Special Issue Article: STEAM Entrepreneurship Education

Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy

0(0) 1–13
Women Inclusivity ! The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
in Entrepreneurial sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/25151274211033163
and STEM Related journals.sagepub.com/home/eex

Education—
A Case Study

Seshadri Paravastu1 and

Narasimha S Paravastu2

Abstract
This paper presents an interdisciplinary case study on women’s inclusivity in an
entrepreneurship class consisting of adults enrolled in interdisciplinary majors,
including science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines.
With women empowerment through entrepreneurship education as a theme, this
case study in learning innovations aims to encourage diversity and inclusivity in the
classroom in discussing successful women entrepreneurs alongside men. Acceptance
of ideas proposed by women in a class setting formed a basis for this study.
Furthermore, this case study used the idea to reinforce women’s empowerment
during in-class lectures subtly. This paper reports findings based on our case study
across multiple undergraduate and graduate classes comprising majors and adults
from STEM disciplines.

Keywords
learning innovation, diversity, women empowerment, women inclusivity

1
School of Global Innovation and Leadership, San Jose State University, San Jose, California, USA
2
CIS and Analytics, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, Missouri, USA
Corresponding Author:
Seshadri Paravastu, School of Global Innovation and Leadership, San Jose State University, San Jose,
California, USA.
Email: seshadri.paravastu@sjsu.edu
2 Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy 0(0)

Introduction
Homogenous environments restrict learning opportunities across social and cul-
tural lines (Hurtado et al., 1994). Entrepreneurship is inherently interdisciplinary
by its nature. Even an introductory course in Entrepreneurship exposes students
to multiple disciplines such as Finance, Engineering, Production, Quality Control,
Marketing, Sales, and Law. At its foundation, learning is about changing or
broadening students’ perspectives on the subject of their study.
Entrepreneurship education varies from specific STEM disciplines in that “to
generate more quickly a greater variety of different ideas for how to exploit a
business opportunity, and the ability to project a more extensive sequence of
actions for entering business” (Ronstadt et al., 1988). So, the students inherently
have an aptitude for assimilating data more broadly and are also trained to
identify areas of non-conformity rather rapidly.
Students bring their own multiple social group identities to the learning envi-
ronment (Johnson, 2018) – race, ethnicity, socioeconomic class, gender, sexual
orientation, and disability. As a result, students are exposed to various experien-
ces, perspectives, and opinions from their peer group. In this study, we chose
woman’s empowerment as an aspect of diversity. Discussing successful women
entrepreneurs alongside men and how their ideas helped shape society was chosen
as a theme—concepts related to how business ideas proposed by women in the
class are considered and accepted by classroom groups formed a basis for this
study. The objective is to highlight the disparities in gender inclusivity and empha-
size the importance of education in reducing these disparities.
While it is essential to make the curriculum more inclusive (Gefen et al., 2007)
across the board, it may be more challenging to achieve this in STEM core
disciplines. For instance, including diversity, justice, religion, and social respon-
sibility is challenging in a STEM-specific course. Interdisciplinary entrepreneur-
ship education can help fill this gap. Past research suggests that the
entrepreneurship education approach is teaching entrepreneurship as a
method that can be implemented by potential student entrepreneurs (Neck &
Greene, 2011). In addition, students in entrepreneurship classes are often sensi-
tized to the importance of habit-forming skills, developing personal and profes-
sional discipline, inner strength, and perseverance with their ideas such as gender
and diversity issues. This case study attempts to understand the impact of
gender and diversity education in entrepreneurship courses that diverse
majors, including STEM disciplines, take. This study documents the generally
pre-existing gender biases and attempts to reduce the gender biases through
creating awareness about women’s inclusivity. Specifically, this article attempts
to address the gap in literature highlighted by Hagg and Kurczewska (H€agg &
Kurczewska, 2020). Despite entrepreneurship being an experiential discipline,
the gap in understanding the interplay of experiential and philosophical knowl-
edge bases in this discipline. After lectures in class about women’s inclusivity
Paravastu and Paravastu 3

and creating awareness on the topic, the case study observes the changes in the
participants in perceptions about gender and women’s inclusivity in their group
discussions.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: A brief review of past literature
in entrepreneurship and a review of literature on gender issues are presented,
followed by the case study and the data analysis. Next, the results of the case
study are presented, followed by a discussion and conclusions.

Literature Review
There has been extensive research in entrepreneurship education, and the impor-
tance of entrepreneurship is well recognized (Liguori et al., 2018; Vanevenhoven
& Liguori, 2013). Entrepreneurship has evolved as a diverse discipline with
increasing emphasis on perspectives involving learning and evaluation.
Entrepreneurial pedagogy has evolved from a discipline that is based on entre-
preneurial intentions perspective and has leaned towards being a more learning
and evaluation perspective (Loi et al., 2016). The students have divergent entre-
preneurial motivations, diverse learning styles and bring with them a variety of
professional and life experiences (Vanevenhoven & Liguori, 2013). An increas-
ing amount of research in the area of entrepreneurship education found that the
discipline is characteristically diverse and the stakeholders in the discipline bring
with them an urge to be entrepreneurial and aware of entrepreneurship (Bae
et al., 2014; Fretschner & Weber, 2013; Peterman & Kennedy, 2003). The stu-
dents typically have launched a business or entrepreneurial intentions in the near
term (Neck & Greene, 2011; Rasmussen & Sørheim, 2006). Research has also
found that, generally, the entrepreneurship program outcomes are stronger
compared to other programs (Martin et al., 2013; Nabi et al., 2017). We
would suggest that stronger programs such as entrepreneurship education
have a greater chance of conveying important issues such as gender diversity
and women inclusivity to students. The obejective of this case study, was to
observe the change in perspectives towards women inclusivity within an entre-
preneurship course context. The established gender differences in entrepreneur-
ship research are reviewed next.

Gender Research in Entrepreneurship Education

The research results in general on gender differences in entrepreneurship edu-
cation are mixed, with a good portion of research suggesting that men have an
advantage in their disposition to being entrepreneurial and more entrepreneurial
intentions (Chen et al., 1998; Chowdhury & Endres, 2005; Cox et al., 2002;
Wilson et al., 2009; Zhao et al., 2005). Based on the perceived and expected
gender roles (Eagly, 2013), women and men tend to choose occupations that fit
their gender stereotypes. Extending this idea of stereotypes to genders, past
4 Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy 0(0)

research found that entrepreneurship education is recognized as more beneficial

for women and considered as an “equalizer” (Wilson et al., 2009).
Gender disparities in other disciplines outside of entrepreneurship have also
been well researched. For example, the glass-ceiling phenomenon where inade-
quate women representation is well-studied (Insch et al., 2008). Although several
statutes and workplace initiatives are in place to reduce gender discrimination at
the workplace, women are still less represented in the upper echelons of corpo-
rate management levels (Grout et al., 2007). Regardless, women are overlooked
in career advancements at the workplace, pay levels, and perceptions (Kauhanen
& Napari, 2015; Lazear & Rosen, 1990; Noonan et al., 2005).
Similar disparities exist in the areas of technological careers, as reported in
the past literature. Literature suggests that females place lesser value on tech-
nological education and have to lower their expectations about succeeding in
technology-related areas (Beyer, 2008). Women also displayed a lower level of
positive attitude disposition towards computer usage and computer education
(Harris et al., 2009; Young, 2000). While the results from the past results are
mixed and not definitive, the research has established perceptual differences in
gender (Venkatesh & Morris, 2000).
Past research suggests that the entrepreneurship education approach is teach-
ing entrepreneurship as a method that can be implemented by potential student
entrepreneurs rather than as a discipline (Neck & Greene, 2011). Even an intro-
ductory course exposes students to multiple disciplines such as constructs cen-
tering around discrimination against women, especially at work, has been
considerably debated and researched, and the existence of overt as well as
implicit gender differences as recognized in the past research as stubbornly
persisting (Lazear & Rosen, 1990; Wood et al., 1993). The experiences outside
of the classroom permeate into the daily thinking of the students enrolled in
entrepreneurship courses. The diversity in entrepreneurship education also
brings in a diversity of those perceptions. This well-established phenomenon
in research about gender differences in perceptions and disposition to entrepre-
neurship also reflects in the in-class activities. We believe that these perceptions
of diversity exist in both men and women. However, in the classroom, women
are not included as much in discussions by men.
Moreover, women participate less when they do not perceive a sense of inclu-
sivity. Reducing the perception of a glass-ceiling and promoting female inclu-
sivity involves educating both genders: Educate males about the importance of
women’s inclusivity, and educate women on the importance of self-perception
about inclusivity. The research on entrepreneur education in this area empha-
sizes that in addition to just the entrepreneurial mindset and skills required for
new businesses, Entrepreneurial education can have really positive and far-
reaching outcomes (Neck & Corbett, 2018). Research in entrepreneurship ped-
agogy has even suggested that entrepreneurship strategies are teachable, and
students benefit from the entrepreneurship methods such as simulations,
Paravastu and Paravastu 5

coursework, games, and reflective practices that are taught in class (Neck &
Greene, 2011).
In order to implement this, we conducted a case study by observing the class
discussions in entrepreneurship classes. After several weeks of familiarization
among students, we had an intense discussion about the necessity of women’s
inclusivity. The session included lectures, videos, class discussions about
women’s equality, workplace perceptions about women’s pay disparities, and
the like. The session also included several imputes about being aware of
such discrimination behaviors and consciously including women and giving
them due credit.
We captured the differences in perceptions based on the participation of male
and female students in their inclusivity behaviors before the class discussion and
after the class discussion about women’s inclusivity. In addition, we measured
the women’s inclusivity based on their participation in class discussions.
Specifically, we measured the mean participation by females and males and
responses to gender before the inclusivity-discussion and post-inclusivity discus-
sion. Thus, this case study captures the effectiveness of entrepreneurship edu-
cation as called for in Liguori, Winkler et al. (Liguori et al., 2018) related to
shaping society and removing the social and gender-based disparities.
Pre-discussion, the topics, and discussion questions were designed to be
generic and open-ended in order to permit free participation. For example,
one of the discussion prompts provided to the students included questions
such as: “Name three entrepreneurs you can think of - who have grown their
businesses into major organizations,” “What do you think of: the science and
the art of starting and managing a business?”, “Why does the entrepreneur
need to be honest about their motivation for starting the company?”, “What
differentiates an entrepreneurial business from one that is a venture-backed
business?”
Interestingly, in a class with a 29% female population, not one person men-
tioned a female entrepreneur. The fact that no one mentioned had prompted an
inclusivity-discussion during the subsequent class specifically, and women
empowerment was subtly encouraged throughout the term. Post-inclusivity dis-
cussions included explicit asks from the students such as: “We are about ten
weeks into the term, and I would like to hear your current perspective about
women Entrepreneurship. Please discuss how the women inclusivity discussion
benefitted you, and how if your perspectives had changed compared to the
beginning of the term” When the instructor pointed out that in a class of 45,
no one mentioned women entrepreneurs - did that influence your thought pro-
cess about inclusivity? How? In what way has your individual group’s brain-
storming sessions shaped your perspectives in this context? You can also include
your perspective from your work context if you like - for example: Are you a
full-time/part-time student? Employed full-time/part-time/self-employed?
In what capacity? What do you perceive at the work setting in terms of
6 Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy 0(0)

women in leadership roles? If you plan to be an entrepreneur, how do you plan

to bring inclusivity in this women entrepreneurship context? How do you plan to
use the concepts you learned about diversity/women entrepreneurship outside of
the classroom setting such as your work/personal etc.?”
A sample response from a male student who is also working part-time was:
“After our discussion in class regarding women entrepreneurs, my perspectives
have changed in that I noticed how even though there are many successful
women entrepreneurs, it is most common for the men to be recognized. Looking
back, I realized how even in the news and on television, it is very uncommon to hear
women entrepreneurs being recognized/spoken of for their success. When it was
pointed out in class that no one mentioned a woman entrepreneur, my thoughts
were definitely influenced by inclusivity because I immediately started to think
about why it was that I did not mention nor that it did not even cross my mind
to state a woman entrepreneur. The only reason I could think of was the fact that I
do not see many women entrepreneurs being mentioned in my daily life. When I use
social media, the internet, or watch TV, the only big-name entrepreneurs that come
up are men such as Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos. Only now, after our discussion in
class, do I see that there is a problem of inclusivity relating to the celebration of
women entrepreneurs. Our group brainstorming session has shaped my perspectives
in this context in that I noticed that when we talked about our business idea
because it involves working on cars, we barely discuss the fact that there are
many women who partake in working on their own cars. This further proves just
how much women are excluded and not recognized for the things they do.
Especially in corporate settings, it is still common for women not to hold high-
level job positions such as CEO or COO. This all makes me think about if and
when I start my own business how I am going to incorporate and try to include
women entrepreneurs. One of the ways I believe I can do so is by trying to hire an
even number of men and women so long as they are qualified to do the work that is
needed. Also, making sure that promotions are not only given to certain people but
to those who deserve it and is shown through their work. I plan to use the concepts I
learned about the diversity and inclusion of women entrepreneurs outside the class-
room in my everyday life and future career. In my future career, I plan to speak up
in times where I believe an opportunity has been taken away from a woman and
given to someone else who is not deserving. Also, in my personal life, I plan to
celebrate the women entrepreneurs in my family and encourage the other women in
my life to become entrepreneurs. I will also start to add more women entrepreneurs
to my social media accounts so that in the future if asked to name successful
entrepreneurs, I will no longer overlook the many women entrepreneurs who
have had successful careers. While these are only small and not very impactful
steps, I believe it is a good start to living a more inclusive life.”
A sample response from a female student in the same class was: “As a woman
myself, my perspectives regarding women entrepreneurship have not changed com-
pared to the beginning of the term. I still think that women are just as capable as
Paravastu and Paravastu 7

men in the workplace, including in filling leadership roles. While the good news is
that we are already progressing into an era of gender equality, I think the reason
why the stigma is still strong (no one in the class mentioned women entrepreneurs
during class discussion) and also why statistics show a comparatively lower number
of women filling in management positions than men is because of two things: past
(inequality still exists) gender oppression and working-mother dilemma. In the
past, women’s roles were only limited to doing domestic work and taking good care
of the children. This mindset of ’divided roles’ is still prevalent to date, both con-
sciously and unconsciously, in our mindset and takes a lot of effort to put an end to.
This is a sad thing, but as I’ve mentioned earlier, we are slowly but surely heading
in the right direction. The second is the role dilemma of a full-time working mother.
Getting into a top position in a firm requires effort and time, which is very hard to
have a good balance of when someone has become a mother. Sometimes, these very
women ended up giving up their careers because they feel bad for their children.
They are not in any way incapable of getting there, but other priorities stop them
from doing so (maybe also explains why the wealthy list is dominated by men).
The cases can be different across countries, obviously, but this is a pretty common
situation where I am at, in Southeast Asia. My biggest hope, though, is so that
there will be less and less gender inequality in the future and that women don’t even
have to feel bad for whatever choices they make, whether they want to be a mother,
a career woman, or both”.

Data Collection, Methodology, and Findings

For this case study, we analyzed the number of discussion posts by students of
both genders enrolled in Entrepreneurship classes at both bachelor’s and
Master’s levels. The classes were synchronous online classes conducted over
zoom, lending personal interaction to the students and the interaction directly
with the instructor. We gathered data about discussion postings by gender for
online discussions before discussing gender equality and women’s inclusivity.
We also collected data about the discussion postings about cross-gender
responses after an in-depth discussion about gender equality and women’s
inclusivity (inclusivity discussion henceforth). We analyzed the students’ partic-
ipation in online class discussion topics for the pre-inclusivity discussions and
post-inclusivity discussions. We tracked the number of posts by males and sev-
eral discussion posts by females. Out of the total discussion postings by either
gender, we tracked the number of responding posts by either gender to the
original postings and the number of responding postings to either gender.

Sample Characteristics
The sample consisted of adults enrolled in entrepreneurship classes at both
masters and bachelors’ level in a University on the west coast. The same classes
8 Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy 0(0)

were used for both pre-inclusivity data and post-inclusivity data. About ten
students from the pre-inclusivity data did not participate later in the discussions
for various reasons unrelated to the class.
Out of the pre-inclusivity sample, 26 were females, and 64 were males. Out of
the total number of participants in the pre-inclusivity data, 21.1% were unem-
ployed, 23.3% were employed part-time, 22.2% were employed full-time, 15.6%
were self-employed or entrepreneurs, and 17.8% did not report their employ-
ment status. Out of the post-inclusivity sample, 25 were females, and 55 were
males. Out of the total number of participants in the post-inclusivity data, 20%
were unemployed, 22.5% were employed part-time, 21.3% were employed full-
time, 17.5% were self-employed or entrepreneurs, and 18.8% did not report
their employment status.
A total of 90 students participated in the pre-inclusivity discussion postings.
Of the 90 students, 26 were females, and 64 were males. There were a total of 368
discussion postings during the pre-inclusivity phase. Eighty students participat-
ed in the post-inclusivity discussion postings. Of the 80 students, 25 were female,
and 55 were male. There were a total of 280 discussion postings during the post
inclusivity phase.

Data Analysis and Results

SPSS was used to analyze the data. First, we ran the frequencies to find out the
sample characteristics, and for analyzing the number of discussion posts for the
pre-inclusivity and post inclusivity posts, we ran the crosstabs and comparison
of means. The results are reported below in Table 1.
The data collected prior to the women inclusivity discussion sample had 26
females and 64 males in the discussions. There were 368 posts, with 107 being

Table 1. Table of Means for Pre-Inclusivity Discussion Data.

Gender RespByM RespByF RespToM RespToF POSbyF POSbyM NEGbyM

Females
Mean 4 1.58 2.54 1.58 0.46 1.31 1.5
N 26 26 26 26 26 26 26
Standard deviation 3.868 1.88 1.923 1.554 0.582 1.192 1.03
Males
Mean 3.55 1.03 3.55 1.63 0.44 1.6 1.33
N 64 64 64 64 27 63 63
Standard deviation 2.754 1.297 6.314 2.622 0.506 1.185 1.368
Total
Mean 3.68 1.19 3.26 1.61 0.45 1.52 1.38
N 90 90 90 90 53 89 89
Standard deviation 3.101 1.498 5.429 2.355 0.539 1.188 1.275
Paravastu and Paravastu 9

posts by females and 261 being posts by males. Females averaged 4.12 posts
(standard deviation 2.47), and males averaged 4.08 posts (standard
deviation ¼ 2.43) for every post by a female, a mean of 4 responding posts
were by males. This translated to a standard deviation of 3.86 with 1.58 respond-
ing posts by females, with a standard deviation of 1.88. For every posting by a
male, a mean of 3.55 responding posts were by males, with a standard deviation
of 3.754 and 1.29 responding posts by females with a standard deviation of
1.297. Every female discussant responded to another female with a mean of
1.58 posts with a standard deviation of 1.55 and responded to another male
with a mean of 2.54 and a standard deviation of 1.92. Every male discussant
responded to another male with a mean of 1.63 posts with a standard deviation
of 2.622.
After the initial discussions on topics earlier detailed, the instructors had a
detailed lecture about Women’s inclusivity. The lecture included an in-depth
review and feedback about the prior discussions and a perspective lecture on
women’s inclusivity. Then several topics were again opened for discussion.
Finally, the same data were gathered based on the discussions in the post-
lecture discussions. Table 2 presented below summarizes the results for the
post-lecture discussions.
There were 80 participants in the discussions in the phase after the in-class
discussion about women’s inclusivity. Each discussant posted a mean of 3.50
posts for any gender, with a standard deviation of 2.295. The minimum number
of posts for any gender was one, and the maximum was 8. Within the genders:
Females had a mean of 3.44 (N¼25 and standard deviation ¼ 2.38) posts. Males
had a mean of 3.53 posts (N¼55 and standard deviation ¼ 2.27). Every Female
discussant was responded by a male with a mean of 2. 04 and standard deviation
of 2.71, and by a female with a mean of 2. 08 and standard deviation of 1.236.

Table 2. Table of Means for Post-Inclusivity Discussion Data.

Gender RespByM RespByF RespToM RespToF

Females
Mean 2.04 .88 2.08 .88
N 25 25 25 25
Standard deviation 2.715 1.236 2.361 1.453
% of total N 31.3% 31.3% 31.3% 31.3%
% of total sum 27.4% 29.7% 28.6% 31.0%
Males
Mean 2.45 .95 2.36 .89
N 55 55 55 55
Standard deviation 3.005 1.671 2.497 1.212
% of total N 68.8% 68.8% 68.8% 68.8%
% of total sum 72.6% 70.3% 71.4% 69.0%
10 Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy 0(0)

Every Male discussant was responded by a male with a mean of 2. 45 and

standard deviation of 3.00, and by a female with a mean of 0.95 and standard
deviation of 1.671. Every female discussant responded to another male with a
mean of 2.08 posts and standard deviation of 2.361 and responded to another
female discussant with a mean of 0.88 posts and standard deviation of 1.453.
Every male discussant responded to another male with a mean of 2.36 posts
and standard deviation of 2.497 and responded to another female with a mean
of 0.89 posts with a standard deviation of 1.453.

Discussion
Inclusivity was defined as more participation on the part of the women in cross-
gender discussions and the males trying to recognize and make an effort to
include women. Results suggest that this objective seems to have been realized.
The mean postings by women were 4.12 before the discussion about inclusivity,
and the mean of posts by females was3.44 after the discussion. Although it may
seem like the mean posts have declined, we may point out that the percentage of
participation of females in the discussion had gone up by almost two percentage
points to the total number of posts by gender from 29.1% to 30.7%, suggesting
that the participation has indeed gone up.
Similarly, there was a clear trend in the responding posts. Females responded
to female discussants more after the inclusivity discussion: Females’ mean
responding posts to females went up from 1.58 prior to the discussion to 2.08
after the discussion.
The data did not provide latitude to analyze further about the male partic-
ipation for responses with the broad participation of the males reducing in the
latter part of the data collection with both means and percentage participation
showing a decline.

Conclusions
The data indicate that inclusivity discussions are meaningful across genders. For
the male participants, several participants acknowledged in their interviews that
they had not looked at the inclusivity issue from the point of view of women
empowerment and gender equality. In their interview, the male participants
acknowledged that the inclusivity discussion had effectively raised the awareness
of women’s inclusion in several of their daily work-related activities outside of
this class and not confined just for the class discussions. This would indicate that
the lack of women’s inclusivity is an artifact of social conditioning and stereo-
typical thinking. Given an opportunity to look beyond those, both genders are
ready and available for inclusivity: males are more readily accepting of women,
and women can rise above the non-inclusivity perspectives of isolating them-
selves and ready to be included more. This is an important contribution of this
Paravastu and Paravastu 11

paper for the women inclusivity literature. Similar results were confirmed in the
past literature as well: in other contexts such as online discussions, gender inclu-
sivity and making others feel ignored is an important aspect not only in the
workplace or specific to genders, but in online communication and discussion
settings as well (Gefen et al., 2007).

Limitations
The data is based on discussants being students in a class situation. The sample
happens to be a convenience sample. Therefore, this paper neither claims any
causality or correlational validity nor generalizability of the results. While this is
a limitation, we may point out that the sample used in this case study is appro-
priate because the sample consists of several working entrepreneurs or working
full-time adults as described in the sample characteristics. Secondly, discussions
about women’s inclusivity must happen inside the classroom where the message
about women’s inclusivity is effectively conveyed to the adults who are in the
workforce or will be entering the workforce soon. When these students go into
the workforce, the workforce progressively becomes more aware of the need for
the social inclusivity of all genders, especially women overlooked in general. The
participant interviews on their modified approach with being gender-aware and
including women in the classroom and outside in their work reinforce that
awareness about inclusivity is effective.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

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

ORCID iD
Seshadri Paravastu https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4551-6567

References
Bae, T. J., Qian, S., Miao, C., & O, F. J. (2014). The Relationship between entrepre-
neurship education and entrepreneurial intentions: A meta-analytic review.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(2), 217–254.
Beyer, S. (2008). Gender differences and intra-gender differences amongst management
information systems students. Journal of Information Systems Education, 19(3),
301–310. https://login.cyrano.ucmo.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.
aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=34493680&site=ehost-live
12 Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy 0(0)

Chen, C. C., Greene, P. G., & Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy dis-
tinguish entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing, 13(4), 295–316.
Chowdhury, S., & Endres, M. (2005). Gender difference and the formation of entrepre-
neurial self-efficacy [Conference]. United States Association of Small Business
(USASBE) Annual Conference, Indian Wells, CA, United States.
Cox, L. W., Mueller, S. L., & Moss, S. E. (2002). The impact of entrepreneurship edu-
cation on entrepreneurial self-efficacy. International Journal of Entrepreneurship
Education, 1(2), 229–245.
Eagly, A. H. (2013). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation.
Psychology Press.
Fretschner, M., & Weber, S. (2013). Measuring and understanding the effects of entre-
preneurial awareness education. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(3),
410–428. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12019
Gefen, D., Geri, N., & Paravastu, N. (2007). Vive la difference: The cross-culture differ-
ences within us. International Journal of E-Collaboration (IJeC), 3(3), 1–15. https://
doi.org/10.4018/jec.2007070101
Grout, P. A., Park, I.-U., & Sonderegger, S. (2007). An economic theory of the glass ceiling
(Issue 07/183). The Centre for Market and Public Organisation, University of Bristol.
H€agg, G., & Kurczewska, A. (2020). Towards a learning philosophy based on experience
in entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 3(2),
129–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515127420910679
Harris, N., Cushman, P., Kruck, S. E., & Anderson, R. D. (2009). Technology majors:
Why are women absent? Journal of Computer Information Systems, 50(2), 23–30.
https://login.cyrano.ucmo.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=bth&AN=48216611&site=ehost-live
Hurtado, S., Dey, E. L., Trevi~ no, J. G., & Meeting, A. E. R. A. (1994). Exclusion or self-
segregation?: Interaction across racial/ethnic groups on college campuses. https://
books.google.com/books?id=yFElAQAAIAAJ
Insch, G., McIntyre, N., & Napier, N. (2008). The expatriate glass ceiling: The second layer
of glass. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(1), 19–28. http://10.0.3.239/s10551-007-9649-0
Johnson, A. G. (2018). Privilege, power, and difference (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill
Education. http://id.lib.harvard.edu/alma/990151371260203941/catalog
Kauhanen, A., & Napari, S. (2015). Gender differences in careers. Annals of Economics
and Statistics, 117/118, 61–88. https://doi.org/10.15609/annaeconstat2009.117-118.61
Lazear, E. P., & Rosen, S. (1990). Male-female wage differentials in job ladders. Journal
of Labor Economics, 8(1), S106–S123. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2535209
Liguori, E., Winkler, C., Winkel, D., Marvel, M. R., Keels, J. K., van Gelderen, M., &
Noyes, E. (2018). The entrepreneurship education imperative: Introducing EE&P.
Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 1(1), 5–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/
2515127417737290
Loi, M., Castriotta, M., & Di Guardo, M. C. (2016). The theoretical foundations of
entrepreneurship education: How co-citations are shaping the field. International
Small Business Journal, 34(7), 948–971. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242615602322
Martin, B. C., McNally, J. J., & Kay, M. J. (2013). Examining the formation of human capital
in entrepreneurship: A meta-analysis of entrepreneurship education outcomes. Journal of
Business Venturing, 28(2), 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2012.03.002
Paravastu and Paravastu 13

Nabi, G., Li~ nán, F., Fayolle, A., Krueger, N., & Walmsley, A. (2017). The impact of
entrepreneurship education in higher education: A systematic review and research
agenda. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(2), 277–299. https://doi.
org/10.5465/amle.2015.0026
Neck, H. M., & Corbett, A. C. (2018). The scholarship of teaching and learning entre-
preneurship. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 1(1), 8–41. https://doi.org/10.
1177/2515127417737286
Neck, H. M., & Greene, P. G. (2011). Entrepreneurship education: Known worlds and
new frontiers. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 55–70. http://10.0.4.87/j.
1540-627X.2010.00314.x
Noonan, M. C., Corcoran, M. E., & Courant, P. N. (2005). Pay differences among the
highly trained: Cohort differences in the sex gap in lawyers’ earnings. Social Forces,
84(2), 853–872. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3598482
Peterman, N. E., & Kennedy, J. (2003). Enterprise education: Influencing students’ per-
ceptions of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(2), 129–144.
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1540-6520.2003.00035.x
Rasmussen, E. A., & Sørheim, R. (2006). Action-based entrepreneurship education.
Technovation, 26(2), 185–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2005.06.012
Rideout, E. C., & Gray, D. O. (2013). Does entrepreneurship education really work? A
review and methodological critique of the empirical literature on the effects of
university-based entrepreneurship education. Journal of Small Business
Management, 51(3), 329–351. http://10.0.4.87/jsbm.12021
Ronstadt, R., Vesper, K. H., & McMullan, W. E. (1988). Entrepreneurship: Today
courses, tomorrow degrees? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 13(1), 7–13.
https://doi.org/10.1177/104225878801300102
Vanevenhoven, J., & Liguori, E. (2013). The impact of entrepreneurship education:
Introducing the entrepreneurship education project. Journal of Small Business
Management, 51(3), 315–328. http://10.0.4.87/jsbm.12026
Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M. G. (2000). Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions?
Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior.
MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 115–139. http://10.0.9.3/3250981
Wilson, F., Kickul, J., Marlino, D., Barbosa, S. D., & Griffiths, M. D. (2009). An anal-
ysis of the role of gender and self-efficacy in developing female entrepreneurial interest
and behavior. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 14(02), 105–119. https://doi.
org/10.1142/S1084946709001247
Wood, R. G., Corcoran, M. E., & Courant, P. N. (1993). Pay differences among the
highly paid: The male-female earnings gap in lawyers’ salaries. Journal of Labor
Economics, 11(3), 417–441. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2535080
Young, B. J. (2000). Gender differences in student attitudes toward computers. Journal of
Research on Computing in Education, 33(2), 204. http://10.0.4.56/08886504.2000.10782310
Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E., & Hills, G. E. (2005). The mediating role of self-efficacy in the
development of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6),
1265–1272. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1265