(2), 187–204.

78.

Reeves

P. M.

Zappe

S. E.

Follmer

D. J.

(2019). A comparison of the types of problems encountered by entrepreneurial students and successful professional entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 2(3), 214–244.

79.

Rideout

E. C.

Gray

D. O.

(2013). Does entrepreneurship education really work? A review and methodological critique of the empirical literature on the effects of university-based entrepreneurship education. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(3), 329–351.

80.

Rienke van Ewijk

Belghiti-Mahut

(2019). Context, gender and entrepreneurial intentions: How entrepreneurship education changes the equation. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 11(1), 75–98.

81.

Robb

Coleman

Strangler

(2014, November). Sources of economic hope: Women’s entrepreneurship. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. https://www.kauffman.org/-/media/kauffman_org/research-reports-and-covers/2014/11/sources_of_economic_hope_womens_entrepreneurship.pdf

82.

Sánchez

J. C.

(2011). University training for entrepreneurial competencies: Its impact on intention of venture creation. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(2), 239–254.

83.

Santos

S. C.

Neumeyer

Morris

M. H.

(2019). Entrepreneurship education in a poverty context: An empowerment perspective. Journal of Small Business Management, 57(sup1), 6–32.

84.

Shane

(2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11(4), 448–469.

85.

Shane

Cable

(2002). Network ties, reputation, and the financing of new ventures. Management Science, 48(3), 364–381.

86.

Shane

Venkataraman

(2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.

87.

Shaw

Hess

(2018, July 24). Closing the gender gap in patenting, innovation, and commercialization: Programs promoting equity and inclusion. Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR). https://iwpr.org/publications/gender-diversity-patenting-program-scan/

88.

Shinnar

R. S.

Hsu

D. K.

Powell

B. C.

(2014). Self-efficacy, entrepreneurial intentions, and gender: Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education longitudinally. The International Journal of Management Education, 12(3), 561–570.

89.

Sweida

G. L.

Reichard

R. J.

(2013). Gender stereotyping effects on entrepreneurial self-efficacy and high-growth entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 20(2), 296–313.

90.

Tegtmeier

Mitra

(2015). Gender perspectives on university education and entrepreneurship. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 7(3), 254–271.

91.

Terjesen

Lloyd

(2015). Female entrepreneurship index (2015). Global entrepreneurship & development index. GEDI. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280531562_Female_Entrepreneurship_Index_2015_Global_Entrepreneurship_Development_Index/download

92.

Turker

Selcuk

S. S.

(2009). Which factors affect entrepreneurial intention of university students? Journal of European Industrial Training, 33(2), 142–159.

93.

Ughetto

Rossi

Audretsch

Lehmann

E. E.

(2020). Female entrepreneurship in the digital era. Small Business Economics, 55(2), 305–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00298-8

94.

Unger

J. M.

Rauch

Frese

Rosenbusch

(2011). Human capital and entrepreneurial success: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(3), 341–358.

95.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). Integrated postsecondary education data system (IPEDS). 2006, 2011, 2016. https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/

96.

van der Sluis

van Praag

Vijverberg

(2008). Education and entrepreneurship selection and performance: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Economic Surveys, 22(5), 795–841.

97.

Verzat

O’Shea

Jore

(2017). Teaching proactivity in the entrepreneurial classroom. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 29(9–10), 975–1013.

98.

Weber

P. G.

(2014). Gender related perceptions of SME success. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 6(1), 15–27.

99.

Wheadon

Duval-Couetil

(2017). Entrepreneuring gender diversity in entrepreneurship through critical theory and reflexivity. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 9(2), 188–202.

100.

Wilson

Kickul

Marlino

(2007). Gender, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial career intentions: Implications for entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(3), 387–406.

101.

Winkler

Saltzman

Yang

(2018). Improvement of practice in entrepreneurship education through action research: The case of coworking at a nonresidential college. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 1(2), 139–165.

102.

Yacus

A. M.

Esposito

S. E.

Yang

(2019). The influence of funding approaches, growth expectations, and industry gender distribution on high-growth women entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business Management, 57(1), 59–80.

103.

C. W.

(2018). Understanding the ecosystems of Chinese and American entrepreneurship education. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 21(2), 1–18.

104.

Zolin

Stuetzer

Watson

(2013). Challenging the female underperformance hypothesis. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 5(2), 116–118.