Search results

The literature on entrepreneurial masculinity has primarily focused on how hegemonic masculinity is constructed and performed in entrepreneurship. Little is known about how non-hegemonic masculinity is performed by male entrepreneurs who do not fit the dominant and traditional form of masculinity in a specific context. Focusing on a cohort of Black male entrepreneurs who practised entrepreneurship in a predominantly white context, this paper explores how non-hegemonic entrepreneurial masculinity is constructed.

The study uses Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) to analyse qualitative data collected through semi-structured interviews with nine Black male entrepreneurs living and doing business in the Northeast of England.

The study found that Black male entrepreneurs construct a distinct form of entrepreneurial masculinity by leveraging the identity of White women to construct a respectable entrepreneurial masculinity. The form of masculinity the men engaged in is theorised as transactional masculinity. This is enacted through relationships with White women which is seen as a symbol of respect and social acceptance, and as a “rite of passage” in entrepreneurship. The study presents a model of entrepreneurial masculinity to explain how transactional masculinity is constructed in relation to femininity and other forms of masculinity.

The study theorises how non-hegemonic entrepreneurial masculinity is enacted through the concept of transactional masculinity. It presents a model of entrepreneurial masculinity and gives voice to the experiences of male entrepreneurial actors with non-hegemonic masculinity.

This chapter seeks to engage with and extend the current debate in the literature of ethnic entrepreneurship. It critiques the concept of ethnic entrepreneurship and its theoretical underpinnings. It argues that research in ethnic entrepreneurship bears little reflection of the current changes and new realities in the composition of modern societies. Based on qualitative primary data from interviews combined with secondary sources of data, it suggests that the term ‘ethnic entrepreneurship’ is discriminatory and creates a narrative of Othering in the discourse of entrepreneurship, thus, portraying entrepreneurship as a western phenomenon. It argues that it is contradictory to think entrepreneurship is fundamentally contextual, socially and culturally embedded, and then define enterprise with ethnic bias. The concept of ethnic entrepreneurship propagates entrepreneurial Othering and a reductionist view of non-western forms of entrepreneurship. What constitutes ethnic enterprise should not be based on the identity of the owner. The ethnic enterprise is not confined to a geographical boundary; and the ethnic economy and the mainstream economy are not mutually exclusive. In this era of superdiversity and globalisation, researchers are encouraged to rethink the concept of ethnic entrepreneurship and embrace difference without Othering.