This is the accepted version of a paper published in Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice. This paper has been peer-reviewed but does not include the final publisher proof-corrections or journal pagination. Citation for the original published paper (version of record): Ahl, H. (2006) Why research on women entrepreneurs needs new directions. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 30(5): 595-621 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00138.x Access to the published version may require subscription. N.B. When citing this work, cite the original published paper. Link to publisher's version: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00138.x Permanent link to this version: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:hj:diva-2215 # Why Research on Women Entrepreneurs Needs New Directions Helene Ahl Jönköping University School of Education and Communication P O Box 1026, SE-551 11 Jönköping, Sweden Phone: +46 36 101444 e-mail: Helene.Ahl@hlk.hj.se ## Abstract Research articles on women’s entrepreneurship reveal, in spite of intentions to the contrary, and in spite of inconclusive research results, a tendency to recreate the idea of women as being secondary to men, and of women’s businesses being of less significance or, at best, as being a complement. Based on a discourse analysis, this article discusses what research practices cause these results. It suggests new research directions which do not reproduce women’s subordination, but capture more and richer aspects of women’s entrepreneurship. ## Introduction Several authors maintain that research on women entrepreneurs suffers from a number of shortcomings. These include a one-sided empirical focus (Gatewood, Carter, Brush, Greene, & Hart, 2003), a lack of theoretical grounding (Brush, 1992), the neglect of structural, historical and cultural factors (Chell & Baines, 1998; Nutek, 1996), the use of male gendered measuring instruments (Moore, 1990; Stevenson, 1990), the absence of a power perspective and the lack of explicit feminist analysis (Mirchandani, 1999; Ogbor, 2000; Reed, 1996). While fully agreeing with the above, this article takes the critique one step further and discusses the consequences of such shortcomings and suggests someThis is the accepted version of a paper published in Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice. This paper has been peer-reviewed but does not include the final publisher proof-corrections or journal pagination. Citation for the original published paper (version of record): Ahl, H. (2006) Why research on women entrepreneurs needs new directions. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 30(5): 595-621 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00138.x Access to the published version may require subscription. N.B. When citing this work, cite the original published paper. Link to publisher's version: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00138.x Permanent link to this version: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:hj:diva-2215 # Why Research on Women Entrepreneurs Needs New Directions Helene Ahl Jönköping University School of Education and Communication P O Box 1026, SE-551 11 Jönköping, Sweden Phone: +46 36 101444 e-mail: Helene.Ahl@hlk.hj.se ## Abstract Research articles on women’s entrepreneurship reveal, in spite of intentions to the contrary, and in spite of inconclusive research results, a tendency to recreate the idea of women as being secondary to men, and of women’s businesses being of less significance or, at best, as being a complement. Based on a discourse analysis, this article discusses what research practices cause these results. It suggests new research directions which do not reproduce women’s subordination, but capture more and richer aspects of women’s entrepreneurship. ## Introduction Several authors maintain that research on women entrepreneurs suffers from a number of shortcomings. These include a one-sided empirical focus (Gatewood, Carter, Brush, Greene, & Hart, 2003), a lack of theoretical grounding (Brush, 1992), the neglect of structural, historical and cultural factors (Chell & Baines, 1998; Nutek, 1996), the use of male gendered measuring instruments (Moore, 1990; Stevenson, 1990), the absence of a power perspective and the lack of explicit feminist analysis (Mirchandani, 1999; Ogbor, 2000; Reed, 1996). While fully agreeing with the above, this article takes the critique one step further and discusses the consequences of such shortcomings and suggests some