Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Destaque
Semelhante a USASBE 2016_Presentation Slides
Semelhante a USASBE 2016_Presentation Slides (20)
USASBE 2016_Presentation Slides
- 1. What’s in a name? Semantics, self-perception & why women don’t call themselves “entrepreneurs” Mandy Wheadon mwheadon@purdue.edu Natalie Duval-Couetil natduval@purdue.edu
- 2. The Problem Background » Discourse analysis of the first season of the entrepreneurship-themed reality television show Shark Tank (Wheadon & Duval-Couetil, 2015) » Logan (2012) study exploring self-employment and entrepreneurship among 1000 women in the UK » Dohrman (2010) research on millennial entrepreneurs
- 3. So what? Does it REALLY matter whether women call themselves “entrepreneurs” or not?
- 4. Less likely to believe that they are capable of becoming successful entrepreneurs Overwhelmingly found in less-profitable industries More difficult for women to secure venture funding & have limited access to valuable mentorship and support networks
- 5. ““At any historical moment, both the gender order and linguistic conventions exercise a profound constraint on our thoughts and actions, predisposing us to follow patterns set down over generations. -Eckert & McConnell-Ginet (2013), Language and Gender, p.44
- 6. Connections • Language • Thought • Associations • Perceptions • Beliefs • Actions Words convey information, but they also generate meaning
- 7. Meet expectations/ implicit associations Symbolic & cultural capital Legitimacy Consequences Legitimacy & Symbolic Capital = Greater Access to Resources
- 8. ““Change comes with the interruption of such patterns, and while sometimes that interruption may be sudden, it comes more commonly through infinitesimally small events that may or may not be intentional.” -Eckert & McConnell-Ginet (2013), Language and Gender, p.44
- 9. Methods » Mixed-methods sociolinguistics framework » Unified Identity Theory » Textual analysis and corpus linguistics analysis
- 10. Research Questions 1. If females are not being called “entrepreneurs,” what terms are being used to identify them? » Labels assigned by others » Labels adopted by self
- 11. Research Questions 2. What concepts or characteristics associated with entrepreneurship might be discouraging the identification or perception of women as “entrepreneurs”? » Specifically, how are these associations being produced/reproduced linguistically?
- 12. Alternate terms adopted by SELF » Textual analysis of first season of Shark Tank » Analyzed terms by frequency of occurrence— results visually represented in word cloud format R1 Alternate terms assigned by OTHERS » Corpus linguistics frequency analysis of 39 databases » Compared frequency and sources of gendered alternative terms for “entrepreneur.”
- 13. Alternate terms adopted by SELF R 1 Results
- 14. Alternate terms assigned by OTHERS R1 Results GENDER search terms: womanpreneur(s) womenpreneur(s) femalepreneur(s) girlpreneur(s) manpreneur(s) menpreneur(s) malepreneur(s) boypreneur(s) Female alternatives (1758) Male alternatives (47) RELATIONAL search terms: mompreneurs(s) mommypreneurs(s) motherpreneur(s) mumpreneur(s) mummypreneur(s) mamapreneur(s) dadpreneur(s) daddypreneur(s) fatherpreneur(s) papapreneur(s)
- 15. R2 Results Comparison of corpus linguistics frequency analysis results in COCA for gendered collocations, represented as a Mutual Information (MI) score “Entrepreneur(s)” (n=7061) Total % MI Female/Woman/Women 149 2.11 1.52 Male/Man/Men 18 0.25 -1.49
- 16. THANKS! Any questions? You can find us at mwheadon@purdue.edu natduval@purdue.edu
Notas do Editor
- Wheadon: *Male participants often described themselves as “entrepreneurs” *No female participants used that term to identify themselves or their business activities at any point that season Logan: *Majority of participants did not think of themselves as entrepreneurs *Many did not like the label “entrepreneur” Dohrman: *Female business owners intentionally avoided using the term “entrepreneur” to describe themselves or their work *Also attempted to prevent their companies from being recognized as one created by a female
- The reluctance of women to call themselves entrepreneurs may not seem noteworthy in isolation, but when examined within the context of other disciplinary gender gaps, it is an important key to understanding how and why men and women often identify differently with the concept of entrepreneurship
- How we TALK about entrepreneurship is both a symptom and a catalyst for the larger issues that are simultaneously producing and reproducing gender gaps such as these in entrepreneurship
- In a cultural context, the recognition earned by adhering to a certain set of standards or expectations over time is often exchanged as a sort of symbolic capital in return for various types of legitimacy (Bourdieu, 1993). This proves problematic in entrepreneurship, where gender can influence whether or not one identifies oneself as an entrepreneur or is thought of as an entrepreneur by others, impacting the amount of symbolic capital, legitimacy, and resources available to them (Bury, 2011; Goss, Jones, Betta, & Latham, 2011; Rindova, Barry, & Ketchen Jr., 2009; Zott & Nguyen Huy, 2006).
- This research used a mixed-methods approach rooted in sociolinguistics to examine the influences of context, culture, society and expectation on the way language is used, as well as the reciprocal effects of language and word usage on individual and social constructions of perception and meaning
- Looking at gendered alternative terms used to identify females in place of the word “entrepreneur.” The study investigated Question 1 from both an individual and a collective/social perspective: a) self-categorization (i.e., what do female entrepreneurs call themselves?), and b) categorization by others (what are they being called by society?). Especially paying attention to ASSIGNATION vs. ADOPTION as indicators of power differentials and the possibility for agentic action commonly examined in sociolinguistic inquiries.
- While Question 1 examined what labels are being attached to female entrepreneurs, Question 2 focused on better understanding how and why these alternative gender labels for entrepreneurs are being linguistically produced.
- Corpus linguistics frequency analysis of 39 databases (Proquest as corpora)
- This study expands the existing research by conducting a textual analysis of the discourse in the data sample, which included 15 episodes comprising the first season of Shark Tank, originally airing between August 2009 and January 2010. The 15 episodes depicted a total of 68 presentations (or “pitches”) by 90 entrepreneurs, as well as an assortment of short “backstories” for 45 of the participants allowing them to expand on their backgrounds. Narrowing the content of the previous study to include only portions of the show depicting female entrepreneurs, Season 1 featured a total of 33 female entrepreneurs who introduced themselves, described their companies, and/or pitched new business ideas. Twenty-three of these women received additional air time to further introduce them to the audience during a backstory. Recordings of the female segments from each episode were transcribed and then coded to compile quantitative descriptions of the content ** GENDER-Related and RELATIONAL terms
- To provide a larger context for the research, Proquest databases were used to access portrayals of and discourse surrounding female entrepreneurs in the contemporary media, and a corpus linguistics analysis was performed on the resulting data.
- Used a different corpus for comparison, specifically the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). The COCA analysis examined 450 million words of text in the American dialect that include 20 million words each year from 1990-2012 equally selected from spoken, fiction, popular magazines, newspapers, and academic texts. This analysis focused specifically on the collocation (or appearance together more frequently than would happen by chance) of the gendered words male/man/men and female/woman/women within one word before or after the words “entrepreneur” and “entrepreneurs.” Mutual Information score is a measure of how tightly linked two words are. This takes into account the overall frequency of collocates. MI=3.0 is usually considered high. “Entrepreneur” marked for gender almost 8.5 x more often when referring to females than males (8.3). The results of this study indicate the presence of a moderate collocation frequency (both positive and negative, depending on the gender) between the use of gendered terms to mark the word “entrepreneur.” ** Signifies “entrepreneur” as a MARKED term