8prospective <strong>wo<strong>men</strong></strong> <strong>entrepreneurs</strong> <strong>in</strong> technical sectors, it is necessary to study this processfur<strong>the</strong>r. In <strong>the</strong> future focus<strong>in</strong>g on <strong>wo<strong>men</strong></strong> with technical degrees <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir propensity <strong>of</strong>start<strong>in</strong>g new ventures <strong>in</strong> technical fields seems to be a study worthwhile. The NationalScience Foundation (NSF, 2002) reports that <strong>wo<strong>men</strong></strong> granted science <strong>and</strong> eng<strong>in</strong>eer<strong>in</strong>g(S&E) degrees, exclud<strong>in</strong>g social sciences, account for 15% <strong>of</strong> all technical degrees <strong>in</strong> U.S.Accord<strong>in</strong>g to an NSF (2002) report, among <strong>the</strong> total self-employed people with technicaldegrees <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> bus<strong>in</strong>ess sector, <strong>wo<strong>men</strong></strong> are less likely than <strong>men</strong> to be employed <strong>in</strong> technicaldoma<strong>in</strong>s, (35.1% <strong>of</strong> <strong>men</strong> versus 2.9% <strong>of</strong> <strong>wo<strong>men</strong></strong> self employed <strong>in</strong> eng<strong>in</strong>eer<strong>in</strong>g relatedfields) <strong>and</strong> 24.7% <strong>of</strong> <strong>men</strong> versus 12.6% <strong>of</strong> <strong>wo<strong>men</strong></strong> self employed <strong>in</strong> computer/math sciencerelated sectors. Therefore, ano<strong>the</strong>r fur<strong>the</strong>r avenue <strong>of</strong> research may be a comparative study<strong>of</strong> <strong>men</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>wo<strong>men</strong></strong> with technical degrees <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> differences between <strong>the</strong>m <strong>in</strong>entrepreneurial opportunity recognition <strong>and</strong> start<strong>in</strong>g new ventures <strong>in</strong> technology. Suchstudy is very timely <strong>and</strong> helpful <strong>in</strong> our underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> challenges <strong>wo<strong>men</strong></strong> face with <strong>in</strong>start<strong>in</strong>g new ventures <strong>in</strong> technical fields.8
9REFERENCESAldrich, H.E., Brickman, A.E., <strong>and</strong> Reese, P.R. (1997). Strong-ties, weak-ties <strong>and</strong>Strangers: Do Wo<strong>men</strong> Bus<strong>in</strong>ess Owners Differ from Men <strong>in</strong> Their Use <strong>of</strong> Network<strong>in</strong>gto Obta<strong>in</strong> Assistance? From Birley <strong>and</strong> MacMillan, Entrepreneurship <strong>in</strong> a GlobalContext.Arm<strong>in</strong>gton, C., <strong>and</strong> Acs, Z. J. 2002. The Determ<strong>in</strong>ants <strong>of</strong> Regional Variation <strong>in</strong> New FirmFormation. Regional Studies, 36 (1), 33–45.Bantel, K.A. (1998). Technology-based “adolescent” firm configurations: StrategyIdentification, context <strong>and</strong> performance. Journal <strong>of</strong> Bus<strong>in</strong>ess Ventur<strong>in</strong>g, 13, 205-230.Bhave, M.P. (1994). A process model <strong>of</strong> entrepreneurial venture creation. Journal <strong>of</strong>Bus<strong>in</strong>ess Ventur<strong>in</strong>g, 9, 223-242.Boyd, N.G., <strong>and</strong> Vozikis, G.S. (1994). The <strong>in</strong>fluence <strong>of</strong> self-efficacy on <strong>the</strong>develop<strong>men</strong>t <strong>of</strong> entrepreneurial <strong>in</strong>tentions <strong>and</strong> actions. Entrepreneurship Theory<strong>and</strong> Practice, 18 (4), 63-77.Brush, C., Hisrich, R.D. (2000). Wo<strong>men</strong>-owned bus<strong>in</strong>esses: An exploratory studycompar<strong>in</strong>g factors affect<strong>in</strong>g performance. www.riseb.or. Work<strong>in</strong>g paper series: 00-02.Carter, N.M., Allan, K.R. (1997). Size determ<strong>in</strong>ants <strong>of</strong> <strong>wo<strong>men</strong></strong>-owned bus<strong>in</strong>esses; choice orbarriers to resources. Entrepreneurship <strong>and</strong> Regional Develop<strong>men</strong>t. 9 (3), 211-220.CWBR (2003). Center for Wo<strong>men</strong>’s Bus<strong>in</strong>ess Research,www.nfwbo.org/research/<strong>in</strong>dex.htmChell, E. (2001). Entrepreneurship: Globalization, Innovation <strong>and</strong> Develop<strong>men</strong>t. ThomsonLearn<strong>in</strong>g, Berkshire House: London.Chell, E. (2002). Wo<strong>men</strong> <strong>in</strong> science enterprise: An exploration <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> issues, some policyimplications <strong>and</strong> research agenda. Paper presented at <strong>the</strong> gender research forum,Wo<strong>men</strong> <strong>and</strong> Equality Unit, London.Cov<strong>in</strong>, J.G., Slev<strong>in</strong>, D.P. <strong>and</strong> Cov<strong>in</strong>, T.J. (1990). Content <strong>and</strong> performance <strong>of</strong> growthstrategies: A comparison <strong>of</strong> small firms <strong>in</strong> high <strong>and</strong> low technology <strong>in</strong>dustries. Journal<strong>of</strong> Bus<strong>in</strong>ess Ventur<strong>in</strong>g, 5, 391-412.Floyd, S.W., <strong>and</strong> Woolridge, B. (1999). Knowledge creation <strong>and</strong> social networks <strong>in</strong>corporate <strong>entrepreneurs</strong>hip: The renewal <strong>of</strong> organizational capability. EntrepreneurshipTheory <strong>and</strong> Practice, 21(3), 123-143.9