MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2902541021 · doi:10.1353/his.2018.0032

Gender and Business: Recent Literature on Women and Entrepreneurship

2018· article· en· W2902541021 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Melanie Buddle

Notice bibliographique

RevueHistoire sociale · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
ThématiqueHistorical Economic and Social Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAcknowledgementEntrepreneurshipNewspaperColonialismPublishingLawSociologyPolitical scienceEconomic historyHistory

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Gender and Business:Recent Literature on Women and Entrepreneurship Melanie Buddle Aston, Jennifer – Female Entrepreneurship in Nineteenth-Century England: Engagement in the Urban Economy. London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2016. Pp. 257. Bishop, Catherine – Minding Her Own Business: Colonial Businesswomen in Sydney. Sydney: NewSouth Publishing, 2015. Pp. 302. Craig, Béatrice – Behind the Discursive Veil in Nineteenth-Century Northern France. Palgrave MacMillan, 2017. Pp. 303. Moring, Beatrice, and Richard Wall, eds. – Widows in European Economy and Society, 1600-1920. Woodbridge, UK: The Boydell Press, 2017. Pp. 327. All of the books under review here prove conclusively that in nineteenth-century France, England, and Australia (and in northern Europe more broadly from 1600 to 1920), businesswomen were everywhere. They ran small businesses, including bars, stores, schools, and hotels—in some cases in their own names when the law allowed it. When the law did not allow it (for example, when they married) they worked out of their homes, as seamstresses and boarding-house keepers, in businesses that were not necessarily registered in their own names or documented legally, or they helped run family firms, large and small, in partnerships where they had varying degrees of legal or public acknowledgement. Some women appeared as business owners in their own right, advertising in newspapers as milliners, store owners, and the like. More often, they ran businesses with husbands (who could sometimes be helpful partners who acknowledged their contribution) or for husbands (who could sometimes be unstable, untrustworthy, absent or deceased). Despite their presence, all the authors acknowledge that it took painstaking research to tease the stories of entrepreneurial women out of the records. As Jennifer Aston notes, the lack of official sources available to historians trying to study women's enterprises is problematic across all periods and countries; she argues that a wider range of alternative sources needs to be utilized "to create a patchwork effect and try to fill the gaps left by official source material" (p. 7). These authors report meticulous, detailed combing through court records, tax rolls, trade directories, census data, bank account ledgers, probate and insolvency records, diaries, and family records to find and document women's involvement [End Page 401] in the world of business. The picture that emerges upon reading these studies is not that women were not involved and engaged in the world of business, but that historians forgot to look for them. And the more they were forgotten, the more historians assumed that they had played minimal roles. Furthermore, the books discussed in the following pages demonstrate that the separate spheres ideology that has dominated our understanding of men's and women's lives in the nineteenth century limits how we have viewed businesswomen. These scholars point out that businesswomen were engaged and active inside and outside the home: their spheres were more segmented than separate, as Moring and Wall discuss (p. 254). Béatrice Craig suggests that in nineteenth-century France, spheres of family, work, and business were joined rather than separate or segmented (p. 9). And Aston points out that nineteenth-century British women were engaged in the public sphere in a variety of businesses, some in feminine trades that cleverly capitalized on separate domestic spheres but others in quite masculine trades in industrial and urban economies (p. 28). Catherine Bishop also finds little value in identifying separate worlds of work and home. She acknowledges that the boundaries between spheres were blurred, particularly when businesses could also be domestic: "[W]omen did not necessarily have to pursue interests outside the home in order to be part of the commercial life of Sydney, but brought their outside interests inside," (p. 11) by running home-based businesses. Why have we been convinced that women, limited by laws around property ownership and hampered by having supposedly retreated to their homes, did not operate in a public sphere when these historians have compellingly shown they were everywhere? Bishop tells us that she, too, had "accepted the view that women had disappeared from economic public life in the middle of the nineteenth century" but discovered that "the more I looked the more businesswomen kept leaping inconveniently out of the records" (p. 15). She notes that...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,854
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,555

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,033
Tête enseignante GPT0,203
Écart entre enseignants0,171 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHistoire socialeMême sujetHistorical Economic and Social StudiesTravaux en français237 207