Kadın Girişimciliğini Yeniden Tanımlamak: Genel Girişimcilik ile Kavramsal Bir Karşılaştırma

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 26 Sayı: 1, 387 - 416, 28.06.2025

Artür Yetvart Mumcu

https://doi.org/10.33831/jws.v26i1.531

Öz

Bu araştırmada kadın girişimcilik ve genel girişimcilik literatürleri karşılaştırılarak iki alanın tematik ve kavramsal farklılıkları incelenmiştir. Çalışma kapsamında, 2025 yılına kadar Web of Science veri tabanında İngilizce yayımlanmış makaleler incelenmiştir. Kadın girişimcilik literatüründe toplamda 5058 makale ve bu makalelerde geçen 8983, genel girişimcilik literatüründe ise 24038 makale ve 31385 anahtar kelime tespit edilmiştir. Analiz sonuçları, kadın girişimcilik literatürünün daha çok toplumsal cinsiyet, güçlenme, sosyal sermaye ve sosyal girişimcilik gibi konulara odaklandığını göstermektedir. Buna karşın genel girişimcilik literatürü, yenilikçilik, girişimcilik eğitimi, kurumsal yapı ve ekonomik büyüme gibi daha geniş kapsamlı temalara odaklanmaktadır. Kadın girişimcilik literatüründe güçlenme, sosyal girişimcilik ve kesişimsellik gibi kavramlar öne çıkarken, genel girişimcilik literatüründe yenilikçilik, kurumlar ve girişimcilik ekosistemleri dikkat çekmektedir. Bu çalışmanın bulguları, kadın girişimciliğin kendine özgü zorluklarını ve fırsatlarını anlamak için önemli bir temel oluştururken, genel girişimcilik literatürüne daha kapsayıcı bir perspektif kazandırma gerekliliğini de vurgulamaktadır. Literatürler arasındaki bu farklar, daha dengeli ve kapsayıcı bir girişimcilik anlayışı için iki alanın entegrasyonunun önemini ortaya koymaktadır. Gelecekteki araştırmalar, kadın girişimciliğin genel girişimcilik literatüründe daha fazla yer bulması ve bu iki alanın karşılıklı olarak birbirini zenginleştirmesi gerektiği önerilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kadın Girişimcilik , Girişimcilik , Sosyal Girişimcilik , Yenilikçilik , Sürdürülebilirlik

Redefining Women's Entrepreneurship: A Conceptual Comparison with General Entrepreneurship

Öz

This study compares the literature on women entrepreneurship and general entrepreneurship, examining the thematic and conceptual differences between the two fields. The analysis includes articles published in English up to 2025 in the Web of Science database. In the women entrepreneurship literature, a total of 5,058 articles and 8,983 keywords were identified, while in the general entrepreneurship literature, 24,038 articles and 31,385 keywords were analyzed. The findings indicate that the women entrepreneurship literature primarily focuses on themes such as gender, empowerment, social capital, and social entrepreneurship. In contrast, the general entrepreneurship literature encompasses broader themes, including innovation, entrepreneurship education, institutional structures, and economic growth. While concepts like empowerment, social entrepreneurship, and intersectionality are prominent in the women entrepreneurship literature, the general entrepreneurship literature emphasizes innovation, institutions, and entrepreneurial ecosystems. The findings of this study provide a crucial foundation for understanding the unique challenges and opportunities of women entrepreneurs while underscoring the need for a more inclusive perspective in general entrepreneurship literature. These differences highlight the importance of integrating the two fields for a more balanced and inclusive understanding of entrepreneurship. Future research is recommended to ensure greater representation of women entrepreneurship in the general entrepreneurship literature and to foster mutual enrichment between the two fields.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Women Entrepreneurship , Entrepreneurship , Social Entrepreneurship , Innovation , Sustainability

Kaynakça

• Ács, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Strom, R. J. (2009). Entrepreneurship, Growth, and Public Policy. Cambridge University Press.
• Ahl, H. (2006). Why research on women entrepreneurs needs new directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(5), 595–621.
• Ahl, H., & Marlow, S. (2012). Exploring the dynamics of gender, feminism and entrepreneurship: advancing debate to escape a dead end? Organization, 19(5), 543–562.
• Ahl, H., & Nelson, T. (2010). Moving forward: institutional perspectives on gender and entrepreneurship. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 2(1), 5–9.
• Ahmetaj, B., Kruja, A. D., & Hysa, E. (2023). Women entrepreneurship: Challenges and perspectives of an emerging economy. Administrative Sciences, 13(4), 111.
• Aldrich, H. E., & Cliff, J. E. (2003). The pervasive effects of family on entrepreneurship: Toward a family embeddedness perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(5), 573–596.
• Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Plummer, L. A. (2009). Agency and governance in strategic entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(1), 149–166.
• Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359–373.
• Baumol, W. J. (1996). Entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive, and destructive. Journal of Business Venturing, 11(1), 3–22.
• Blenker, P., Korsgaard, S., Neergaard, H., & Thrane, C. (2011). The questions we care about: paradigms and progression in entrepreneurship education. Industry and Higher Education, 25(6), 417–427.
• Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. Içinde J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (ss. 241–258). Greenwood press.
• Brush, C. G. (1992). Research on women business owners: Past trends, a new perspective and future directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(4), 5–30.
• Brush, C. G., De Bruin, A., & Welter, F. (2009). A gender‐aware framework for women’s entrepreneurship. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 8–24.
• Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (2012). Quantitative data analysis with IBM SPSS 17, 18 & 19: A guide for social scientists. Routledge.
• Buttner, E. H., & Moore, D. P. (1997). Women’s organizational exodus to entrepreneurship: self-reported motivations and correlates with success. Journal of Small Business Management, 35(1).
• Carter, S. L., Anderson, S., & Shaw, E. (2000). Women’s business ownership: A review of the academic, popular and internet literature. ARPENT: Annual Review of Progress in Entrepreneurship, 1, 66–157.
• Carter, S. L., & Shaw, E. (2006). Women’s business ownership: Recent research and policy developments. University of Stirling.
• Carter, S., Shaw, E., Lam, W., & Wilson, F. (2007). Gender, entrepreneurship, and bank lending: The criteria and processes used by bank loan officers in assessing applications. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(3), 427–444.
• Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(1), S95–S120. https://doi.org/10.1086/228943
• Danes, S. M., Stafford, K., Haynes, G., & Amarapurkar, S. S. (2009). Family capital of family firms: Bridging human, social, and financial capital. Family Business Review, 22(3), 199–215.
• De Bellis, N. (2009). Bibliometrics and citation analysis: from the science citation index to cybermetrics. Scarecrow Press.
• Dean, T. J., & McMullen, J. S. (2007). Toward a theory of sustainable entrepreneurship: Reducing environmental degradation through entrepreneurial action. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1), 50–76.
• Deng, J., & Qin, Y. (2024). Current Status, Hotspots, and Prospects of Artificial Intelligence in Ophthalmology: A Bibliometric Analysis (2003–2023). Ophthalmic Epidemiology, 1–14.
• Drucker, P. F. (1985). Entrepreneurial strategies. California Management Review, 27(2).
• Eddleston, K. A., & Powell, G. N. (2012). Nurturing entrepreneurs’ work–family balance: A gendered perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(3), 513–541.
• Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115.
• Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, web of science, and Google scholar: strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal, 22(2), 338–342.
• Fischer, E. M., Reuber, A. R., & Dyke, L. S. (1993). A theoretical overview and extension of research on sex, gender, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(2), 151–168.
• Fisher, E., Reuber, A. R., Business, S., & Branch, T. (2010). The state of entrepreneurship in Canada. Industry Canada Ottawa, ON.
• Flick, U. (2018). The SAGE handbook of qualitative data collection: Triangulation in data collection. SAGE.
• Gavel, Y., & Iselid, L. (2008). Web of Science and Scopus: a journal title overlap study. Online Information Review, 32(1), 8–21.
• Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 76–88.
• Greve, A., & Salaff, J. W. (2003). Social Networks and Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-8520.00029
• Kabeer, N. (1999). Resources, agency, achievements: Reflections on the measurement of women’s empowerment. Development and Change, 30(3), 435–464.
• Kirzner, I. M. (1974). Capital, competition and capitalism. New York University Department of Economics.
• Kirzner, I. M. (1999). Creativity and/or alertness: A reconsideration of the Schumpeterian entrepreneur. The review of Austrian Economics, 11(1), 5–17.
• Kivalya, N. Y., & Caballero-Montes, T. (2024). Understanding the dimensions of women entrepreneurs’ empowerment: a systematic review of the microfinance literature and avenues for research. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 16(2), 197–226.
• Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. Hart, Schaffner and Marx.
• Krippendorff, K. (2004). Reliability in content analysis: Some common misconceptions and recommendations. Human Communication Research, 30(3), 411–433.
• Lewis, J. (1997). Gender and welfare regimes: further thoughts. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 4(2), 160–177.
• Leydesdorff, L., & Rafols, I. (2009). A Global Map of Science Based on the ISI Subject Categories. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(2), 348–362.
• Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 36–44.
• Marlow, S., & McAdam, M. (2012). Analyzing the influence of gender upon high–technology venturing within the context of business incubation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(4), 655–676.
• Marlow, S., & McAdam, M. (2013). Gender and entrepreneurship: Advancing debate and challenging myths; exploring the mystery of the under‐performing female entrepreneur. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 19(1), 114–124.
• Marlow, S., & Patton, D. (2005). All credit to men? Entrepreneurship, finance, and gender. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(6), 717–735.
• Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106, 213–228.
• Mosedale, S. (2005). Assessing women’s empowerment: towards a conceptual framework. Journal of International Development, 17(2), 243–257.
• Narong, D. K., & Hallinger, P. (2023). A keyword co-occurrence analysis of research on service learning: Conceptual foci and emerging research trends. Education Sciences, 13(4), 339.
• Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage publications.
• Rahman, M. M., Salamzadeh, A., & Dana, L. P. (2024). Shackled feet: A review of women entrepreneurs’ challenges in developing countries. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 12(1), 177–193.
• Renzulli, L. A., Aldrich, H., & Moody, J. (2000). Family matters: Gender, networks, and entrepreneurial outcomes. Social Forces, 79(2), 523–546.
• Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2011). Sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainability innovation: categories and interactions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(4), 222–237.
• Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development, translated by Redvers Opie. Harvard: Economic Studies, 46(1600), 404.
• Schumpeter, J. A. (1983). The theory of economic development. Transaction Publishers.
• Schumpeter, J. A., & Nichol, A. J. (1934). Robinson’s economics of imperfect competition. Journal of Political Economy, 42(2), 249–259.
• Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The Promise of Entrepreneurship As a Field of Research. Academy of Management Review.
• Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence‐informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222.
• Van-Eck, N.-J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538.
• Van-Eck, N.-J., & Waltman, L. (2023). VOSviewer manual. Içinde VOSviewer Manual (C. 1). Universiteit Leiden. https://www.vosviewer.com/documentation/Manual_VOSviewer_1.6.20.pdf
• Van Praag, C. M. (1999). Some classic views on entrepreneurship. De Economist, 147, 311–335.
• Walters, W. H. (2017). Citation-based journal rankings: Key questions, metrics, and data sources. IEEE Access, 5, 22036–22053.
• Welter, F., & Smallbone, D. (2011). Institutional perspectives on entrepreneurial behavior in challenging environments. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 107–125.
• Yunus, M. (2007). Credit for the poor: Poverty as distant history. Harvard International Review, 29(3), 20.
• Zahra, S. A., & Covin, J. G. (1995). Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurship-performance relationship: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(1), 43–58.
• Zhu, J., & Liu, W. (2020). A tale of two databases: the use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers. Scientometrics, 123(1), 321–335.