Women in Entrepreneurship Education within U.S. Higher Education

 

Women in Entrepreneurship Education within U.S. Higher Education

Jeonghwan Choi

Ph.D. student, Human Resource Education

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

351 Education Building, 1310 S. 6^th Street, Champaign, IL 61820

Tel. (217) 819 1040

Fax. (217) 244 5632

E-mail: jchoi52@illiniois.edu

[Copyright: Unpublished Article, Class of 2011 Spring, EPS590: Women in Higher Education, Prof. Dr. Bernice McNaire Barnett, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign]

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Jeonghwan (Philip) Choi is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Human Resource Education at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He is also a co-founder of Local Exchange Trade System in Champaign-Urbana (LETS C-U) project which aims to develop community economy in Champaign County, Illinois, U.S.A. His research interests include: (1) community economy development through entrepreneurship education; (2) evaluating entrepreneurship education programs in colleges and universities, (3) entrepreneurship education for minority and underserved people; and (4) influence of educational policies to economic development.

E-mail: jchoi52@illinois.edu

---

Women in Entrepreneurship Education within U.S. Higher Education

Jeonghwan (Philip) Choi

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

ABSTRACT

This article focuses on examining gender gap in entrepreneurship education in U.S. colleges and universities. Based on Fisher (1993)’s finding - there is no gender gap in education within entrepreneurs, four hypotheses are formulated and tested with entrepreneurship degrees and certificates awarding data from Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. Results show that women get less entrepreneurship degrees and certificates than men during 1996-2008, while women are outnumbered in business education. In addition, majority women enrolled in associate colleges while men enroll in doctoral and research universities. The author discusses these gender differences with regard to theories of schooling and society.

[word count: 100]

Keywords: entrepreneurship education, women, gender difference, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), theories of schooling and society

Entrepreneurship is a dynamic process of creation and implementation of new ideas and creative solutions (Kuratko, 2004), and entrepreneurship education is the activity of teaching, developing, and transferring knowledge, skills, abilities, and mindsets for entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship education, particularly in post-secondary education, is an ongoing process that requires a myriad talents, skills and knowledge leading to unique pedagogies capable of stimulating and imparting knowledge simultaneously (Solomon, 2007). Entrepreneurship education has been one of the most rapidly emerging academic disciplines in U.S. colleges and universities since 1950s (Greene & Rice, 2007; Solomon, 2007). It has grown enormously with respect to the number of colleges and universities offering programs and courses in the past fifteen years (1990-2005) (Solomon, 2007). Academic publications for entrepreneurship research (Katz, 2003; Kuratko, 2005; Vesper & Gartner, 1999) , and number of faculty (Finkle, 2007) for entrepreneurship teaching dramatically increased in this period as well. However, little attention has been paid to women who enroll and complete entrepreneurship education in U.S. colleges and universities, even though women entrepreneurs are an important growing force in the United States economy, both in terms of the number of participants and the gross revenues and employment they represent (Gatewood, Shaver, & Gartner, 1995).

INTRODUCTION

Women are significant population in the entrepreneurial world (Kuratko, 2004, p. 677). Over the past two decades, the number of women entrepreneurs, who started a business with more than fifty percent ownership of the business, has dramatically grown. For example, the number of businesses owned by women entrepreneurs has increased more than double between 1987 and 1999 in the U.S. (Gundry & Welsch, 2001). However, many challenges still exists for women entrepreneurs. Women entrepreneurs commonly have tensions between work and home role; experience difficulties in getting outside financing; have lack of entrepreneurial knowledge and skills; limit themselves in a bounded are of business - service industry (Kuratko, 2004). But today, women entrepreneurs prepare themselves for starting their own businesses with more formal training and learning both in practical business settings and educational institutions (Cadieux, Lorrain, & Hugron, 2002).

In general, entrepreneurship education in colleges and universities enhances entrepreneurial opportunity perception of participants (Levie & Autio, 2008). Especially for women, entrepreneurship education in MBA programs significantly improves entrepreneurial self-efficacy (Wilson, Kickul, Marlino, Barbosa, & Griffiths, 2009). Thus, providing access to entrepreneurship education in colleges and universities is important to fueling in the pipeline of aspiring future women entrepreneurs.

But, to the author’s knowledge, there has been no scholarly research examining state-of-arts of entrepreneurship education in U.S. colleges and universities in the perspective of gender difference. In addition, there are little studies on entrepreneurship education underpinning sociology theories of higher education though entrepreneurship education researches on social preoccupations take the largest portion (45 articles out of 113) in academic literature of entrepreneurship education in higher education (Béchard & Grégoire, 2005).

The purpose of study is to examining gender differences in entrepreneurship education in U.S. colleges and universities from 1996 to 2006 with focusing in degrees and certificates awarding. In addition, the author explores the gender differences in entrepreneurship education with social theories of higher education.

FEMINIST THEORIES TOWARD WOMEN IN ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION

Research on gender differences in entrepreneurial characteristics and performance have received and continues to receive a considerable amount of attention, but relevance and relatedness of feminist theories for women entrepreneurs are still underdeveloped and examined (Fischer, Reuber, & Dyke, 1993). In this section, the author presents general overview of feminist theories in order to outline gender differences in entrepreneurship education. In addition, the author propose four hypotheses of this study by reviewing Fisher(1993)’s study on women entrepreneurs with focusing on gender difference of education.

Overview of Feminists Theories. “Feminists challenge traditional race-class-sexuality-power arrangement which favor men over women, white over non-white, adults over children, able-bodiedness over non-able-bodiedness, residents over non-residents, and the employed over the non-employed” (Elliot & Mandell, 1995). Feminist theories vary in nature, content, and consequence as other set of theories in academic disciplines, yet the term of ‘feminist’ has not achieved a consensus of common definition though it is widely used in social science (Elliot & Mandell, 1995). Despite definitional differences and difficulties, feminist theories generally share four major interests (Jaggar & Rothenberg, 1984):

· Interest in gendered nature of social and institutional relations.

· Interest in gender inequities and contradictions in social life.

· Interest in historical and sociocultural production and reconstitution of gender relation.

· Interest in political advocacy of social change.

Those interests in various subjects of feminists can be grouped with several categories by broader philosophical and political perspectives. Elliot and Mandell (1995) groups feminism theories in six different categories: Liberal feminism; socialist feminism; radical feminism; anti-racist feminism; psychoanalytic feminism; postmodernist feminism. Meanwhile, Fischer (1993) adopts liberal feminism and social feminism as her theoretical frames to study women entrepreneurs in business field. In this section, the author presents general concept of liberal feminism and social feminism theory and examines the relevance of it with women entrepreneurs. In this study, the author applies Fischer’s categorization for the purpose of focusing on entrepreneurship education and women by including socialist, radical, and racist feminism as in a category of social feminism. Psychoanalytic feminism and postmodernist feminism are not included since those theories are thought to be derived from the social feminism in a broader perspective.

First, liberal feminism assume that the inequality of women stems from unequal rights and learned reluctance to exercise such rights though women are equally capable of rationality and thus are as fully human as men (Elliot & Mandell, 1995; Fischer, et al., 1993). But, the inequities of women entrepreneurs in terms of financing funding, representation, and market presence are almost diminished in business fields since 1990s as Kuratko (2004) says.

Second, social feminism views the gender difference or discrimination is socially constructed (Fischer, et al., 1993). Socialist feminists, for example, argue that women’s oppression is formulated and structured by social, political, ideological, and economic categories while liberal feminists focus on increasing opportunities and public consciousness of women (Elliot & Mandell, 1995). For example, all wives, regardless of their paid labor commitments, are responsible for household management, childcare, the emotional nurturing of dependants, and the general well-being. These unpaid and underappreciated socio-economic domestic structures oppress women as a domestic slavery which should be abolished to guarantee women’s freedom and right. However, women’s domestic responsibilities cannot explain the origin and reproduction of gender difference in the labor market, especially in starting a new business. Knowledge, skills, and competency development for being an entrepreneur is highly dependent on one’s historical traces of occupation and education rather than the limits placed on women’s time and energy (Elliot & Mandell, 1995).

Fischer’s Findings. With regard to education, Fischer (1993) hypothesizes that women have less entrepreneurially relevant formal education than men, and their firms will therefore be less successful because women are systematically less likely to have access to education that would help them in running their own businesses. However, the study’s results indicate that there are few significant gender differences in education except the production education at the level of .05 percent. The irrelevance of formal education onto entrepreneurial performances of Fischer’s study is compatible with other studies (Birley, Moss, & Saunders, 1987; Kalleberg & Leicht, 1991). However, those formal educations investigated by Fischer, Birley, and Kalleberg are general education or business related educations rather than entrepreneurship targeted education. We cannot assume that general education encourages ‘entrepreneurship’ for women. Especially, business education – such as MBA programs in the U.S. – commonly discourage ‘entrepreneurship’ for its controlling and administration orientation (Mintzberg, 2004). Thus we need to examine gender differences of entrepreneurship education in formal education settings – colleges and universities.

Research Questions and Hypotheses. Studies on entrepreneurship education in U.S. colleges and universities have flourished in the past decade (Greene & Rice, 2007; Katz, 2003, 2008; Kuratko, 2005; Pena, 2010; Solomon, 2007; Vesper & Gartner, 1997). Yet, gender differences at entrepreneurship education in higher education institutions are not addressed before. This study aims to exam eth gender difference in entrepreneurship education in U.S. colleges and universities with three research questions.

· To what extent have women, compared to men, enroll and complete entrepreneurship education in U.S. colleges and universities?

o Number of entrepreneurship degrees and certificates by gender

o Proportion of entrepreneurship degrees and certificate by gender

o Levels of entrepreneurship degrees and certificate by gender

· Do gender differences exist in entrepreneurship?

· Are those gender differences, if any, distinguishable from business and non-business education?

According to previous research on women entrepreneurship and education (Birley, et al., 1987; Fischer, et al., 1993; Kalleberg & Leicht, 1991), there is not gender difference between women and men entrepreneurs. Underpinning those findings and increase number of women entrepreneurs in the U.S. (Kuratko, 2004), four hypotheses are formulated in order to examine gender differences of entrepreneurship education in U.S. colleges and universities.

· H1: The number of women in entrepreneurship education increases.

· H2: The proportion of women to men in entrepreneurship education is even.

· H3: The proportion of women to men in entrepreneurship education is not different from business education or general education.

· H4: The level of education is not different by gender.

First, the author hypothesizes that the number of women in entrepreneurship education increases since we’re experiencing rapid growth of women entrepreneurs in the U.S. society (Kuratko, 2004). Second, the number of women and men students at the entrepreneurship education in the U.S. colleges and universities are not different if there is not gender difference. Third, if we can tell there is a gender difference in entrepreneurship education, the proportion of women to men of entrepreneurship education should be discernable from the proportion of women to men in business education and general education. Finally, if there is no gender difference in entrepreneurship education, we may observe the level of education degrees and certificate between women and men are not distinguishable. With these hypotheses, this study examines the gender difference in entrepreneurship education in U.S. colleges and universities from 1996 to 2008 academic years.

RESEARCH METHOD

Based on the issues of concern identified in the review of related literature, a quantitative research design is employed as a primary research method. In this study, descriptive statistics are presented to examine the maturity stage of entrepreneurship education in academic discipline growth model with Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) data of academic degrees and certificates awarding in U.S. colleges and universities during 1996-2008. Inferential statistics -the t-test, analysis of variance (ANOVA), post-hoc analysis - are used to test proposed hypotheses, and to draw conclusions.

Academic Degrees and Certificates. As stated before, previous research on entrepreneurship education indicated that the number of entrepreneurship courses(Katz, 2003), endowment and chairs (Katz, 1991, 1994), programs (Solomon, 2007; Solomon, Duffy, & Tarabishy, 2002), academic associations (Plaschka & Welsch, 1990), and journals and articles (Dos Santos, Holsapple, & Ye, 2010; Katz, 2003) rapidly increased in the past fifteen years (1990-2005). But investigation into academic degree and certificate awarding in entrepreneurship education has not yet been conducted to test the gender difference of the discipline.

Investigating academic degree and certificate awarding in U.S. colleges and universities enables us to examine the gender difference of the discipline with a significant advantage. It enables us to capture most reliable national wide study. The IPEDS database of the National Center for Education Science (NCES) is the most representative and reliable educational information to examine change of degree and certificate awarding from U.S. colleges and universities (McBroom, 2008). The Higher Education Act in 1992 mandated the completion of IPEDS surveys for all U.S. colleges and universities accepting federal student financial aid. In 1993, NCES began collecting information such as institutional characteristics, degree completion, twelve month enrollment, human resources, financial aid, and graduation rates etc. The data collected is available to the public through their website: http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/Default.aspx (National Center for Education, 2010).

Data Mining and Screening. The IPEDS in National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) specializes in descriptive research to produce statistical information on the aspects of education that interest policymakers and educators (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007). Institutional characteristics and completion of degrees and certificates data are mined from IPEDS because this study focuses primarily on examining the gender difference of entrepreneurship education in U.S. colleges and universities.

The 1996 through 2008 academic years are analyzed – this period represents the data available at the time of this study which included data that was substantially similar over time. The data were screened by several criteria: and aggregated with certain criteria to address research questions and test hypothesis for this study.

Only colleges and universities in the fifty United States and the District of Columbia are included. (U.S. territories are included in the IPEDS data, but are excluded from this analysis.) In each year of data used, for-profit, non-degree granting, inactive, non-accredited and less than two-year institutions are not included. Although for-profit four-year colleges and universities have rapidly emerged in recent years in the United States (Breneman, 2005), they were not as prevalent in the earlier years covered by this data, and they may be less influenced by the educational policies and models of interest herein. These institutions deserve a separate focus.

To categorize academic degrees and certificates awarded in entrepreneurship, business, and non-business fields, the IPEDS classification of instructional program (CIP) codes, providing a taxonomic scheme, were used. Our focus is Entrepreneurial and Small Business Operations (CIP 52.07), which incorporates Entrepreneurship/Entrepreneurial Studies (52.0701); Franchising and Franchise Operations (52.0702); Small Business Administration Management (52.0703); and Other Entrepreneurial and Small Business Operations (52.0799) - the labels used for the 2010 CIP classification. This study uses the term “entrepreneurship” which refers to entrepreneurship and small business management. (Note: The CIP codes have undergone some revision, but using this broader definition allowed comparisons over time. In 2002 and prior years, CIP 52.07 focused on small businesses including franchising, and entrepreneurship was placed in another section of the classification, related to marketing. Both small business and entrepreneurship were included in this analysis for all years. Changes in CIP codes are accessible to http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/cipcode/ )

The IPEDS data report degrees, from associate degrees through doctoral degrees, and academic certificates from less than one year through post-master’s level. In using these categories, we identified what ‘entrepreneurship and small business degrees’ represents and what might be considered an undercount of entrepreneurship education, in part because of the exclusion of minors. Also not included are those degrees which an institution may market as entrepreneurship majors, but which are listed on a transcript, and reported to the IPEDS, as business administration or similar degrees. However, the inclusion for analysis of only those degrees represented on transcripts and reported to IPEDS as entrepreneurship is not seen by the authors as a limitation of the study, but rather a demonstration of the legitimacy and stage of academic growth of the field, as conceived by the academic discipline growth model.

Institutional characteristics used in this analysis have been provided by the U.S. Department of Education (e.g., level and sector of colleges and universities), based on their definitions. IPEDS also provides the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, the traditional framework developed by the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education and now published by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (Carnegie Commission on Higher, 2010). This classification identifies institutions by such categories as doctoral/research universities, master’s colleges and universities, baccalaureate colleges, and associate’s colleges. More detailed framework and definitions of institutional categories are available at the Carnegie Foundation website (http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/summary/basic.php).

Quantitative Analysis. In this study, parametric and/or non-parametric t-test, ANOVA, and post-hoc analysis were applied to test the proposed hypotheses. Prior to conducting inferential analyses, normality condition of data is examined with Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk method. Nonparametric analysis such as Mann-Whitney U test for independent two samples and Kruskal-Wallis test for three or more independent samples which do not rely on an assumption of normality, then, applied to test hypothesis (Myers & Well, 2003).

Homogeneity condition of data is evaluated applying the Levene's test method before conducting the hypothesis test. If the homogeneity condition is significantly violated, we apply robust ANOVA method, the Welch and Brown-Forsythe methods, which do not assume equal variance of data in groups to test mean differences between or among groups (UCLA: Academic Technology Services). Dunnett T3 and Games-Howell post-hoc analysis techniques were applied to identify which means were different from the others if the data did not meet the homogeneity condition (Myers & Well, 2003).

Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) ^TM software was used for testing the hypotheses of this study because the software provided various statistical techniques for non-normal, non-homogeneous, and non-parametric data analysis (Gall, et al., 2007), which are frequently encountered in the educational study or social science research.

RESULTS AND FINDINGS

Figure 1 shows the comparison of women and men with respect to entrepreneurship degree and certificate awarding from U.S. colleges and universities. It indicates that the number of entrepreneurship degrees and certificates awarded to women and men are both increased during 1996 to 2008 academic years with a similar pattern. Therefore, the first hypothesis -the number of women in entrepreneurship education increases – is supported from the data.

Figure 1. Number of entrepreneurship degrees and certificated awarded to Women and Men.

Note: 1999 and 2002 data are not included. The 1999 data is not available from IPEDS, and 2002 data has a significant data validity problem: the number of entrepreneurship degrees and certificates is 17,321- an extraordinary deviation from the overall pattern.

Figure 2 indicates proportion changes of academic degrees and certificates awarded to women and men in entrepreneurship, business, and non-business education. As depicted in the figure, the proportion of women to men in entrepreneurship education is not even, and the proportion of women business [M = 44.399%, SD =2.936%] is much lower than men [M = 55.601%, SD =2.936%]. Therefore, the second hypothesis is not supported.

Figure 2. Proportion of academic degrees and certificates awarded to women and men in entrepreneurship, business, and non-business.

Parametric ANOVA and non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test are both applied because non-business dataset significantly violate the normality assumption [Kolmogorov-Smirnov (11, 0.340), p=.001; Shapiro-Wilk (11, 0.798), p = .009]. ANOVA results indicate that there is at least one different mean among mean proportions of entrepreneurship, business, and non-business [F (2, 30) = 107.524, p = .000]. In addition, Kruskal-Wallis test results also indicate that there is at least one mean difference [K-W (2): Chi-square = 28471, p = .000]. Post-hoc test results confirm that the proportion of entrepreneurship degrees and certificates awarded to women [M = 44.399%, SD =2.936%] is significantly lower than business [M = 51.837%, SD =0.915%] and non-business degrees and certificates [M = 60.410%, SD =3.201%]. Taken into all results in consideration, the third hypotheses of the proportion of women to men in entrepreneurship education is not different from business education or general education is not supported.

Figure 3 and Table 1 show that the proportion of entrepreneurship degrees and certificate awarded to women and men by degree level. More than half women get less than two year certificates [M = 54.370%, SD =3.301%] while majority men get associate degree [M = 44.5490%, SD =2.679%] or undergraduate degree [M = 23.072%, SD =2.713]. Interestingly, more women get graduate degree [M = 2.279%, SD =1.017%] than men [M = 1.180%, SD =0.573%].

Figure 4 and Table 2 show that the proportion of entrepreneurship degrees and certificates awarded to women and men by institutional types. Results in Figure 4 and Table 2 also indicates that women enroll and complete entrepreneurship education at associate colleges [M = 51.263%, SD =5.765%] than men [M = 28.994%, SD =4.166%]. More than half of men enroll and complete entrepreneurship education in doctoral/research universities [M = 44.193%, SD =7.959%] and master universities [M = 11.962%, SD =3.888%]. In short, the fourth hypothesis – the level of education is not different by gender – is not supported.

Figure 3. Proportion of entrepreneurship degrees and certificate awarded to women and men by degree level.

Note1: Graduate degree (Doctors, Master, Post-master); Undergraduate degree (Bachelors, Post-baccalaureate); Associate degree (Associate, 2-4 years); < 2 years certificate (less than 2 year and less than 1 year)

Table 1

Comparisons of Mean Proportion of Entrepreneurship Degrees/certificates Awarded to Women and Mean by Degree Level for 1996~2008 Academic years

Degrees/certificates Level	Category	Mean (%)	S.D. (%)	t	p
Graduate Degree	Women	2.279	1.017	3.120	.005
Men	1.180	0.573
Undergraduate Degree	Women	16.147	4.281	-4.532	.000
Men	23.072	2.713
Associate Degree	Women	27.205	2.642	-15.287	.000
Men	44.549	2.679
< 2 years Certificate	Women	54.370	3.301	20.545	.000
Men	31.198	1.759

Note: Graduate degree (doctors, master, post-master); undergraduate degree (Bachelors, post-baccalaureate); associate degree (associate, 2-4 years); < 2 year certificate (less than 2 year and less than one year).

Figure 4. Proportion of entrepreneurship degrees and certificates awarded to women and men by institution type.

Note: Academic degrees and certificates from special colleges are not included since there is limited information to categorize them into specific type of colleges and universities.

Table 2

Comparisons of Mean Proportion of Entrepreneurship Degrees/certificates Awarded to Women and Men by Institutional Types for 1996~2008 Academic years

Degrees/certificates Level	Category	Mean (%)	S.D. (%)	t	p
Doctoral/Research University	Women	24.587	5.296	-6.802	.000
Men	44.193	7.959
Master University	Women	9.139	3.454	-1.800	.087
Men	11.962	3.888
Baccalaureate College	Women	8.247	3.440	1.438	.166
Men	6.475	2.210
Associate College	Women	51.263	5.765	10.384	.000
Men	28.994	4.166

Note1: Types of college and university follows the Carnegie Classification..

Note2: Academic degrees and certificates from special colleges are not included since there is limited information to categorize them into specific type of colleges and universities.

DISCUSSIONS

As can be seen, the results of this study support that there are significant gender differences in entrepreneurship education over past decade though the awarding number of entrepreneurship degrees and certificate both for women and for men has continually increased from 1996 to 2008 in U.S. colleges and universities. These results are contradictory to previous research on women entrepreneurs in business field (Birley, et al., 1987; Fischer, et al., 1993; Kalleberg & Leicht, 1991). How to interpret this gap? The author presents four propositions based on findings of this study and theories of schooling and society in order to guide us to understanding gender differences in entrepreneurship education.

Hurn (1985) categorizes many theories of schooling and society into two domains: functional paradigm and conflict paradigm. The functional paradigm sees schools as teaching the kind of cognitive skills and norms essential for the performance of most adult roles in a society increasingly dependent on ‘knowledge’ for economic growth with sorting and selecting talented people. Within the functional paradigm, human capital theorists see education as an investment that will pay off in the future in the form of increased earning by increasing an individual’s human capital, knowledge, and expertise (Hurn, 1985). This investment on developing human capital at education and training is assessed using return on investment (ROI) or cost-benefit analysis (Kuchinke, 2003; Swanson & Holton, 2001). From the results of this study, the number of women who get awarded entrepreneurship degrees and certificates in U.S. colleges and universities has increased. Therefore, women enroll and complete entrepreneurship education in order to gain entrepreneurial knowledge, skills, and expertise for their future business creation.

Proposition 1: Women enroll and complete entrepreneurship education in colleges and universities to gain entrepreneurial knowledge, skills, and expertise for their future business creation.

But lower proportion of women in entrepreneurship education indicates that women less value the entrepreneurship education. In addition, the high proportion of women’s in associate colleges and less than two year certificates show that they expect lower pay-off from the education.

Proposition 2: Women value the entrepreneurship education less than men since they expect lower pay-off from the education.

In the functional paradigm, there is an assumption that those who do well in college should, other things being equal, obtain better jobs and make more money than those who did less well (Hurn, 1985). Yet the link between schooling and jobs is not empirically supported (Jencks et al., 1973).

Conflict paradigm sees schools as serving the interest of elites, as reinforcing existing inequalities and as producing attitudes that foster acceptance of this status quo. Conflict theorists argue that unnecessary educational credentials determine access to desirable jobs in a society (Hurn, 1985). John Meyer (1977; 2007), an institutional theorist in conflict paradigm, stress individuals or institutions’ dependence on wider environmental meanings, definition, rules, and models. Result of lower proportion of women in entrepreneurship and higher proportion in business and non-business education shows that institutionalized value of business education is much higher than entrepreneurship education. In addition, women’s higher enrollment in baser degrees and certificates program than men in entrepreneurship education confirms that women are highly influenced by social environment when they choose an academic discipline.

Proposition 3: Women are reluctant to choosing entrepreneurship education in colleges and universities since they got influenced by reluctant social environments toward women entrepreneurs.

Finally, Collins (1979)’s notion of ‘largely unnecessary educational credentials determine access to desire job’ can be partly supported by the results of women’s higher enrollment and completion of entrepreneurship education in practical knowledge oriented educational institutions such as associate college and less than two year certificate programs.

Proposition 4: Women avoid unnecessary educational credentials to access to desirable job, but they choose educational institutions and program where they can get useful skills for business creation.

Gender inequality at work and job searching is very well-known (Jacobs, 1995; Jacobs & Gerson, 2004; Lesnick, 2005; Robeyns, 2001; Tomaskovic-Devey, 1993). In consequence of this inequality, women tend to start small businesses in searching for ‘equal or higher’ financial rewards instead of searching a desirable job (Birley, 1989; Fielden & Davidson, 2006).

CONLCUSION

More and more women get entrepreneurship degrees and certificates in U.S. colleges and universities in order to gain entrepreneurial knowledge, skills, and expertise for their future business creation. However, this study found out that there are significant gender differences in entrepreneurship education. While women are outnumbered in business and general education, women are still minorities in entrepreneurship education. Women participates less prestigious higher education institutions (e.g. associate colleges and less than two year certificates programs) than men to get entrepreneurship education. These gender differences are caused by 1) women’s lower expectation of pay-off from entrepreneurship education than men, 2) reluctant social environments toward women entrepreneurs, and 3) avoiding unnecessary educational credentials.

Educational leaders and policy makers should aware the gender difference in entrepreneurship education in U.S. colleges and universities. They also need to understand underlying assumptions and unconscious gender discriminations in entrepreneurship education. Gender sensitive curriculum design and implementation in colleges and universities are desirable to nurture future women entrepreneurs. In addition, providing more practical and hand-on entrepreneurial experiences for women in entrepreneurship education are required in order to fill the women entrepreneur pipeline which will flourish our economy in future.

For the future research, the author suggests an investigating the influencing social environment to women when they choose entrepreneurship education in colleges and universities.

A notable limitation of this study is missing data. IPEDS data was gathered from 1996 to 2008 academic year, but 1999 and 2002 data were not included. The 1999 data was not available at IPEDS and the 2002 data significantly outlying from other data. Therefore, 2002 data was purposefully excluded for hypothesis testing analysis. In addition there were several minor code changes during those periods, which varied the numbers of degrees/certificates in different levels and institution types. These data fluctuations might limit the power of hypothesis testing for growth rates of entrepreneurship education.

REFERENCES

Béchard, J.-P., & Grégoire, D. (2005). Entrepreneurship Education Research Revisited: The Case of Higher Education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 22-43.

Birley, S. (1989). Female entrepreneurs: are they really any different? Journal of Small Business Management, 27(1).

Birley, S., Moss, C., & Saunders, P. (1987). Do women entrepreneurs require different training. American Journal of Small Business, 12(1), 27-35.

Breneman, D. W. (2005). Entrepreneurship in higher education. New Directions for Higher Education, 2005(129), 3-9.

Cadieux, L., Lorrain, J., & Hugron, P. (2002). Succession in women-owned family businesses: A case study. Family Business Review, 15(1), 17.

Carnegie Commission on Higher, E. (2010). [The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education]. Web Page.

Collins, R. (1979). The credential society: An historical sociology of education and stratification: Academic Press New York.

Dos Santos, B. L., Holsapple, C. W., & Ye, Q. (2010). The Intellectual Influence of Entrepreneurship Journals: A Network Analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, July(Journal Article), 1-20.

Elliot, P., & Mandell, N. (1995). Feminist theories. In N. Mandell (Ed.), Feminist Issues: Race, Class, and Sexuality (pp. 356): Prentice-Hall Canada.

Fielden, S. L., & Davidson, M. (2006). International handbook of women and small business entrepreneurship: Edward Elgar Pub.

Finkle, T. A. (2007). Trends in the market for entrepreneurship faculty from 1989-2005. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 10(Journal Article), 1-24.

Fischer, E. M., Reuber, A. R., & Dyke, L. S. (1993). A theoretical overview and extension of research on sex, gender, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(2), 151-168.

Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). Educational Research: An Introduction (Vol. 8th). Boston: Longman Publishers.

Gatewood, E. J., Shaver, K. G., & Gartner, W. B. (1995). A longitudinal study of cognitive factors influencing start-up behaviors and success at venture creation. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(5), 371-391.

Greene, P. G., & Rice, M. P. (2007). Entrepreneurship education: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Gundry, L. K., & Welsch, H. P. (2001). The ambitious entrepreneur High growth strategies of women-owned enterprises. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5), 453-470.

Hurn, C. J. (1985). Theories of Schooling and Scoeity: The Functional and Conflict Paradigms The limits and possibilities of schooling (3rd ed., pp. 42-70). Newton, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Jacobs, J. A. (1995). Gender Inequality at Work: Sage Publications, Inc., 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 (paperback: ISBN-0-8039-5697-5; cloth: ISBN-0-8039-5696-7).

Jacobs, J. A., & Gerson, K. (2004). The time divide: Work, family, and gender inequality: Harvard Univ Pr.

Jaggar, A. M., & Rothenberg, P. S. (1984). Feminist frameworks: Alternative theoretical accounts of the relations between women and men: McGraw-Hill Companies.

Jencks, C., Smith, M., Acland, H., Bane, M. J., Cohen, D., Gintis, H., et al. (1973). Inequality: A reassessment of the effect of family and school in America. NY: Basic Books.

Kalleberg, A. L., & Leicht, K. T. (1991). Gender and organizational performance: Determinants of small business survival and success. The Academy of Management Journal, 34(1), 136-161.

Katz, J. A. (1991). Endowed Positions: Entrepreneurship and Related Fields. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 15(3), 53-67.

Katz, J. A. (1994). Growth of endowments, chairs, and programs in entrepreneurship on the college campus. The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship Education, 1(Journal Article), 127-149.

Katz, J. A. (2003). The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education: 1876–1999. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 283-300.

Katz, J. A. (2008). Fully Mature but Not Fully Legitimate: A Different Perspective on the State of Entrepreneurship Education. Journal of Small Business Management, 46(4), 550-566.

Kuchinke, K. P. (2003). Contingent HRD: Toward a theory of variation and differentiation in formal human resource development. Human Resource Development Review, 2(3), 294.

Kuratko, D. F. (2004). Entrepreneurship: Theory, Process, and Practice (6th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.

Kuratko, D. F. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends, and challenges. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 577-597.

Lesnick, A. (2005). On the job: performing gender and inequality at work, home, and school. Journal of Education & Work, 18(2), 187-200.

Levie, J., & Autio, E. (2008). A theoretical grounding and test of the GEM model. Small Business Economics, 31(3), 235-263.

McBroom, D. (2008). Explorations in leadership education: The role of leadership education in higher education outcomes. Ed.D., University of Montana, United States -- Montana. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1685895481&Fmt=7&clientId=36305&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Meyer, J. W. (1977). The effects of education as an institution. The American Journal of Sociology, 83(1), 55-77.

Meyer, J. W., Ramirez, F. O., Frank, D. J., & Schofer, E. (2007). 7 Higher Education as an Institution. Sociology of higher education: Contributions and their contexts, 187.

Mintzberg, H. (2004). Managers, not MBAs: A hard look at the soft practice of managing and management development: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Myers, J. L., & Well, A. (2003). Research design and statistical analysis: Lawrence Erlbaum.

National Center for Education, S. (2010). [Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System]. Web Page.

Pena, V. (2010). A Survey of Entrepreneurship Education Initiatives (Vol. NS D-4091). Institute for Defense Analyses, Washington, DC: Science and Technology Policy Institute.

Plaschka, G. R., & Welsch, H. P. (1990). Emerging Structures in Entrepreneurship Education: Curricular Designs and Strategies. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 14(3), 55-71.

Robeyns, I. (2001). Sen's capability approach and gender inequality: selecting relevant capabilities. Feminist economics, 9(2), 61-92.

Solomon, G. T. (2007). An examination of entrepreneurship education in the United States. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 14(2).

Solomon, G. T., Duffy, S., & Tarabishy, A. (2002). The state of entrepreneurship education in the United States: A nationwide survey and analysis. International Journal of Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 1-22.

Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F. (2001). Foundations of Human Resource Development: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Tomaskovic-Devey, D. (1993). Gender & racial inequality at work: The sources and consequences of job segregation: Cornell University Press.

UCLA: Academic Technology Services, S. C. G.). [What statistical analysis should I use?]. Web Page.

Vesper, K. H., & Gartner, W. B. (1997). Measuring progress in entrepreneurship education. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(5), 403-421.

Vesper, K. H., & Gartner, W. B. (1999). University entrepreneurship programs. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.

Wilson, F., Kickul, J., Marlino, D., Barbosa, S. D., & Griffiths, M. D. (2009). An Analysis Of The Role Of Gender And Self-Efficacy In Developing Female Entrepreneurial Interest And Behavior. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship (JDE), 14(02), 105-119.