RESPONSIBLE ENTREPRENEURSHIP VISION DEVELOPMENT AND ETHICS

Understanding spatial mobility and spatial capability in women entrepreneurship: a case study… 461
to this, mobility social exclusion as introduced by Kenyon et al. (2002) has its advantage for
Saudi women entrepreneurs. However, such finding should also be viewed critically.
Regarding spatial capability and the potential of movement, the women were asked to consider
the activities of their business with respect to their condition. During the interviews,
the women describe the places they go to and the places they do not go to (mobility activities)
as part of their own preference of choice (self-help discourse) ‘I don’t like going to that
area’ stated one participant. Such responses tend to be passing through an internal negotiation
with themselves as a self-discourse, before discussing it with their families. This is a
reflection of a self-discourse that these women integrate, which shows a clear understanding
of their own sub-culture of spatial capability. However, the majority of the interviewees confirmed
their family preference of choice, which was apparent in comments such as, ‘I don’t
like going there and even my husband does not allow me to go there’. Therefore, the women
process of self-help discourse subconsciously considers their family ideology.
Within this context, nascent women entrepreneurship has brought a new discussion into
the household; it has led to an alteration in mobility activities and in scheduling mobility.
This took place during the process of starting a business, when these women discussed with
their families what they wanted to do and where they wanted to go. This tendency is supported
by the fact that, when these women have sought entrepreneurship, they consider their
mobility capability (where they can and cannot go) with respect to the ideology embedded
in their families. The indication here is that mobility restrictions seem to be voluntarily established
by these nascent women entrepreneurs. This argument follows Alexander’s (2008) point,
where the claim was that the embedded culture tends to strengthen structural constraints, which
are usually dominated by families’ ideology.
Self-help discourse and family ideology
Most of the interviewees exhibited the courage to discuss and negotiate with their family
for the option of doing certain activities and going to certain places as part of the entrepreneurial
activities, and did so by applying a ‘convincing reasoning’ in their discussion. However, this
mainly took place after the self-help discourse, where the women evaluated the importance
of going to places (with respect to distance) and the activity involved. Some women had unresolved
discussion with their families, which has led them to discard some of entrepreneurial
social activities, such as places they want to go to for meetings and participation.
Family 1 in Saudi Arabia plays an important role in determining women’s spatial capability;
that is, women’s freedom of option to travel with influence and interference of to the family
preference of choice. Nielsen and Oldrup (2011, p. 96) considered ‘whether or not mobility
is a legitimate topic for discussion both within the family’ (p. 96). This provided the study
to understand how family ideology as ‘contextual factors’ could influence women’s spatial
capability in the process of venture creation. A common pattern among these women’s experience
of mobility is that any movements has to align with the roles appointed by their families.
This clearly shows that these women were submissive in respect to their family rules,
adopting an adaptation strategy to avoid jeopardising both their personal life and businesses.
For instance, some of these women inform, while others consult/ discuss and some seek permission
from their family for entrepreneurial activities.
The findings of the current study showed that families are a key aspect for understanding
of women’s spatial capability, because family imposes or eliminates societal constraints