Abstract
Introduction and Theoretical Framework
Only two of the respondents (3.7%) owned firms within the mining supply industry, or half of the proportion represented by this sector overall, as it comprises 380 firms in the Greater Sudbury district, or 6.8% of the total number of businesses in the area.
Fifty-four female entrepreneurs in Greater Sudbury, Canada, were surveyed in 2009 to determine the motives for self-employment, success factors, and problems they perceived. Results revealed that primary reasons for owning a business were personal satisfaction and growth, to have fun and to proving they could do it. These results show that Canadian female small business owners were driven by intrinsic factors as opposed to monetary motives. In terms of business success variables, the most important to them were the entrepreneurs’ reputation for honesty and good customer service. Serious problems faced by Canadian female entrepreneurs were the weak economy, high business taxes and the unavailability of skilled labour. Results on success factors and perceived problems were consistent with those from previous studies using similar instruments both in Canada and other countries, including Turkey; however, while intrinsic rewards characterised Canadian respondents’ motives, Turkish entrepreneurs were primarily driven by economic rewards.
Introduction and Theoretical Framework
There has been growing research interest in female entrepreneurship, coincident with the increasing contribution of female-owned small and medium-sized enterprises (SME’s) to economic growth, as well as the marked increase in the numbers of small firms controlled by women. For example, in Canada, the number of self-employed females has grown fifty percent over the last fifteen years. Women entrepreneurs now represent one-third of the total population of Canadian entrepreneurs. In fact, the number of Canadian companies managed by women has been growing at an average annual rate of 3.3 percent since 1989; this growth rate is 60 percent higher than for male entrepreneurs (CIBC World Markets 2005). In 2008, there were more than 910,000 self-employed women in Canada and 46% of firms (Statistics Canada 2009) with at least one female owner. These businesses employed 570,000 people and generated combined annual revenues of $72 billion representing approximately 8% of all revenues from Canadian SMEs (Carrington 2006). Statistics Canada (2009) estimates that 16% of all businesses in the country have a female as a majority shareholder or owner.
However, despite clear evidence of an escalation in entrepreneurial activity by women, females are still only half as likely 
as men to start a business (Minniti, Arenius, and Langowitz, 2004; Reynolds, Bygrave, and Autio 2004). At the same time, firms owned by women are smaller and less likely to be oriented towards growth when compared to male-owned businesses (Minniti, Arenius, and Langowitz, 2004; Rooney et al. 2003; Anna et al. 2000; Du Rietz and Henrekson 2000; Orser, Hogarth-Scott, and Wright 1997).
as men to start a business (Minniti, Arenius, and Langowitz, 2004; Reynolds, Bygrave, and Autio 2004). At the same time, firms owned by women are smaller and less likely to be oriented towards growth when compared to male-owned businesses (Minniti, Arenius, and Langowitz, 2004; Rooney et al. 2003; Anna et al. 2000; Du Rietz and Henrekson 2000; Orser, Hogarth-Scott, and Wright 1997).
According to the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (2007), while the participation of women in business is constantly increasing, there is still a lower rate of female participation in entrepreneurship, indicating that some gender differences do exist. Given the substantial contribution of female-owned SMEs to the economy, as well as the aforementioned facts, it was deemed relevant to try to improve the knowledge in that area by investigating the motivations, success factors, and problems facing Canadian female entrepreneurs. The theoretical framework for this research (Figure 1 below) has been derived from the literature, particularly recent publications by Benzing, Chu, and Kara (2009), Chu, Benzing, and McGee (2007), Robichaud, McGraw, and Roger (2001), as well as Kuratko, Hornsby, and Naffziger (1997). The framework focuses upon three components that have been previously demonstrated as key to the entrepreneurship process: Motivations, Success Factors, and Barriers, or problems.
The purpose of this research was to find out how female entrepreneurs from Greater Sudbury (Ontario) compared with their counterparts in Canada and other countries where similar issues have been investigated, in particular the three following constructs:
1) Motives for self-employment,
2) Success factors perceived as relevant to women entrepreneurs, and
3) Barriers, or obstacles faced by them .
A better understanding of these factors might result in reducing the gender gap in entrepreneurship and lead to the formation of more businesses by women, which in turn would contribute to a stronger economy. The three other components of the framework, Individual and Cultural/Environmental Character-istics, Business Characteristics, and Outcomes were not measured as part of the present study, as they are peripheral to it.
Literature Review
Motivations
The topic of entrepreneurial motivation has been highlighted in many of the theoretical models developed to examine small business performance. It is often postulated that the entrepreneur’s motives for launching a venture are a key element in predicting small business performance (Morris et al. 2006; Man, Lau, and Chan, 2002; Blawatt 1995; Naffziger, Hornsby, and Kuratko, 1994; Herron and Robinson 1993; Lefebvre, Préfontaine, and Lefebvre, 1993). Furthermore, a better understanding of entrepreneurial motivations may well contribute to a better understanding of entrepreneurial behavior. For example, a recent model developed by Morris et al. (2006) posits that the relative growth orientation of women entrepreneurs is a function of motivations, perceived obstacles, female identity, as well as personal and business descriptors. Accordingly: “…motivations for starting a venture would seem an important determinant of growth aspirations, as those who are motivated by the desire to get rich or to meet a challenge would seem more interested in growth than those motivated by discrimination or a desire for personal expression.” (Morris et al. 2006: 228).
The small business literature identifies a wide range of entrepreneurial motivations, including economic (additional source of income) as well as non-economic factors (independence or work-family balance). The impetus that is most 
frequently identified by researchers is the need for autonomy and independence (Adrien, Kirouac, and Sliwinski 1999; Filion 1997; Statistics Canada 1997; Carter and Cannon 1992; Holmquist and Sundin 1988). For female entrepreneurs, the desire to create one’s own job, which allows for a balance between work and family life, is also often presented as a key motive (Borgas, Filion and Simard 2008; Duchéneaut and Orhan 2000; Brush 1990; Holmquist and Sundin 1990; Birley 1989).
frequently identified by researchers is the need for autonomy and independence (Adrien, Kirouac, and Sliwinski 1999; Filion 1997; Statistics Canada 1997; Carter and Cannon 1992; Holmquist and Sundin 1988). For female entrepreneurs, the desire to create one’s own job, which allows for a balance between work and family life, is also often presented as a key motive (Borgas, Filion and Simard 2008; Duchéneaut and Orhan 2000; Brush 1990; Holmquist and Sundin 1990; Birley 1989).
Several of the studies that have focused on distinguishing between female and male entrepreneurs’ motivations (Cadieux, Lorrain and Hugron, 2002; Holmquist and Sundin 1988; Kaplan 1988) have suggested that women have a tendency to balance social and economic goals, while men are more likely to strive for monetary rewards (Manolova, Brush and Edelman 2008; Lee, 1997; Marlow 1997; Stevenson and Gumpert 1985; Kent, Sexton, and Vesper, 1982). Results from more contemporary studies are similar, inasmuch as they indicate that women put more emphasis on intrinsic goals (Manolova, Brush and Edelman 2008; Cornet, Constantinidis and Asendéi 2003; Kirkwood 2003; McGregor and Tweed 2000).
Previous research has also found that female entrepreneurs have a stronger tendency to pursue self-oriented goals, which in turn, helps to explain why businesses owned by women are often smaller and less geared towards growth than those of their male counterparts (Minniti 2004; Rooney et al. 2003; Anna et al. 2000; Du Rietz and Henrekson 2000; Orser, Hogarth-Scott, and Wright 1997).
Entrepreneurial motivations have also been depicted within the “push-pull” framework, where people who are “pushed” into self-employment find themselves in that position due to necessity. This category includes employees that have been pushed into self-employment out of frustrations, job dissatisfactions, lack of promotion opportunities, or the need for more flexibility and balance between their work and their personal life. Alternatively, the “pull” perspective involves self-determination, encompassing a more positive set of drivers, whereby individuals become self employed out of a desire for independence, self-accomplishment, challenge, and better financial gain.
Research on personal motives for starting a business using the “push-pull” framework has produced mixed results. For example, a number of studies referenced by Buttner and Moore (1997) concluded that men typically find their impetus in 
such “pull” factors as becoming their own boss, having more control over their activities and increasing their wealth. Morris et al. (2006) found growth orientation associated to women who are pulled into entrepreneurship rather than pushed. Other studies of female entrepreneurs were more conclusive by consistently finding that women become self-employed as a result of necessity or push factors (Jennings and Cash, 2006; Baines and Wheelock 1998; MacDonald 1996; Green and Cohen 1995; Stokes, Riger, and Sullivan, 1995; Hisrich and Brush 1985), such as dissatisfaction with jobs and working environments, difficult economic conditions, the need to balance work and family obligations, as well as hostility and discrimination in previous work environments.
such “pull” factors as becoming their own boss, having more control over their activities and increasing their wealth. Morris et al. (2006) found growth orientation associated to women who are pulled into entrepreneurship rather than pushed. Other studies of female entrepreneurs were more conclusive by consistently finding that women become self-employed as a result of necessity or push factors (Jennings and Cash, 2006; Baines and Wheelock 1998; MacDonald 1996; Green and Cohen 1995; Stokes, Riger, and Sullivan, 1995; Hisrich and Brush 1985), such as dissatisfaction with jobs and working environments, difficult economic conditions, the need to balance work and family obligations, as well as hostility and discrimination in previous work environments.
Success Factors
It is very difficult to derive a list of small business success factors from the literature, one of the reasons being the difficulty to define what constitutes business success. Scholars have used notions such as performance, growth, profitability, excellence, and even survival in the case of nascent firms. Theoretical models have been developed to explain business success or performance: Man, Lau, and Chan (2002); Blawatt (1995; Naffziger, Hornsby, and Kuratko (1994); Lefebvre, Préfontaine, and Lefebvre (1993); Herron et Robinson (1993); Keats et Bracker (1988). These models lead to two observations:
1) the importance given to personal characteristics (including motives), skills, and contextual variables (immediate as well as external environments), and
2) their possible relevance for both nascent firms and operating firms.
Models of entrepreneurial behaviour show that there has been agreement among scholars about the categories of variables contributing to explain success among entrepreneurs:
1) demographic descriptors,
2) psychological characteristics,
3) skills, and
4) contextual and environmental factors.
Demographic descriptors include age, level of education, work and business experience, relevant family history, marital status, rank amongst siblings, and gender. While some studies have shown relations between business success and some demographic variables such as business experience (Reuber 1996; Box, White, and Barr, 1990; Cuba, DeCenzo and Anish 1983), age (Zapalska, Bugaj, and Rudd 2005; Cragg and King 1988) and education (Stuart and Abetti 1990; Cuba, DeCenzo and Anish 1983), entre-preneurship scholars agree that these variables are not explaining the entrepreneurial phenomenon in every aspect of its complexity (Greenberger and Sexton 1988).
Psychological characteristics generally describe the personality traits associated to entrepreneurial activities. They are normally acquired through the socialization process (family experiences, education, and work experience) and determine individuals’ behavioural intentions. There is agreement amongst scholars about the presence of specific personality traits as part of the entrepreneurial phenomenon, the most cited being creativity and innovation, the need for autonomy and independence, the achievement need, a tendency to take moderate or calculated risks and an internal locus of control (Cachon 1992). Some studies about psychological factors of success were able to establish links between personality traits and business success, or with certain variables related to organizational behaviour. For example, White and Barr (1993) have shown a relationship between business performance and an internal locus of control. This personality trait has also been related to a more frequent and more intense use of formal management practices (McGraw and Robichaud 1995), a higher tendency to seek information and use it (Davis and Phares, 1967), and a tendency to consult others more frequently (Licata, Stawser, and Welker, 1986).
The skills variable can be distinguished from psychological and demographic variables insofar as it can be easily modified. Very dynamic and experiential by nature, the skills variable has been of particular interest to scholars in the early 1990’s, while Gartner (1989) suggested that research on entrepreneurs’ psychological traits should be abandoned. 
Lerner, Brush and Hisrich (1997) found skills as one of the most significant variables influencing the performance of female-owned businesses along with education, previous business experience, and occupational experience. Generally speaking, research on psycho-demographic and skills variables has uncovered some gender differences beyond the aforementioned motivational ones. Differences were reported in terms of work experience, education, as well as financial and interpersonal skills (Filion et al. 2004; Government of Canada 2002; McGraw and Robichaud 1998; Fischer, Reuber, and Dyke, 1993; Brush 1992; Belcourt, Burke and Lee-Gosselin 1991; Hisrich and Brush 1984). Some studies (Filion et al. 2004; Government of Canada 2002; McGraw and Robichaud 1998) found that female business owners tended to have training and experience in non-business fields, while Hisrich and Brush (1984), and Chaganti (1986) highlighted the fact that females would more often evaluate their financial skills as being below the level possessed by their male counterparts, while they considered mastering more interpersonal skills than them.
Lerner, Brush and Hisrich (1997) found skills as one of the most significant variables influencing the performance of female-owned businesses along with education, previous business experience, and occupational experience. Generally speaking, research on psycho-demographic and skills variables has uncovered some gender differences beyond the aforementioned motivational ones. Differences were reported in terms of work experience, education, as well as financial and interpersonal skills (Filion et al. 2004; Government of Canada 2002; McGraw and Robichaud 1998; Fischer, Reuber, and Dyke, 1993; Brush 1992; Belcourt, Burke and Lee-Gosselin 1991; Hisrich and Brush 1984). Some studies (Filion et al. 2004; Government of Canada 2002; McGraw and Robichaud 1998) found that female business owners tended to have training and experience in non-business fields, while Hisrich and Brush (1984), and Chaganti (1986) highlighted the fact that females would more often evaluate their financial skills as being below the level possessed by their male counterparts, while they considered mastering more interpersonal skills than them.
Contextual or environmental factors can be divided into two parts:
1) The immediate environment includes business networks, work-family balance, and access to capital, while
2) The external environment involves issues such as competitiveness, company structure, technology, and support from government.
Studies by McGregor and Tweed (2000), St-Cyr and Gagnon (2004), as well as Lerner, Brush and Hisrich (1997) have 
shown a link between performance and the use of business networks, while Minniti, Arenius and Langowitz (2004), as well as Langowitz and Minniti (2007), found that women who knew entrepreneurs would be more likely to become self-employed. Work-family balance and access to capital are discussed in the next section.
shown a link between performance and the use of business networks, while Minniti, Arenius and Langowitz (2004), as well as Langowitz and Minniti (2007), found that women who knew entrepreneurs would be more likely to become self-employed. Work-family balance and access to capital are discussed in the next section.
Barriers Faced by Female Entrepreneurs
Business women face various obstacles related to factors such as business size, development stage, as well as the economic and competitive conditions of the sector in which they operate (Carrington 2006). Some authors argued that in addition to the difficulties faced by all entrepreneurs, women encounter hurdles that most men do not (Startiene and Remeikiene 2008; Belcourt, Burke and Lee-Gosselin 1991). To that effect, Belcourt, Burke and Lee-Gosselin (1991) have identified eight obstacles faced by women entrepreneurs in Canada: discrimination, clustering in business sectors with low financial payoff, limited relevant work experience and management training, shortage of peer support networks and limited time, time and money to find and attend training courses, conflicting demands of managing a business and a family, no support from husbands and insufficient financial return. More recently, using different labels for similar categories, Kourilsky and Walstad (2005) reported the presence of the same barriers among U.S. female entrepreneurs.
A qualitative study by McGraw et al. (2008) conducted among female small business owners from New Brunswick and Northern Ontario revealed the following concerns: respondents had difficulties to obtain financing, to balance their work and family duties, to participate into business networks, and to hire competent and loyal employees. The data revealed that a majority of respondents did not need borrowing large amounts to either start or operate their venture, many of them having invested on their own, had obtained their husband’s help as a guarantor, or were financially solid enough to start a business. However, those who borrowed funds encountered several problems: many of them had the perception that money lenders asked more information from them because of their gender. Regarding the work-family balance of responsibilities, they acknowledged the difficulty to do so, but that it was possible in various ways (for example, with their husband/partner’s support, or thanks to their thorough planning skills). McGraw et al. also reported that female entrepreneurs in their samples lacked time to participate into business networks. They further agreed to state that, in their opinion, the main barriers facing female entrepreneurs in the future would be discrimination against business women, balancing work and family responsibilities, as well as the importance of promoting entrepreneurship as a viable and desirable career option for women.
Financing difficulties were also observed in the Morris et al. (2006) study, where the main obstacles mentioned by women entrepreneurs from a list of thirteen aspects of starting a business were all linked or associated to financing, i.e. attracting investors, getting a commercial loan and obtaining personal bank loans for business purposes. The least important obstacles cited were getting suppliers, hiring employees and obtaining licenses and regulatory approvals. In this study, 95% of the respondents had less than 20 employees. Lack of access to capital has also been ranked as the primary obstacle to women entrepreneurs in the Gundry, Ben-Yoseph and Posig (2002) study.
The results of these studies suggest that financing difficulties are plaguing female entrepreneurs. However, a compre-hensive study by Orser, Riding, and Manley (2006) found that Canadian women business owners were equally likely to 
obtain capital as their male counterparts when they applied for financing. This result was not contrary to the literature insofar as it also showed that a large proportion of female-owned businesses were not financed externally because such sources of funds were not needed. Other studies revealed that the main reason for the absence of capital financing had been widely reported as related to female business size (smaller) and sectors (retail and services) in which women were primarily involved as entrepreneurs (Cliff, 1998; Carrington 2006). It can only be inferred from these findings that female entrepreneurs tend to lack funding for both external (sector-related for example) and personal (fear of rejection or of having to go through extra hurdles as compared to men) reasons.
obtain capital as their male counterparts when they applied for financing. This result was not contrary to the literature insofar as it also showed that a large proportion of female-owned businesses were not financed externally because such sources of funds were not needed. Other studies revealed that the main reason for the absence of capital financing had been widely reported as related to female business size (smaller) and sectors (retail and services) in which women were primarily involved as entrepreneurs (Cliff, 1998; Carrington 2006). It can only be inferred from these findings that female entrepreneurs tend to lack funding for both external (sector-related for example) and personal (fear of rejection or of having to go through extra hurdles as compared to men) reasons.
A study among experts on entrepreneurship across Canada (Riverin 2001), regarding the factors influencing people into becoming entrepreneurs highlighted financial support, entre-preneurial education, and promoting an entrepreneurial 
culture as the most efficient ways of supporting entrepreneurship. Kourilsky and Walstad (2005) were also supporting the importance of entrepreneurship education by stating that there is a lack of a positive vision and understanding from the part of women towards entre-preneurship. According to their observations in several countries, this unawareness results not only from a lack of formal education among women, but also from the paucity of business and entrepreneurship disciplines within the curriculum of education systems at the elementary and high school levels. A study about youth outmigration in Atlantic Canada (Berthelot, Vallerand, and Robichaud 2007) revealed that almost 70% of university students stated their absence of exposure to entrepreneurship or self-employment during their curriculum. These authors concluded by proposing more student exposure to entrepreneurship as a mechanism to stem the youth outmigration phenomenon in Atlantic Canada (where 38.2% of graduates were planning to vacate the region).
culture as the most efficient ways of supporting entrepreneurship. Kourilsky and Walstad (2005) were also supporting the importance of entrepreneurship education by stating that there is a lack of a positive vision and understanding from the part of women towards entre-preneurship. According to their observations in several countries, this unawareness results not only from a lack of formal education among women, but also from the paucity of business and entrepreneurship disciplines within the curriculum of education systems at the elementary and high school levels. A study about youth outmigration in Atlantic Canada (Berthelot, Vallerand, and Robichaud 2007) revealed that almost 70% of university students stated their absence of exposure to entrepreneurship or self-employment during their curriculum. These authors concluded by proposing more student exposure to entrepreneurship as a mechanism to stem the youth outmigration phenomenon in Atlantic Canada (where 38.2% of graduates were planning to vacate the region).
Method
Instrument
The questionnaire used by Benzing, Chu, and Kara (2009), which has been proven reliable in several countries under various contexts of economic development, was adopted for this work. The three main components of the Theoretical Framework, Motivations, Success Factors, and Barriers, were measured with five-point Likert scales comprising respectively 12, 17, and 15 items. Modifications to the instrument were made to adapt each scale to the Canadian context, as follows:
1) Motivations scale: one statement was added “To gain public recognition”; 2) Success Factors scale: two statements “Position in society” and “Social skills” were replaced by “Location” and “Community involvement”, and 3) Barriers scale: three statements were removed “Unreliable and undependable employees”, “Limited parking”, and “Unsafe location”, while two statements were added “Unavailability of skilled labor” and “High business tax”. Respondents were also given the opportunity of adding a further item to the Motivations and Barriers scales, should they believe their own situation had not been entirely covered by the pre-determined items in that scale.
Sample Selection and Interviews
Using telephone interviews, a total of 636 female-owned businesses from the 5 580 entrepreneurial establishments (exclud-ing professional services such as dentists, lawyers, physicians) from a list of InfoCanada were contacted. Of the 636 businesses contacted, 476 were either closed or not reachable. Out of the 160 businesses in the sample, 54 businesses answered the survey, which is a 33.75% response rate. Respondents were contacted by telephone over a period of one month in May and June, 2009.
These entrepreneurial firms consisted of small and medium-sized companies and were located in a 130km radius around the city of Greater Sudbury in Ontario. Greater Sudbury was selected for this study as it is part of the mandate of the research group; it was also going to serve as a pre-test for a larger study and a list of female entrepreneurs was available. 
Furthermore the economic statistics of the region were similar to those from other Canadian municipalities (grouped as Census Metropolitan Areas, or CMAs, by Statistics Canada). The most recent unemployment rate at the time of the study was 8.9%, which was below the provincial average of 9.6%, but very comparable to the federal average of 8.6%. According to Statistics Canada (2006), Greater Sudbury had a diversified local economy as demonstrated by employment statistics: educational services accounted for 7,045 jobs (8.6%), health care and social assistance for 9,920 (12.2%), retail trade for 10,270 (12.6%) and mining and oil extraction for 5,715 (7%) before the survey was conducted.
Furthermore the economic statistics of the region were similar to those from other Canadian municipalities (grouped as Census Metropolitan Areas, or CMAs, by Statistics Canada). The most recent unemployment rate at the time of the study was 8.9%, which was below the provincial average of 9.6%, but very comparable to the federal average of 8.6%. According to Statistics Canada (2006), Greater Sudbury had a diversified local economy as demonstrated by employment statistics: educational services accounted for 7,045 jobs (8.6%), health care and social assistance for 9,920 (12.2%), retail trade for 10,270 (12.6%) and mining and oil extraction for 5,715 (7%) before the survey was conducted.
Data Analysis
Data were analyzed with the statistical package SPSS version 12.5. Frequencies analysis provided general descriptors of the sample. A principal component factor analysis with a varimax rotation was then conducted on the data obtained from the three scales measuring the respondents’ Motivations, Success Factors, and Barriers to entrepreneurship. Principal com-ponent analysis reduces a set of variables to a smaller number of dimensions yielding a more general image of the most important categories represented by subsets of variables. In order to be considered, factors extracted for each of the scales had to have an Eigen value over 1.00, with only items with a factor loading equal to or over 0.4 being retained. The reliability of the instrument was verified on the factors using the Cronbach alpha statistic.
Results
Sample Characteristics
Table 1 shown below demonstrates the characteristics of the sample. The majority of the respondents (74%) had some postsecondary education with 39% with a college diploma, 27% a bachelor degree and 8% a master’s degree. 11 respondents had received a professional designation, including nursing, chiropractics, accounting, and architecture (20% of the total sample). There were no entrepreneurs under the age of 30 years while only 9% were between 30 and 39 years old. The other entrepreneurs were equally distributed over the remaining categories. When asked how their businesses were established, 79% answered that they had created their business, 14% mentioned they bought it while 7% reported having inherited it. Consistently with the literature on female entrepreneurship, a large proportion of the sample was involved in the retail and service sectors (94%). The main products and services offered were food, beverages, accommodations, clothes, general merchandise, advertising, bookkeeping, design and pet services.
Only two of the respondents (3.7%) owned firms within the mining supply industry, or half of the proportion represented by this sector overall, as it comprises 380 firms in the Greater Sudbury district, or 6.8% of the total number of businesses in the area.
In terms of business characteristics, the average number of years the respondents has been in business was 16.3 and the average number of full-time and part-time employees was 2.23 and 2.34 respectively. In terms of ethnicity, all respondents were of European origin, and 9% were Francophone, a lower proportion than that of Francophones in the region (27.5% according to Statistics Canada 2006 Census data), while two of the respondents had immigrated to Canada from another country.
Regarding their family’s involvement in their business, 21 respondents (38%) had a spouse actively involved, and 11 (20%) had one or more children actively working within the business. While respondents spent on average 48.8 hours per week working with their business, spouses spent an average of 31.2 hours, while children worked on average 29.6 hours per week with them.
Motivations
The question on motivations required the respondents to rate the importance of each objective on a five-point scale with one (1) being “unimportant” to five (5) being “extremely important”. Table 2 below summarizes the reasons given by respondents for deciding to own a business. Based on survey responses, the primary reasons for owning their own business were “for my own satisfaction and growth” (4.29), “to have fun” (3.92), “to prove they can do it” (3.79) and “to be my own boss” (3.74) while the variables “to build a business to pass on” (2.29), “to provide job for family members” (2.40) and “to gain public recognition” (2.64) received relatively less priority.
A factor analysis was conducted on the data collected on the motivations of the entrepreneurs. As presented in Table 3 below, the factor analysis resulted in four factors: an independence factor, a family security factor, an income factor and an intrinsic factor. The percentage of variance explained was 72.24%. The reliability of the four factors as computed by Cronbach’s alpha was relatively high, varying from 0.724 to 0.760. These results are suggesting an acceptable internal consistency since an alpha coefficient of 0.70 or more is considered satisfactory (Nunally and Bernstein 1994).
The first factor labeled as an independence factor was composed of the following motives: “to be able to use my past experience and training”, “to prove I can do it”,” to be my own boss” and “to gain public recognition”. Together these variables explained 39.3% of the variance. The second factor was called family/security factor and consisted of “to provide jobs for family members” and “to build a business to pass on”, explaining together 14.9% of the variance.
The third factor was labeled as the income factor and contained three motives: “to increase my income”, “to always have job security” and “to maintain my personal freedom”. Grouped together these variables explained 9.3% of the variance. Interestingly, “to maintain my personal freedom” was grouped in the income factor even if it is often seen in the literature as a separate motive. It can be argued that some of the respondents had interpreted this motive with an extrinsic perspective whereby financial stability is needed in order to attain personal freedom. Finally, the fourth factor is an intrinsic factor composed of “to have fun”, “to be closer to my family” and “for my own satisfactory and growth”, explaining 8.7% of the variance.
Success Factors
The question about success factors required respondents to rate the importance of each factor on a five-point scale with one (1) being “unimportant” to five (5) being “extremely important”. Table 4 below shows the success factors. The most important business success variables were “reputation for honesty” (4.96) and “good customer service” (4.91), “hard-work” (4.81) and “friendly-ness to customers” (4.78). Success factors mentioned as least important by respondents were “satisfactory govern-ment support” (2.19) and “political involvement” (1.64). It is noteworthy to mention that the success factor “access to capital” was not considered important by the respondents, which can be explained by the fact that most of the respondents didn’t use much external financing.
Table 5 below presents the results of the factor analysis, which resulted in grouping the 17 success variables into six factors explaining 66.75% of the total variance. The reliability test, as computed by Cronbach’s alpha, performed on the six factors, showed weak to good results depending on the factors (from 0.270 to 0.702). The first principal component, labelled ‘experience’ and explaining 22.91% of the total variance, included the following six success variables: “satisfactory government support”, “access to capital”, “appropriate training”, “previous business experience”, “political involvement”, and “management of accurate records of sales/expenses”. These variables are directly related to entrepreneurial experience: it can be clearly understood that experienced entrepreneurs will have a tendency to have more appropriate training leading them to having better chances of access to capital and government support, as well as to keeping accurate records and being more involved with politics in their community.
The other factors were not easily identifiable as several of the variables were highly correlated to variables composing other factors, thus leading to inconclusive or moderately conclusive groupings. Given the divergence of the variables constitutive of these five remaining success factors, it was deemed irrelevant to attempt naming them.
The second component was formed by the “marketing factors such as sales promotion” and “location” variables and explained 11.83% of the variance, while the third component explained 9.57% of the variance with the “community 
involvement”, “hard-work”, and “management skills” variables. A fourth component explaining 8.8% of the variance included variables “good customer service”, “ability to manage personnel”, and “support of family and friends”. The fifth component comprised variables “reputation for honesty” and “good product at competitive price”, explaining 7.36% of the variance, while a sixth and final component showed only one variable, “charisma and friendliness to customers”, explaining 6.26% of the total variance.
involvement”, “hard-work”, and “management skills” variables. A fourth component explaining 8.8% of the variance included variables “good customer service”, “ability to manage personnel”, and “support of family and friends”. The fifth component comprised variables “reputation for honesty” and “good product at competitive price”, explaining 7.36% of the variance, while a sixth and final component showed only one variable, “charisma and friendliness to customers”, explaining 6.26% of the total variance.
Obstacles
Table 6 below shows that the three most serious problems faced by female entrepreneurs in Sudbury were a “weak economy” (3.33) followed closely by a “high business tax” (3.31) and the “unavailability of skilled labour” (3.30). Obtaining financing was also a problem raised by the respondents since the two variables related to capital came in fifth and sixth places. The least important obstacles mentioned by respondents were “foreign exchange limitations” (1.75) and “electricity/power supply problems” (2.10), which is not surprising as their businesses were selling local services only in an area where power supply is rarely disrupted.
Results of the principal component analysis are presented in Table 7. Fourteen of the 15 obstacles loaded onto five factors. The variable “high business tax” did not load on any factor and, consequently, was omitted from the factor model. The percentage of variance explained was 73.68%. The reliability of the five factors, computed by Cronbach’s alpha was relatively high. The first principal component included five variables related to financing and to recruiting and training qualified staff, and was labelled as “financing and training problems”. It included the following variables: “obtaining long term financial capital”, “obtaining short term financial capital”, “unavailability of skilled labour”, “lack of marketing training”, and “lack of management training”. This component explained 31.69% of the total variance.
The second component, explaining 15.3% of the variance, was related to structural aspects of the Canadian fiscal and accounting regulations and was identified as «tax and accounting problems», including variables “Inability to maintain accurate accounting records” and “complex and confusing tax structure”.
The third component dealt with issues relative to infrastructures, with three variables (“poor roads/transportation”, “electricity problems” and “foreign exchange limitations”); it was called “Infrastructural problems” and explained 10.3% of the variance.
The fourth component was made of two variables: “too much government regulation bureaucracy” and “complicated business registration processes” and accounted for 9.2% of the variance. The label “government regulation” seemed appropriate here.
Finally, the fifth component formed by variables “too much competition” and “weak economy” was labelled “external environment” and represented 7.15% of the variance.
Discussion
It is widely known that women play an important role in the economy in general. For that reason, it is very important to understand what factors encourage or prevent women from starting new businesses or continuing operating an existing one. In general terms, the aim of the current study was to gain additional insights about female entrepreneurs – in terms of motivations, success factors and problems in order to identify the implications for new venture creation and to compare results to similar studies. In order to do that, fifty-four female entrepreneurs in Sudbury, Canada were surveyed to determine their motivation for business ownership, the factors contributing to their success, and the problems, barriers or obstacles they had faced.
Motives
Results obtained on motives showed that, according to respondents, the variables they rated as most important were, in rank order, “my own satisfaction and growth, “to have fun”, “to prove (I) can do it” and “to be my own boss”. A study conducted among 128 female entrepreneurs from New Brunswick (Canada) by Robichaud, McGraw and Roger (2005) revealed similar results, with the same variables figuring respectively in the sixth, first, seventh, and third rank. These results are also consistent and in the same direction as those found in the literature (Manolova, Brush and Edelman 2008; Cornet, Constantinidis and Asendéi 2003; Kirkwood 2003; McGregor and Tweed 2000; Demartino and Barbato 2003), regarding the fact that female entrepreneurs start businesses or keep operating them mainly for non-financial reasons.
Similar studies conducted in developing countries have produced quite different results. For example, a research 
involving Turkish entrepreneurs by Benzing, Chu and Kara (2009) has shown economic motives as predominant amongst respondents (“increase income” and “to have jobs security”). The same phenomenon has been observed in Kenya and Ghana (Chu, Benzing and McGee 2007).
involving Turkish entrepreneurs by Benzing, Chu and Kara (2009) has shown economic motives as predominant amongst respondents (“increase income” and “to have jobs security”). The same phenomenon has been observed in Kenya and Ghana (Chu, Benzing and McGee 2007).
When compared with the results obtained by both studies by Benzing, Chu and Kara (2009) and by Robichaud, McGraw and Roger (2001) the principal component analysis revealed several similarities in the structure of the motive factors. The factor labelled as “security and well-being of the family” in the Robichaud, McGraw and Roger (2005) study comprises the same variables as the “family/security” factor extracted in this research, except for the “to be closer to my family” variable, which was grouped with the “intrinsic motives” factor in this study (while it was part of the “security and well-being of the family” factor in Robichaud et al.). It must be noted, however, that the “to be closer to my family” variable also is strongly correlated to the “family/security” factor (table 3). The other factors show a similar structure across both studies, except for some variables shifts between the “independence” and “intrinsic” factors.
Several similarities can also be observed when comparing the factors extracted from this study’s data to those reported by Benzing, Chu and Kara (2009). The following variables were grouped within the same factors by both studies: “to increase my income” (income factor), “to be able to use my past experience” and “to be my own boss” (independence), 
“to have fun” and “for my own satisfaction and growth” (intrinsic) and “to provide jobs for family members” (family/security). Where variables were grouped as part of a different factor, groupings still occurred in the same direction: for example, the variable “to build a business to pass on” was grouped in this research under the “family/security” factor, while it appeared under the “income” factor in the Benzing, Chu and Kara (2009) study, both factors being related to economic purposes. The same happened with the “always have job security” variable.
“to have fun” and “for my own satisfaction and growth” (intrinsic) and “to provide jobs for family members” (family/security). Where variables were grouped as part of a different factor, groupings still occurred in the same direction: for example, the variable “to build a business to pass on” was grouped in this research under the “family/security” factor, while it appeared under the “income” factor in the Benzing, Chu and Kara (2009) study, both factors being related to economic purposes. The same happened with the “always have job security” variable.
In terms of the importance given to each of the factors as defined by the principal components analysis, it is to be noted that factors “security and income” appear in first and second rank of importance in the Benzing, Chu and Kara (2009) study, as compared to the second and third ranks in this study as well as the Robichaud, McGraw and Roger (2001) study. In both of these latter studies, the “independence” factor was ranked first, while the “intrinsic” factor was ranked fourth and last in by the three studies.
Comparisons between the results of the present study to those yielded by others using the same instrument (Robichaud, McGraw and Roger 2001; Benzing, Chu and Kara 2009) suggest that the scale used to measure entrepreneurial motives is appropriate insofar as it yields the same groupings of female entrepreneurial motives. It is also worthy of note that Canadian female business owners perceived independence, a non economic motive, as the most important one, while Turkish entrepreneurs surveyed by Benzing were mostly motivated by economically oriented motivational variables such as “job security” and “to provide jobs for my family”. This confirmed that, while post-industrial countries such as Canada are known for more advanced economic diversification policies and business infrastructure, developing countries such as Turkey still only provide no more than basic conditions necessary to business creation. Those differences allow entrepreneurs in richer countries to focus more on opportunities and on intrinsic motivations while entrepreneurs from developing countries tend to be more necessity and income driven.
Success
The most important business success variables mentioned by female entrepreneurs were in order of importance “reputation for honesty”, “good customer service”, “hard-work” and “friendliness and charisma”. Interestingly, the first four choices amongst respondent entrepreneurs in Benzing Chu and Kara (2009) were “reputation for honesty”, “friendliness and charisma”, “social skills” and “good customer service”. The “honesty” was ranked first in both surveys, while two of the next three variables (“friendliness and charisma” and “good customer service”) were ranked within the four first choices. Two other studies conducted in Vietnam and Romania also found “reputation for honesty”, “friendliness and charisma” and “good customer service” as the three most important success variables (Swierczek and Ha 2003; Benzing, Chu and Szabo 2005). Conversely, the variable selected as least important within the success variables was “satisfactory government support” by this study’s respondents, as in Benzing, Chu and Kara (2009), except that it appeared on the same level as the “political involvement” variable in the present sample. These results suggest the presence of similarities in terms of success factor perceptions between small business owners across culture and gender. They also suggest that neither Turkish nor Canadian entrepreneurs expected help from their governments to ensure or enhance their success.
A factor analysis performed with success variables resulted into one relevant factor explaining almost 23% of the model’s total variance. This factor was called ‘Experience’ and confirmed results obtained in previous research by Kourilsky and Walstad (2005) among U.S. female entrepreneurs. They found knowledge, education and skills to represent important variables for female entrepreneurial success.
Obstacles
The most serious problems faced by female entrepreneurs in Sudbury were the “weak economy” followed closely by “high business tax” and the “unavailability of skilled labour”. The variable “too much government regulation/ bureaucracy” came in fourth place, followed closely by the two variables related to financing which came in fifth and 
sixth places. The respondents’ first choice is not surprising considering the prevailing economic recession combined with a shutdown of operations with Greater Sudbury’s largest employer at the time of the survey (May-June, 2009). During recessions, consumers tend to reduce their expenses, with negative consequences on small business sales within sectors dependent upon discretionary spending. The same problem has been observed by other recent studies (Benzing, Chu and Kara 2009). The second obstacle raised by female entrepreneurs was the “high business tax”. There is evidence that Ontario as a province taxes small business at a higher rate than any other Canadian jurisdiction. The third barrier mentioned, “unavailability of skilled labour” represents another serious problem faced by businesses within the Greater Sudbury region. The same concern has also been unveiled by other surveys both locally and elsewhere (Chisholm, 2005; McGraw et al. 2008, Benzing, Chu and Kara 2009). One of the main reasons behind this problem is the difficulty for small businesses to offer competitive salaries and benefits packages, as compared to large firms and the public sector.
sixth places. The respondents’ first choice is not surprising considering the prevailing economic recession combined with a shutdown of operations with Greater Sudbury’s largest employer at the time of the survey (May-June, 2009). During recessions, consumers tend to reduce their expenses, with negative consequences on small business sales within sectors dependent upon discretionary spending. The same problem has been observed by other recent studies (Benzing, Chu and Kara 2009). The second obstacle raised by female entrepreneurs was the “high business tax”. There is evidence that Ontario as a province taxes small business at a higher rate than any other Canadian jurisdiction. The third barrier mentioned, “unavailability of skilled labour” represents another serious problem faced by businesses within the Greater Sudbury region. The same concern has also been unveiled by other surveys both locally and elsewhere (Chisholm, 2005; McGraw et al. 2008, Benzing, Chu and Kara 2009). One of the main reasons behind this problem is the difficulty for small businesses to offer competitive salaries and benefits packages, as compared to large firms and the public sector.
The five factors generated by the principal components analysis were coherent insofar as each of them grouped together obstacles pertaining to the same category. Several similarities are noteworthy between these results and those reported by Benzing, Chu and Kara (2009). First of all, both studies had the same sets of variables forming the “government regulation” and “infrastructure problems” factors. Secondly, the factor labelled “financing and training problems” was 
the same as the one obtained in the Benzing study, with the exception that two more barrier variables were added within this survey’s results: “lack of marketing training” and “lack of management training”. These two variables were grouped as a separate factor in the Benzing study, called “lack of training”. In this study, another factor composed of the “weak economy” and “too much competition” variables, was labelled as the “External environment” factor.
the same as the one obtained in the Benzing study, with the exception that two more barrier variables were added within this survey’s results: “lack of marketing training” and “lack of management training”. These two variables were grouped as a separate factor in the Benzing study, called “lack of training”. In this study, another factor composed of the “weak economy” and “too much competition” variables, was labelled as the “External environment” factor.
Factor rankings were similar in both studies, as the first factor reported above “financing and training problems” includes the variables that formed the first two factors reported by Benzing. The “infrastructure problems” factor (“location” factor under Benzing) ranked third in both studies, and the “government regulation” factor ranked fourth. These similarities of results between the female entrepreneurs from Greater Sudbury, Canada, and the entrepreneurs from the Ankara region in Turkey show that both groups had almost identical perceptions of the barriers they were facing.
Conclusion
This study adds more understanding of the issues and concerns expressed by Canadian entrepreneurs from the Greater Sudbury region, from a female business owner perspective. The results reported in this article suggest that female entrepreneurs from the greater Sudbury area shared several similarities with their counterparts elsewhere in Canada and other countries, whether they were male or female, and whatever their culture might be. Some of the results also revealed that problems reported in a previous study (Chisholm 2005), such as difficulties in recruiting adequately trained personnel, infrastructural problems, as well as tax and regulations related problems were still a vivid preoccupation among small business people in the middle of the 2009 recession. The problem with human resources could have been considered as partly solved as unemployment was rising due to the recession, but this was not the case: employers still faced difficulties in hiring people adequately trained, and with literacy, numeracy, as well as computer skills and work-related skills specific to their economic sector. For over thirty years, the province of Ontario has funded agencies (currently labelled as ‘Workforce Training Boards’ or ‘Workforce Partnership Boards’) aimed at improving the adequacy of education and training, with a reasonable level of success, but there is more remaining to be done, particularly with the impending retirement of large cohorts of Baby-Boom personnel across the economy as a whole.
Limits of this Research
There are two major limits to this research, one related to the instrument used, the other stemming from the geographic area where the sample was located.
1) In terms of the instrument, it was constructed to measure the perceptions of entrepreneurs regarding their objectives, their performance, as well as their perceptions about several success and barriers variables; the drawback of such attitudinal measures is their subjectivity.
2) In terms of external validity, the sample was restricted to female entrepreneurs from the Greater Sudbury (Ontario, Canada) area, which limits generalisations about the results obtained. The latter is however, mitigated by the fact that Greater Sudbury is a Census Municipality Area with a linguistic distribution of its population mirroring that of Canada as a whole: as such, it is known to be used as a test market by marketing research firms.
Some of the result comparisons in this study were partly made with previous research involving only female entrepreneurs, while other comparisons involved mixed-gendered studies, but showed the non-gendered aspect of several of the variables. For example, intrinsic factors came in fourth position in all studies, while the security, income, and independence motives remained as foremost entrepreneurial factor regardless of culture or gender, but in varying orders of importance.
Implications for Further Research
This research meant to be exploratory and is expected by the research group to be expanded to allow for further comparisons across Canada as well as other countries, including the North American context in its diversity of urban and rural settings, as well as social categories. The discrepancies between intrinsic and economic motives require further investigation, not only among female entrepreneurs from developed countries as compared to developing ones, but also between various minority groups within both categories of countries. Further research will examine other minority groups such as immigrant entrepreneurs, self-employed people coming from low-income areas, and Aboriginal entrepreneurs in urban and rural settings in Canada and other countries.
References
Adrien, M.-H., Kirouac, S., and Sliwinski, A. (1999). “Women’s Entrepreneurship in Canada: All that Glitters is not Gold,” Universalia Occational Paper 38, 1-13.
Anna, A.L., Chandler, G.N., Jansen, E, Mero, N.P., (2000). “Women Business Owners in Traditional and Non-Traditional Industries,” Journal of Business Venturing 15(3):279-303.
Baines, S., and Wheelock, J. (1998). “Reinventing Traditional Solutions: Job Creation, Gender and the Micro-business Household,” Work, Employment and Society 12(4), 579-601.
Baygan, G. (2000) Les Femmes Entrepreneurs à la Tête de PME : Pour une Participation Dynamique à la Mondialisation et à l’Économie Fondée sur le Savoir, Document de référence, Atelier No. 4, “Mieux connaître l’entreprenariat féminin: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.”
Belcourt, M., Burke, R., Lee-Gosselin, H., (1991). “The glass box: Women business owners in Canada, Ottawa,” The canadian advisory council on the status of women.
Benzing, C., Chu, H.M., and Kara O. (2009). “Entrepreneurs in Turkey: A Factor Analysis of Motivations, Success Factors, and Problems,” Journal of Small Business Management 47, 1, 58-91.
Benzing, C., Chu, H.M., Szabo, B. (2005). “Hungarian and Romanian entrepreneurs in Romania – motivations, problems, and differences,” Journal of Global Business Vol. 16, 77-87.
Benzing, C., Chu, H.M., and R. Bove (2005). “The Motivation, Problems, and Perceived Success of entrepreneurs in Romania,” Journal of the Academy of Business Administration 10(1&2, Spring/Fall), 73-88.
Benzing, C., Chu, H.M., and G. Callanan (2005). “Regional Comparison of the Motivation and Problems of Vietnamese Entrepreneurs,” Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship 10, 3-27.
Berthelot, S., Vallerand, J. et Robichaud, Y. (2007). “L’entrepreneurship: une solution à l’exode des jeunes du Canada atlantique?,” Francophonies d’Amérique Numéros 23-24, 185-201.
Birley, S. (1989). “Female Entrepreneurs: Are they Really any Different?” Journal of Small Business Management 27(1), 32-37.
Blawatt, K., (1995). “Defining the entrepreneur a conceptual model of entrepreneurship,” CCSBE-CCPME Proceedings 13-37.
Borges,C.,Filion,L.J., and Simard,G.(2008). “Specificities of the Venture Creation Process by Women,” paper presented at the Annual Conference of the ICSB/CIPE, Halifax, N.S., June.
Bosma, N., Kent, J., Erkko, A. and Jonathan, L. (2007). “Global Entrepreneurship Monitor – Executive report,” Wellesley, Mass: Babson College and London Business School.
Box, T.M., White, M.A., Barr, S.H., (1993), “A contingency model of new manufacturing firm performance,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice18, 2, 31-45.
Brush, C., (1990). “Women and Enterprise Creation: Barriers and Opportunities,” in Enterprising Women: Local Initiatives for Job Creation. S. Gould and J. Parzen (eds.), 37-58.
Brush, C., (1992). “Research on women business owners: past trends, a new perspective and future directions,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 16, 4, 5-30.
Buttner, E.H., and Moore, D.P. (1997). “Women’s Organizational Exodus to Entrepreneurship: Self-reported Motivations and Correlates with Success,” Journal of Small Business Management 35(1), 34-46.
Cachon, J.-C., (1992). “Entrepreneurs: pourquoi? comment? quoi?,” Revue du Nouvel-Ontario Nos 13-14, 13-56.
Cadieux, L., Lorrain, J.,and Hugron, P. (2002). “La succession dans les entreprises familiales dirigées par les femmes: une problématique en quête de chercheurs,” Revue internationale P.M.E. 15(1), 115-130.
Carrington, C. (2006). “Profils de financement des petites entreprises,” Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship 19, no. 2, 95-106.
Carter, S. and T. Cannon (1992). Women as Entrepreneurs. London, U.K.: Academic Press.
Carter, S., Anderson, S. and Shaw, E. (2001). “Women’s Business Ownership: A Review of the Academic, Popular and Internet Literature,” Report to the Small Business Service. United Kingdom.
Chaganti, R. (1986). “Management in women-owned enterprises,” Journal of Small Business Management 24(4): 18-29.
Chisholm, S. (2005). Greater Sudbury Business Retention and Expansion Report. Greater Sudbury Chamber of Commerce, 51.
Chu, H.M., Benzing, C., and McGee, C. (2007). “Ghanaian and Kenyan Entrepreneurs: A Comparative Analysis of their motivations, success characteristics, and problems,” Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship 12, 3, 295-322.
Churchill, N.C. and V. L. Lewis (1983). “The five stages of small business growth,” Harvard Business Review 61(May/June), 30-50.
CIBC World Markets (2005). Women Entrepreneurs: Leading the Charge. Toronto, ON.
Cliff, J. (1998). “Does one size fit all? Exploring the relationship between attitudes towards growth, gender, and business size,” Journal of Business Venturing 13, 6, 523-542.
Cornet, A., Constantinidis, C., and Asendéi, S. (2003). “Les femmes entrepreneures face à la formation, au financement et aux réseaux, ” Rapport national (Belgique), Projet Diane, financé par le Fonds social européen.
Cragg, P.B., King, M., (1988). “Organizational characteristics and small firms performance revisited,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice hiver, 49-63.
Cuba, R., Decenzo, D., Anish, A., (1983). “Management practices of successful female business owners,” American Journal of Small Business 8(2), 40-45.
DeMartino,R., and Barbato,R.(2003). “Differences between women and men MBA entrepreneurs: exploring family flexibility and wealth vreation as career motivators,” Journal of Business Venturing 18(2003), 815-832.
Davis, W.L. et E.J. Phares. (1967). “Internal-External as a determinant of information seeking in a social influence situation,” Journal of personality no 35, 547-561.
Diochon, M., T.V. Menzies, and Y. Gasse (2005). “Canadian Nascent Entrepreneurs’ Start-up efforts: Outcomes and Individual Influences on Sustainability,” Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship 18, 1, 53-74.
Duchéneaut, B., and Orhan, M. (2000). Les femmes Entrepreneurs en France: Percée des Femmes dans un Monde Construit au Masculin. Seli Arslan, Paris.
Du Rietz, A., Henrekson, M., (2000). “Testing the Female Underperformance Hypothesis,” Small Business Economics 14(1): 1-10.
Filion, L.J. (1997). “Le métier d’entrepreneur,” Revue Organisation 6(2), 29-45.
Filion, L. and N. Riverin (2003). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: Canadian National Report. HEC Montreal in collaboration with O. Branzei, J. Comeau, A. Li, D. Muzyka, A. Pe’er and I. Vertinsky.
Filion, L., J., Riverin, N., Vertinsky, I. et D.F. Muzyka. (2004). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: Canadian National Report. Montreal, Quebec: HEC.
Fischer, E.M., A.R. Reuber, and L.S. Dyke (1993). “A theoretical overview and extension of research on sex, gender and entrepreneurship,” Journal of Business Venturing 8(2), 151-168.
Flamholtz, E.G. (1990). Growing pains: How to make the transition from an entrepreneurship to a professionally managed firm. rev. ed., San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
; border: 0px; color: #303030; font-family: 'Droid Sans', arial, serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 20px; outline: 0px; padding: 15px 0px 5px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Gartner, W.B., (1989). “Who is an entrepreneur? is the wrong question,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice Summer 1989, 47-68.
Gersick, C.J. (1994). “Pacing Strategic Change: The Case of a New Venture,” Academy of Management Journal 37(1), 9-45.
Gouvernement du Canada (2002). “Small and Medium-sized Enterprise (SME) Financing in Canada,” dansSurvey on Financing of Small and Medium Enterprises. Ottawa, Ont.: Statistics Canada (disponible àhttp://strategis.gc.ca/fdi).
Green, E., and Cohen, L. (1995). “Women’s Business: Are Women Entreprenurs Breaking New Ground or Simply Balancing the Demands of Women’s Work in a New Way?,” Journal of Gender Studies 4(3), 297-314.
Greenberger, D.B., Sexton, D.L., (1988). “An interactive model of new venture initiative,” Journal of Small Business Management 26(3), 1-7.
Gundry, L.K., Ben-Yoseph, M.A. and Posig, M. (2002). “Contemporary Perspectives on Women’s Entrepreneurship: A Review and Strategic Recommendations,” Journal of Enterprising Culture 10(1), 67-86.
Herron, L., Robinson R.B., (1993). “A structural model of the effects of entrepreneurial characteristics on venture performance,” Journal of Business Venturing 8(3), 281-294.
Hisrich, R.D., Brush, C.G., (1984), “The women entrepreneur: management skills and business problems,” Journal of Small Business Management 22(1), 30-37.
Hisrich, R.D., and Brush, C.G. (1985). “Women and miniority entrepreneurs: a comparison analysis,” in Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Babson College, Wellesley, MA, 566-587.
Holmquist, C., and Sundin, E. (1988). “Women as Entrepreneurs in Sweden: Conclusions from a Survey,” in Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley, MA: Babson College, 643-653.
Holmquist, C., and Sundin, E. (1990). “What’s Special about Highly Educated Women Entrepreneurs?,” Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 2(l), 181-193.
Jennings, J.E., and M.P. Cash (2006). “Women’s Entrepreneurship in Canada: Progress, Puzzles, and Priorities” in Brush, C.G. et al. Growth-oriented Women Entrepreneurs and their Businesses. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 53-87.
Kaplan, E. (1988). “Women Entrepreneurs: Constructing a Framework to Examine Venture Success and Business Failures,” in B.A. Kirchoff et al, (eds.) Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley, MA: Babson College, 625-637.
Keats, B.W., Bracker, J.S. (1988). “Toward a theory of small firm performance: a conceptuel model,” American Journal of Small Business 12(4), 41-58.
Kent, C.A., Sexton, D.L., and Vesper, K. H. (1982). Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kirkwood, J. (2003). “The Motivation of Entrepreneurs: Comparing Women and Men,” paper presented at the 48th World Conference of the ICSB, Belfast, Northern Ireland, June.
Kourilsky, M., and Walstad, W. (2005). The New Female Entrepreneur: Creating and Sharing the Wealth. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
Kuratko, D.F., Hornsby, J.S., and Naffziger, D.W. (1997) “An examination of owner’s goals in sustaining entrepreneurship,” Journal of Small Business Management 35, 1, 24-33.
Langowitz, N., and Minniti, M. (2007). “The Entrepreneurial Propensity of Women,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 31, 3, 341-360.
Lee, J. (1997). “The Motivation of Women Entrepreneurs in Singapore,” International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 3(2), 93-110.
Lefebvre, L.A., Préfontaine, L., Lefebvre, E., (1993). “Compétences organisationnelles et degré d’automatisation des PME manufacturières, ” Revue internationale P.M.E. 6(2), 66-81.
Lerner, M.C., C. Brush, and Hisrich, R. (1997). “Israeli Women Entrepreneurs: An Examination of Factors Affecting Performance,” Journal of Business Venturing 12, 315-339.
Licata, M.P., R.H. Stawser et R.B. Welker, (1986). “A note on participation in budgeting and locus of control,” Accounting review vol. 61, 112-118.
MacDonald, R. (1996). “Welfare dependency, the enterprise culture and self-employed survival,” Work, Employment and Society 10, 3, 431-447.
Man, T.W.Y., Lau, T., Chan, L.K.F., (2002). “The competitiveness of small and medium enterprises : A conceptualization with focus on entrepreneurial competencies,” Journal of Business Venturing 17. 2, 123-142.
Manolova,T.S., Brush,G.B., and Edelman,L.F.( 2008). “What do woman entrepreneurs want?” Strategic Change 17, 69-82.
Marlow, S. (1997). “Self-employed Women – New Opportunities, Old Challenges?,” Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 9, 199-210.
McGraw, E. et Robichaud, Y (1995). “Le Concept de contrôle du destin et son influence sur le comportement entrepreneurial, ” Revue Internationale P.M.E. vol. 8, no.2, 79-97.
McGraw, E. et Robichaud, Y. (1998). “Comparative study of female and male entrepreneurs outside Quebec,” Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship vol.15, no 2, 69-87.
McGraw, E., Robichaud, Y., Gasse, Y. et J.M. Nkongolo-Bakenda (2008). “Les profils, les entreprises, les obstacles, les défis et l’orientation par rapport au travail : Comparaison de 2 générations d’entrepreneures du N-B et de l’Ontario.” Actes de colloque, Conseil canadien de la PME et de l’entrepreneurship Conférence ICSB-CCPME, Halifax, N-E., June.
McGregor J. et D. Tweed. (2000). “Women managers and business owners in New Zealand,” dans Women in management: current research issues. Davidson, M., J. and R.J. Burke, Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage: 40-52.
Minniti, M., Arenius, P., Langowitz, N., (2004). Global Monitor Entrepreneurship–2004 Report on Women and Entrepreneurship. Wellesley, Mass: Babson College and London Business School (The Center for Women’s Leadership).
Morris, M.H., Miyasaki, N.N., Watters, C.E., and Coombes, S.M. (2006). “The Dilemma of Growth: Understanding Venture Size Choices of Women Entrepreneurs,” Journal of Small Business Management 44(2), 221-244.
Naffziger, D.W., Hornsby, J.S., Kuratko, D.F., (1994). “A proposed research model of entrepreneurial motivation,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 18, 3, 29-41.
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H.. (1994). Psychometric Theory. Third Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Orser, B.J., Hogarth-Scott, S., Wright, P., (1997). “The will to grow: gender differences in enterprise expansion,” CCSBE-CCPME Proceedings 52-64.
Orser, B.J., Riding, A.L., and K. Manley (2006). “Women Entrepreneurs and Financial Capital,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 30, 5, 643-665.
Reuber R.A., (1996). “Does experience make a difference?,” Canadian Woman Studies/Les Cahiers de la Femme vol. 15, 1, 26-28.
Reynolds, P.D., M. Hay, W.D. Bygrave, S.M. Camp and E. Autio (2000). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor – 2000 Executive Report, Babson College, Ernst & Young, Kaufman Center for Entrepreneurship Leadership and London Business School, Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.
Reynolds, P., Bygrave, W.D. and E. Autio, (2004). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor – 2004 Executive Report, Kansas City, MO: Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership.
Riverin, N. (2001). “L’entrepreneuriat au Québec, ce que les experts en pensent,” Revue Organisations et territoires Automne 2000, 1-12.
Robichaud, Y. et E. McGraw, (2008). “Les motivations entrepreneuriales comme facteur explicatif de la taille des entreprises,” Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship Volume 20, Number 1.
Robichaud, Y., J.T. Zinger et R. LeBrasseur, (2007). “Gender Differences within Early Stage and Established Small Enterprises: An Exploratory Study,” International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 3, 3, 323-343. http://www.springerlink.com/content/j438n97442p285j2
Robichaud, Y., E. McGraw, and A. Roger (2001). “Towards the development of a Measuring Instrument for Entrepreneurial Motivations,” Journal of Developmental Motivation 6(1), 189-202.
Robichaud, Y., McGraw, E., Roger, A., (2005). “L’influence des objectifs des entrepreneurs sur la performance des petites entreprises : une comparaison hommes/femmes,” Revue de Gestion des Ressources Humaines no. 55, Janvier-mars, 22-35.
Rooney, J., D. Lero, K. Korabik and D.L. Whitehead (2003). “Self-Employment for Women: Policy Options that Promote Equality and Economic Opportunities,” in Status of Women in Canada. Ottawa, ON.
St-Cyr, L. et Gagnon, S. (2004). “Les Entrepreneures Québécoises: Taille des Entreprises et Performance,” présenté au Congrès International Francophone en Entrepreneurship et PME, Montpellier, France.
Scott, M. and R. Bruce (1987). “Five stages of growth in small business,” Long Range Planning 20(June), 45-52.
Slevin, D. P. and J. G. Covin (1997). “Time, growth, complexity, and transitions: Entrepreneurial challenges for the future,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 22, 2, 53-68.
Startiene, G. and R. Remeikiene (2008) “The Gender Gap in Entrepreneurship”. Engineering Economics, 15, 95-103.
Statistics Canada (2009). Key Small Business Statistics. Ottawa, 44.
Statistics Canada, (1997). Labour Force Update: The Self-Employed. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.
Statistics Canada (2006). Census Data – Community Profiles. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.
Stevenson, H.H.and Gumpert, D.E. (1985). “The Heart of Entrepreneurship,” Harvard Business Review 63(2), 85-94.
Stokes, J., Riger, S., and Sullivan, M. (1995). “Measuring Perceptions of the Working Environment for Women in Corporate Settings,” Psychology of Women Quarterly 19, 533-549.
Stuart, R., Abetti, P., (1990). “Impact of entrepreneurial and management experience on early performance,” Journal of Business Venturing 5, 151-162.
Zapalska, A.M. Bugaj, M.N. and D. Rudd (2005). “Female Entrepreneurship in Transition Polish Economy’ Problems and Perspectives in Management Journal, 2, 32-39.
Zinger, T.J, LeBrasseur, R., Robichaud, Y., et Riverin, N., (2007). “Stages of Small Enterprise Development: A Comparison of Female and Male Entrepreneurs,” Journal of Enterprising Culture Volume 15, Number 2.
By :
No comments:
Post a Comment