Women‐focused small business programming: client motives and perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to draw on feminist ethics of care theory to examine motives for accessing a women‐focused, small business programme (Centre). Perceived differences between women‐focused and other small business advisory agencies are discussed. Design/methodology/approach An online survey captured verbatim responses from 212 respondents. Qualitative data were subjected to content analysis using NVivo8. Findings Most respondents were growth‐oriented, well educated and employed prior to start‐up. Clients employed the Centre for three reasons, including acquisition of managerial, social capital and gender‐related motives. The Centre was perceived as being “different” to other agencies such that staff implicitly understood their needs as businesswomen, services were targeted specifically to women and clients felt empowered and comfortable seeking business advice in an inviting, low risk learning environment. Findings contradict studies and argument that targeted (gender‐based) programming offers few advantages. Research limitations/implications Future research might investigate how “gendered” client motives and learning needs are reflected in mainstream and gender‐based entrepreneurship policy and programme design. The geographic scope is limited to Nova Scotia (eastern Canada). Practical implications The study helps to explain observations that women‐focused small business training centres are modifying mandates from a focus on start‐up to growth, modifications that reflected client aspirations. Originality/value The study provides insights about the genderedness (Calás and Smircich) of small business programming and helps to define feminine ethics of care within the small firm training context.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".