To advance women's entrepreneurship research, scholars require a clearer understanding of how, and where, researchers have applied the field's critical theoretical frameworks, as well as how extant studies have shaped the development of the frameworks and field of women's entrepreneurship. This paper addresses this gap by conducting an integrative literature review (ILR) of Brush et al.’s (2009) 5 M framework article and proposes a conceptualization of 5 M framework research alongside future research directions for the field of women's entrepreneurship.
Our study utilizes an ILR to analyze how researchers have leveraged the 5 M framework and what this reveals about its development and role in women's entrepreneurship research. We draw on Scopus and Google Scholar databases to present a comprehensive review of all publications (n = 944) that cite Brush et al.’s (2009) article (from 2009 to 2023), focusing on those works (n = 87) which base their methodological or theoretical approach on the 5 M framework.
Our ILR reveals that research using the 5 M framework can be conceptualized as consisting of four different layers: the specific contributions made by such research to the development of the 5 M framework itself; the key themes and mechanisms within women's entrepreneurship addressed by this research; the methodological approaches applied; and the empirical contexts in which the framework dimensions have been employed.
Our study identifies pertinent literature gaps in women's entrepreneurship and provides pathways for diversifying theory-building in the field.
We analyze a prominent theoretical framework in the field of women's entrepreneurship. Our analysis shows not only pathways for future women's entrepreneurship research but also the status of the field and how researchers deal with existing frameworks, thus highlighting opportunities to go beyond the status quo.
Introduction
In its inaugural issue of 2009, the International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship (IJGE) unveiled the gender-aware 5 M framework for women's entrepreneurship by Candida Brush, Anne de Bruin and Friederike Welter, positioning this as a framework for propelling a more holistic approach to women's entrepreneurship research (Henry, 2009). By providing the foundation for more gender-aware entrepreneurship research, Brush et al.’s (2009) influential work sought to offer an avenue that would allow the research community to extend earlier approaches. By 2024, the year of the 5 M framework's fifteenth anniversary, Brush et al.’s (2009) contribution had become one of the most prominent theoretical frameworks in women's entrepreneurship research (1,957 citations, Google Scholar, 31/05/2025).
Recently, however, calls have emerged in the management research literature for recalibrating entrepreneurship research with an eye to promoting more pluralism in theory development (George et al., 2023) – and this new debate has also gained prominence in the field of women's entrepreneurship. Although scholars have advocated for diversifying the research settings in which entrepreneurship research is conducted (Ben-Hafaïedh et al., 2023; Bullough et al., 2022; Hughes et al., 2012), the literature on entrepreneurship in general, and on gender and entrepreneurship in particular, has primarily centered on theory development based on “Western” advanced economies rather than “Eastern” emerging market and developing economies (Bruton et al., 2018; Henry et al., 2021; Strawser et al., 2021; Yadav and Unni, 2016).
Acknowledging the 15th anniversary of the 5 M framework and its relevance for the field of women's entrepreneurship, the time is ripe for reviewing the rich literature that has drawn on this framework since its publication. We approach this review with two objectives in mind: first, to ascertain the status of the 5 M framework research in the field of women's entrepreneurship and, second, to identify concrete pathways that enable the research community to recalibrate women's entrepreneurship research. To achieve these goals, this study explores the following two research questions: (1) How do studies drawing on the 5 M framework inform the development of the 5 M framework? (2) What can we learn from such studies about the status of the field of women's entrepreneurship and beyond? We approach our research questions by conducting an integrative literature review (ILR) on all scholarly publications that cite Brush et al.’s (2009) 5 M framework up until the end of 2023.
Based on our ILR, we extend knowledge of the 5 M framework by conceptualizing 5 M research in terms of four layers: contributions to 5 M framework research, themes and mechanisms of women's entrepreneurship research, methods of 5 M framework research and its empirical settings and the dimension(s) of research thereon. Specifically, our conceptualization focuses on illuminating how the research community has contributed to the 5 M framework, and we explicate the underlying factors that we have identified by means of our analysis, namely contextual, individual and temporal factors. Additionally, we uncover the temporal, contextual and individual mechanisms that shape women's entrepreneurship and demonstrate the broader implications of these mechanisms for the field of women's entrepreneurship. Moreover, by presenting the status of 5 M framework research, we extend and challenge researchers' knowledge of the current state of the field of women's entrepreneurship. Reflections on our findings add to a critical discourse on how researchers interact with the 5 M framework, and we identify specific gaps in the literature while contributing to bringing forward more pluralism in women's entrepreneurship research (e.g. Ben-Hafaïedh et al., 2023; Bullough et al., 2022; Hughes et al., 2012) and beyond (e.g. George et al., 2023).
This paper is structured as follows. Following a brief introduction of the 5 M framework, we outline its methodology and present the key findings of our ILR in relation to works citing Brush et al.’s (2009) seminal piece, specifically centering on the conceptualization of 5 M framework research. Our discussion section reflects on the key theoretical implications of our findings for 5 M framework research, the field of women's entrepreneurship and broader management studies. In the context of honoring the fifteenth anniversary of the 5 M framework, we conclude by offering concrete suggestions on how women's entrepreneurship can move forward in the mid-2020s.
Theoretical background: the 5 M framework of women's entrepreneurship
Bates et al. (2007) identify market, money and management as components essential for venture growth. Here, the market represents opportunity, while money and management enable entrepreneurs to seize these opportunities. Brush et al. (2009) expand on this by adding “motherhood” – a metaphor for the family/household embeddedness of women entrepreneurs—and the meso and macro environments within which entrepreneurship occurs. In their conceptualization, the macro environment accounts for policies and strategies at the national level, as well as legal regulations, the economy and culture; while the meso environment consists of intermediaries between the macro- and micro-levels, including occupational networks, business associations and support policies at the regional level.
This framework, illustrated in a Venn diagram (see Figure 1), assumes that its dimensions overlap, as well as being interdependent and closely linked (Brush et al., 2009). Arranged at the core of the 5 M framework, motherhood (M’HER) illustrates the relevance of considering an analytical approach to entrepreneurship that is aware of gender. The 5 M framework is grounded in institutional theory and draws on Jennings and McDougald (2007) to recognize how deeply gender is embedded in entrepreneurship. Importantly, the framework assumes both the social embeddedness of entrepreneurship activities and the exogenous macro environment within which it takes place. Moreover, Brush et al. (2009) argue that the dimensions of the 5 M framework are not static but differ at various stages of the entrepreneurial process and the life stages of women entrepreneurs.
The Venn diagram is enclosed within a circle with the label “Macro Environment” positioned at the top, and the label “Meso Environment” positioned at the bottom. The Venn diagram is composed of three circles. The top circle is labeled “Market (opportunity),” the bottom right circle is labeled “Money,” and the bottom left circle is labeled “Management.” The central area where all three circles overlap is labeled “M’HER.”5 M framework of women's entrepreneurship. Source(s): adapted from Brush et al. (2009, p. 13)
The Venn diagram is enclosed within a circle with the label “Macro Environment” positioned at the top, and the label “Meso Environment” positioned at the bottom. The Venn diagram is composed of three circles. The top circle is labeled “Market (opportunity),” the bottom right circle is labeled “Money,” and the bottom left circle is labeled “Management.” The central area where all three circles overlap is labeled “M’HER.”5 M framework of women's entrepreneurship. Source(s): adapted from Brush et al. (2009, p. 13)
Methodology
We conduct a review of all academic publications that have cited Brush et al.’s (2009) article on the 5 M framework up until the end of December 2023. Our rationale for conducting this review aligns with Hoon and Baluch (2020), who explain that reviews can be grounded in exploring the state of the field and synthesizing the content of research. For our study, we chose to conduct an ILR (Cronin and George, 2023; Snyder, 2019) so as to assess and synthesize extant knowledge on the 5 M framework research and identify opportunities for theory development.
Aligned with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) (Liberati et al., 2009), our ILR can be summarized as unfolding in three broad stages: (1) literature identification, (2) literature screening and (3) literature analysis. We illustrate this process in a flow chart (see Figure 2) and offer an overview of our literature selection criteria (see Appendix 1). The following section describes our ILR in detail.
The flowchart comprises three text boxes arranged in a vertical series on the left. From top to bottom, the text boxes are labeled as follows: “Identification,” “Screening,” and “Included.” The first box positioned to the right of “Identification” reads: “Publications: Works citing Brush et al. (2009); Time period: 27 Mar, 2009 to 31 Dec, 2023; Language: English; Google Scholar: n equals 1,238; Scopus: n equals 127; Total: n equals 1,365.” A rightward arrow points from this text box to another text box positioned directly to the right. The arrow is labeled “1” and the text box reads as follows: “We set up an Excel database covering all identified records, including key information on publication type, author(s), title, publisher, and year of publication.” A downward arrow from the first text box points to the second text box positioned to the right of “Screening,” titled “Records screened (n equals 1,365).” From this, a rightward arrow labeled “2” points to a text box positioned directly to the right. The text box reads, “We checked all publications included in our literature database for duplicates and excluded publications mistakenly marked as published in English (n equals 225). We excluded journal articles (n equals 27) published in predatory journals (according to the Predatory Journals List 2025).” A downward arrow from “Records screened (n equals 1,365)” points to the third text box labeled “Records screened (n equals 1,113),” positioned directly below. From the latter, a rightward arrow labeled “3” points towards a text box positioned directly to the right. The text box reads, “We excluded works that were not journal articles, doctoral dissertations, books, or book chapters (n equals 169).” A downward arrow points from “Records screened (n equals 1,113)” to a text box positioned directly below, labeled “Records screened (n equals 944).” From the latter, a rightward arrow labeled “4” points to a text box positioned directly to the right. The text box reads, “We added respective abstracts and in-text references to our I L R database. We analyzed all works and excluded works that did not use the 5 M framework as their fundamental theoretical methodology (n equals 857).” A downward arrow points from “Records screened (n equals 944)” to a text box positioned to the right of “Included.” The text box is labeled “Studies assessed for eligibility (n equals 87).” A downward arrow points from “Studies assessed for eligibility (n equals 87)” to a text box labeled “Final records (n equals 87),” positioned directly below. Finally, a rightward arrow points from the latter to a text box positioned directly to the right. The arrow is labeled “5” and the text box reads, “We analyzed how and where the 5 M framework was studied, and how 5 M framework research contributes to women’s entrepreneurship research.”Flow chart of included studies. Source(s): Authors' own work
The flowchart comprises three text boxes arranged in a vertical series on the left. From top to bottom, the text boxes are labeled as follows: “Identification,” “Screening,” and “Included.” The first box positioned to the right of “Identification” reads: “Publications: Works citing Brush et al. (2009); Time period: 27 Mar, 2009 to 31 Dec, 2023; Language: English; Google Scholar: n equals 1,238; Scopus: n equals 127; Total: n equals 1,365.” A rightward arrow points from this text box to another text box positioned directly to the right. The arrow is labeled “1” and the text box reads as follows: “We set up an Excel database covering all identified records, including key information on publication type, author(s), title, publisher, and year of publication.” A downward arrow from the first text box points to the second text box positioned to the right of “Screening,” titled “Records screened (n equals 1,365).” From this, a rightward arrow labeled “2” points to a text box positioned directly to the right. The text box reads, “We checked all publications included in our literature database for duplicates and excluded publications mistakenly marked as published in English (n equals 225). We excluded journal articles (n equals 27) published in predatory journals (according to the Predatory Journals List 2025).” A downward arrow from “Records screened (n equals 1,365)” points to the third text box labeled “Records screened (n equals 1,113),” positioned directly below. From the latter, a rightward arrow labeled “3” points towards a text box positioned directly to the right. The text box reads, “We excluded works that were not journal articles, doctoral dissertations, books, or book chapters (n equals 169).” A downward arrow points from “Records screened (n equals 1,113)” to a text box positioned directly below, labeled “Records screened (n equals 944).” From the latter, a rightward arrow labeled “4” points to a text box positioned directly to the right. The text box reads, “We added respective abstracts and in-text references to our I L R database. We analyzed all works and excluded works that did not use the 5 M framework as their fundamental theoretical methodology (n equals 857).” A downward arrow points from “Records screened (n equals 944)” to a text box positioned to the right of “Included.” The text box is labeled “Studies assessed for eligibility (n equals 87).” A downward arrow points from “Studies assessed for eligibility (n equals 87)” to a text box labeled “Final records (n equals 87),” positioned directly below. Finally, a rightward arrow points from the latter to a text box positioned directly to the right. The arrow is labeled “5” and the text box reads, “We analyzed how and where the 5 M framework was studied, and how 5 M framework research contributes to women’s entrepreneurship research.”Flow chart of included studies. Source(s): Authors' own work
In the first stage of literature identification, we searched Google Scholar and Scopus for English publications citing Brush et al.’s (2009) article from the date of its publication (27 March 2009) until the end of 2023 (31 December 2023). Our Google Scholar inquiry revealed 1,238 records, and the Scopus inquiry identified 127 records. Combining literature works from these two databases, we compiled our own comprehensive dataset of all works citing the 5 M framework article (qualitative, quantitative and conceptual research). We set up an Excel dataset and added the identified records of both academic databases (n = 1,365), including essential information on the publication type, author(s), title, publisher and year of publication. In this way, and as recommended by Cronin and George (2023), our approach in identifying the literature strives for completeness by ensuring broad coverage of the disciplines and publication types that cite Brush et al. (2009). Additionally, these measures aim at ensuring a balanced representation of practice communities (Cronin and George, 2023) by not privileging one particular practice community's voice (e.g. women's entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship and management) at the expense of others.
In the literature screening stage, we checked all records in our database for duplicates and deleted publications mistakenly marked as published in English (n = 225). Furthermore, we excluded articles published in journals listed in the Predatory Journals (2025) List (n = 27). We also excluded publications that were not journal articles, doctoral dissertations, books or book chapters in order to focus on those publications that meet research quality standards (n = 169). Following this, we screened the remaining records (n = 944) and added their respective abstracts and in-text references to the 5 M framework to our database. This procedure enabled us to read carefully all abstracts and in-text references to the 5 M framework with an eye to checking whether works used the 5 M framework as their fundamental theoretical or methodological underpinning. In this way, we identified 87 eligible publications (68 journal articles, 9 book chapters, 8 doctoral dissertations and 2 books) for further investigation.
In the literature analysis, we drew on elements of Liñán and Fayolle's (2015) thematic analysis to categorize the sample research works inductively into key categories and subcategories (see Tables 1 and 6 for an overview of all key categories and subcategories). To ensure rigor in our categorization process, we jointly discussed each article and the evolving key categories and subcategories, as well as engaged in joint discussions to reflect critically on the evolving categories and preserve the diversity of interpretations amongst the authors of this ILR. This approach allowed us to move beyond mere mapping and towards a more integrative synthesis, thus facilitating both sense-making and sense-giving, as suggested by Huff (2009). For instance, we categorized studies based on their disciplinary orientation (women's entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship and broader management studies), methodological approach and conceptual treatment of the 5 M framework, all of which allowed us to include and contrast perspectives from different backgrounds.
Overview of key contributions to 5 M framework research
| Key categories | Description of the contribution to the 5 M framework | Factors (reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| [I/1] Modifying 5 M framework dimension(s) (n = 12) |
|
|
| [I/2] Adding 5 M framework dimension(s) (n = 8) |
|
|
| [I/3] Explaining 5 M framework dynamics (n = 5) |
|
|
| [I/4] Specifying 5 M framework (n = 6) |
|
|
Note(s): The references are organized chronologically
Findings: mapping 15 years of 5 M framework research
Based on our ILR we inductively developed a conceptualization of the 5 M framework research (see Figure 3) that consists of four derived layers: [I] contributions to 5 M framework research, [II] themes and mechanisms of women's entrepreneurship research, [III] methods of 5 M framework research and [IV] empirical settings and 5 M framework dimension(s) research. The sample (n = 87) included in the ILR either emerged as part of contributions to the 5 M framework research (n = 24) or in terms of the themes of women's entrepreneurship (n = 63). The methods of the 5 M framework research layer were derived from within the sample of themes and mechanisms of women's entrepreneurship, while the empirical settings and 5 M framework dimension(s) research served to generate a perspective of the complete sample (n = 87). In the following, we explain our conceptualization of the 5 M framework based on the data obtained from our ILR.
The diagram shows four concentric horizontal rectangles representing hierarchical levels of the 5 M framework research. The first and innermost rectangle is labeled “[I] Contributions to 5 M framework research” on its top edge. Inside it are four text boxes. A first text box is at the bottom labeled “[I-1] Modifying 5 M framework dimension(s)” with the subtext “Contextual, individual, and temporal factors.” A vertical double-headed arrow connects it to the second text box above, labeled “[I-2] Adding 5 M framework dimension(s)” with the subtext “Contextual, individual, and temporal factors.” Above, on the left, is the third text box labeled “[I-3] Explaining 5 M framework dynamics” with the subtext “Contextual and individual factors,” and on the right is the fourth text box labeled “[I-4] Specifying 5 M framework” with the subtext “Contextual and individual factors.” Both the third and fourth text boxes are connected by a double-headed horizontal arrow. Additionally, two vertical double-headed arrows connect these to the first text box at the bottom. The second rectangle surrounding the first is labeled “[II] Themes and mechanisms of women’s entrepreneurship research” on its top edge and comprises five text boxes on its other edges. The first text box on the left edge is labeled “[II-1] Barriers and strategies to overcome these,” with the subtext “Temporal, individual and contextual mechanisms.” The second and third text boxes on the bottom edge are labeled “[II-2] Entrepreneurial identity and motivation” with the subtext “Individual and contextual mechanisms,” and “[II-3] Contextual factors” with the subtext “Individual and contextual mechanisms.” The fourth and fifth text boxes on the right edge are labeled “[II-4] Success factors,” with the subtext “Individual and contextual mechanisms” and “[II-5] Family context,” with the subtext “Individual mechanisms.” The third rectangle is labeled “[III] Methods of 5 M framework research” on its top edge. It includes three text boxes on its other edges. The first text box on the left side is labeled “[III-1] Applying single or multiple 5 M framework dimension(s).” The second text box on the bottom edge is labeled “[III-2] Leveraging 5 M framework dimension(s) as a foundation for building theoretical frameworks.” The third text box on the right edge is labeled “[III-3] Drawing on 5 M framework dimension(s) to conduct a literature review.” The outermost and fourth rectangle is labeled “[IV] Empirical settings and 5 M dimension(s) research” on its top edge. It has three text boxes located on its other edges. The first text box on the top left is labeled “[IV-1] Emerging market and developing economies.” The second text box on the top right is labeled “[IV-2] Advanced economies.” The third text box at the bottom is labeled “[IV-3] 5 M dimension(s) research.”Conceptualization of 5 M framework research. Source(s): Authors’ own work
The diagram shows four concentric horizontal rectangles representing hierarchical levels of the 5 M framework research. The first and innermost rectangle is labeled “[I] Contributions to 5 M framework research” on its top edge. Inside it are four text boxes. A first text box is at the bottom labeled “[I-1] Modifying 5 M framework dimension(s)” with the subtext “Contextual, individual, and temporal factors.” A vertical double-headed arrow connects it to the second text box above, labeled “[I-2] Adding 5 M framework dimension(s)” with the subtext “Contextual, individual, and temporal factors.” Above, on the left, is the third text box labeled “[I-3] Explaining 5 M framework dynamics” with the subtext “Contextual and individual factors,” and on the right is the fourth text box labeled “[I-4] Specifying 5 M framework” with the subtext “Contextual and individual factors.” Both the third and fourth text boxes are connected by a double-headed horizontal arrow. Additionally, two vertical double-headed arrows connect these to the first text box at the bottom. The second rectangle surrounding the first is labeled “[II] Themes and mechanisms of women’s entrepreneurship research” on its top edge and comprises five text boxes on its other edges. The first text box on the left edge is labeled “[II-1] Barriers and strategies to overcome these,” with the subtext “Temporal, individual and contextual mechanisms.” The second and third text boxes on the bottom edge are labeled “[II-2] Entrepreneurial identity and motivation” with the subtext “Individual and contextual mechanisms,” and “[II-3] Contextual factors” with the subtext “Individual and contextual mechanisms.” The fourth and fifth text boxes on the right edge are labeled “[II-4] Success factors,” with the subtext “Individual and contextual mechanisms” and “[II-5] Family context,” with the subtext “Individual mechanisms.” The third rectangle is labeled “[III] Methods of 5 M framework research” on its top edge. It includes three text boxes on its other edges. The first text box on the left side is labeled “[III-1] Applying single or multiple 5 M framework dimension(s).” The second text box on the bottom edge is labeled “[III-2] Leveraging 5 M framework dimension(s) as a foundation for building theoretical frameworks.” The third text box on the right edge is labeled “[III-3] Drawing on 5 M framework dimension(s) to conduct a literature review.” The outermost and fourth rectangle is labeled “[IV] Empirical settings and 5 M dimension(s) research” on its top edge. It has three text boxes located on its other edges. The first text box on the top left is labeled “[IV-1] Emerging market and developing economies.” The second text box on the top right is labeled “[IV-2] Advanced economies.” The third text box at the bottom is labeled “[IV-3] 5 M dimension(s) research.”Conceptualization of 5 M framework research. Source(s): Authors’ own work
[I] Contributions to 5 M framework research
Research works belonging to this layer contribute to research on the 5 M framework (n = 24). Our inductive thematic analysis resulted in the emergence of four key categories: [I/1] modifying 5 M framework dimension(s), [I/2] adding 5 M framework dimension(s), [I/3] explaining 5 M framework dynamics and [I/4] specifying the 5 M framework. All research works belonged to either single (n = 18) or multiple (n = 6) categories; and, in our conceptualization of the 5 M framework research (Figure 3), the arrows between these four categories visualize those research works belonging to multiple contribution categories. In the following section we describe the four categories in detail and illuminate the underlying factors for the reasoning behind scholars' research contributions, which we inductively developed through our analysis and which revolve around contextual (e.g. cultural or rural space and family context), individual (e.g. personal traits and skills) and temporal factors (e.g. times of crisis context, constant change of institutional, social and cultural norms).
The majority of research work contributing to 5 M framework research was published between 2015 and 2023 (see Appendix 2). It is particularly from 2016 onwards that researchers started to modify the 5 M framework dimension [I/1] and to add new 5 M framework dimensions [I/2] and, especially after 2020, that researchers began to explain 5 M framework dynamics [I/3] and to specify the 5 M framework [I/4].
[I/1] Modifying 5 M framework dimension(s)
Research in this category interacts with the 5 M framework by making specific recommendations on how the 5 M framework can be modified. Each of the 5 M framework dimensions received attention from the research community, with scholars predominantly adjusting the motherhood dimension and meso and/or macro environment (see Table 2 for an overview of all modifications).
Overview of 5 M framework modifications
| [I/1] Modifying 5 M dimensions | Factors (reasoning) | |
|---|---|---|
| Motherhood | Reframing motherhood to “parenthood” recognizes the parental responsibilities of men (Muntean and Ozkazanc-Pan, 2015) | Individual |
| The motherhood dimension limits the social identity of women entrepreneurs to mothers and needs to be reconsidered (Wang, 2018) | Individual | |
| Refinement of the motherhood dimension in the context of the work-life balance by adding family situation, family support, external service and providers to the motherhood dimension (Zerwas, 2019) | Individual | |
| Refinement of the motherhood dimension by integrating gender differences surrounding risks since the literature suggests that women may be more risk-averse than men and because risk aversion is correlated with family size (Edelman et al., 2018) | Individual | |
| Refinement of the motherhood dimension due to its contextual embeddedness: motherhood ideals (thoughts and emotions of women entrepreneurs in connection to their roles as mothers and heads of household) and motherhood environments (environment surrounding women entrepreneurs in terms of encouraging vs discouraging entrepreneurship) (Hatoum et al., 2023) | Contextual | |
| Substitution of the motherhood dimension with the household and family context due to the impact of women entrepreneurs' family (including extended family and in-laws) and household context (Cummings and Lopez, 2022) | Contextual | |
| Refinement of the motherhood dimension in the context of women's entrepreneurship during times of crisis: family health concerns, work-life conflict, mental challenges (Bagheri et al., 2023) | Temporal | |
| Management | Refinement of the management dimension in the context of the work-life balance of women entrepreneurs: organizational skills, choice of workplace, start-up experience, limitations on working time and communication skills (Zerwas, 2019) | Individual |
| Modification of the management dimension in the context of rural women's entrepreneurship: human capital, organizational management and financial management. Changes seek to include the experiences of rural women entrepreneurs (Cummings and Lopez, 2022) | Contextual | |
| Refinement of the management dimension in the context of women's entrepreneurship during times of crisis: task performance, employee management (Bagheri et al., 2023) | Temporal | |
| Money | Adaptation of the money dimension in the context of ethnic minority and women's entrepreneurship: structural dissimilarities, supply-side gender discrimination and demand-side risk aversion (Carter et al., 2015) | Contextual |
| Adaptation of the money dimension in the context of the work-life balance of women entrepreneurs: financial success and livelihood security (Zerwas, 2019) | Individual | |
| Reframing the money dimension since the original 5 M framework does not include individual characteristics (personal traits and skills) of women entrepreneurs shaping the access to finance (Singh, 2022) | Individual | |
| Modification of the money dimension in the context of women's entrepreneurship during times of crisis: increases in expenses and lack of support (Bagheri et al., 2023) | Temporal | |
| Market | Modification of the market dimension in the context of the work-life balance of women entrepreneurs: flexibility, autonomy, responsibility and state of business (Zerwas, 2019) | Individual |
| Refinement of the market dimension in the context of women's entrepreneurship during times of crisis: entrepreneurs' experience (customer retention, marketing and competition) (Bagheri et al., 2023) | Temporal | |
| Meso and macro environment | Separation of the meso and macro environment in the context of a theoretical framework for undoing gender and doing gender: (1) cultural norms and general political and economic context; (2) institutions (national, regional and local social organizations, including the household); and (3) institutional practices, dynamics, initiatives and support (Bianco et al., 2017) | Contextual |
| Separation of the meso and macro environments in the context of studying women's entrepreneurship in start-up ecosystems. The micro-level (market, money and management) is viewed as integral to the meso environment and the meso environment is a subset of the macro environment (Berger and Kuckertz, 2016) | Contextual | |
| Separation of the meso and macro environment in the context of the work-life balance of women entrepreneurs: meso environment (network support and employees' situation) and macro environment (expectations of society) (Zerwas, 2019) | Individual | |
| Separation of the meso and macro environment due to their differing impact on rural women's entrepreneurship. The socio-cultural environment is removed from the macro environment and becomes an individual dimension (household and family context, expectations of society and cultural norms) (Cummings and Lopez, 2022) | Contextual | |
| Modification of the meso/macro environment by refining social capital since social capital is crucial for accessing start-up and growth resources, yet is often gendered. Additionally, mentoring and social support could be integrated since these may help in overcoming barriers (Edelman et al., 2018) | Individual | |
| Refinement of the meso and macro environment in the context of women's entrepreneurship in post-conflict economies: macro environment (cultural, political and economic challenges) and meso environment (industry-related challenges and network-related challenges) (Bagheri et al., 2023) | Temporal |
Motherhood. Critiques and recommendations concerning the motherhood dimension are related to individual factors, that is, the identity and roles of women. By using a feminist perspective for conceptualizing gender in entrepreneurship, Muntean and Ozkazanc-Pan (2015) criticize the motherhood dimension for failing to recognize the roles played by men (e.g. fathers and spouses). To render men's parental responsibilities visible, scholars here suggest reframing motherhood to signify “parenthood.” This critique is mirrored by Wang (2018), who argues that the motherhood dimension limits the social identity of women to mothers and recognizes neither the multidimensionality of women's identities (home and workplaces) nor changing family structures in societies (e.g. number of children, formal marriage and sexuality). Additional individual factors relate to motherhood in the context of work-life balance and differences in risk attitudes between men and women (Edelman et al., 2018; Zerwas, 2019).
In contrast, other studies acknowledge contextual factors. Cummings and Lopez (2022) highlight the more substantial impact of women entrepreneurs' family (including extended family and in-laws) and the household context in rural women's entrepreneurship in emerging market and developing economies. As a result, by highlighting the role of families across cultures, scholars substitute the motherhood dimension with a “household and family” context. Echoing the importance of the contextual embeddedness of women's entrepreneurship in Bahrain, Hatoum (2023) adds motherhood ideals (thoughts and emotions of women entrepreneurs in connection with their roles as mothers and heads of household) and motherhood environments, such as those that encourage or discourage women's entrepreneurship. Beyond this, Bagheri et al. (2023) integrate aspects of temporality and draw on women's entrepreneurship during periods of crisis (family health concerns, work-life conflict or mental challenges).
Management. In the context of the work-life balance of women entrepreneurs, Zerwas (2019) refines the management dimension to include individual factors related to women entrepreneurs, such as organizational skills, choice of workplace and the limitation of working time. Investigating rural women's entrepreneurship, Cummings and Lopez (2022) modify the 5 M framework's management dimension by adding contextual factors such as women's human capital or organizational and financial management. Moreover, by arguing that temporal factors matter in the light of the management dimension, Bagheri et al. (2023) specify the management dimension for women's entrepreneurship during times of crisis by including task performance or employee management.
Money. In their study of ethnic minority women's entrepreneurship, Carter et al. (2015) adapt the money dimension by revealing the contextual challenges of these distinct groups, such as structural dissimilarities, supply-side gender discrimination and demand-side risk aversion. By criticizing the absence in the 5 M framework of individual factors affecting women's access to finance, Singh (2022) adds individual characteristics that include personality traits and specific skills. Furthermore, the money dimension receives attention from Bagheri et al. (2023), who add money-related challenges during times of crisis (e.g. increases in expenses and a lack of support) as a temporal factor in their modification of the 5 M framework.
Market. In the context of the work-life balance of women entrepreneurs, Zerwas (2019) also draws on individual factors in order to refine the market dimension, such as in terms of flexibility, autonomy and responsibility. Temporal factors in the market dimension during times of crisis are also added by Bagheri et al. (2023), including customer retention, marketing and competition. However, regarding the market dimension, our analysis failed to uncover research works that base their modifications on contextual factors.
Meso and macro environment. In modifying the meso and macro environment, research focuses on contextual factors. Bianco et al. (2017) separate both of these environments into cultural norms and their general political and economic contexts, institutions (national, regional and local social organizations, including the household), institutional practices, dynamics, initiatives and support structures. By identifying divergence in the impact of contextual factors (the rural space) on women's entrepreneurship, Cummings and Lopez (2022) separate the meso environment (regional policies have a major impact) from the macro environment (national policies have a minor impact). Moreover, to highlight its effect on women's entrepreneurship, scholars argue that, in the context of start-up ecosystems, the micro-level (market, money and management) is viewed as integral to the meso environment and that the meso environment forms a subset of the macro environment (Berger and Kuckertz, 2016). With a focus on individual factors Zerwas (2019) argues that the meso (network support and employee situation) and macro environment (expectations of society) address contrary aspects in the context of women entrepreneurs' work-life balance, thereby separating the two from each other. Edelman et al. (2018) draw on the gender to demonstrate the need for refining the concept of social capital as part of the meso and macro environment. Finally, by again offering a temporal perspective, Bagheri et al. (2023) refine both the macro environment (cultural, political and economic challenges) and meso environment (industry-related challenges and network-related challenges) for women's entrepreneurship during times of crisis.
[I/2] Adding 5 M framework dimension(s)
Research belonging to this category adds new dimensions to the 5 M framework (see Table 3 for a concise overview of proposed dimensions and corresponding explanations). In the following, we introduce each of the additional 5 M framework dimensions and explicate the factors that underlie the reasoning behind these adaptations, based on the contextual, temporal and individual factors identified in our ILR.
Overview of added 5 M framework dimensions
| Additional 5 M dimensions | [I/2] Description of added 5 M dimensions | Factors (reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Motherland | Historical and temporal context through which the meso/macro environment and money influence women's entrepreneurship (Iakovleva et al., 2013) | Temporal |
| Marital obligations | Broader understanding of women's roles, including care obligations for extended family members (Katsande, 2016) | Contextual |
| Motivations | Entrepreneurial motivations for women's entrepreneurship may help in identifying the gender-specific characteristics of women entrepreneurs (Bianchi et al., 2016) | Individual |
| Myself | Personal characteristics and personal fulfillment of women entrepreneurs shape women's entrepreneurship in the context of the work-life balance (Zerwas, 2019) | Individual |
| Medioambiental thinking | Sustainable thinking and its impact on women's entrepreneurship (Chávez Rivera et al., 2021) | Contextual |
| Mental health | Psychological stress that is involved in starting a business (Abuhussein and Koburtay, 2021) | Individual |
| Maturity | Impacts critical decision-making of women entrepreneurs and their capability to deal with problems (Abuhussein and Koburtay, 2021) | Individual |
| Maintainability | Encompasses stability and analyzability (Abuhussein and Koburtay, 2021) | Individual |
| Mobile technology | Helps women entrepreneurs overcome entrepreneurial barriers in post-conflict economies during times of crisis (Ameen et al., 2023) | Temporal |
| Entrepreneurial capacity | Linked to entrepreneurial capacity and includes the physical and mental pressure experienced by women entrepreneurs (Cummings and Lopez, 2022) | Individual |
| Perspectives of change | Captures women's perceptions of changes in agency and gender norms over time (Cummings and Lopez, 2022) | Temporal |
Motherland. Drawing on institutional theory as a temporal factor to investigate women's entrepreneurship in post-Soviet states, Iakovleva et al. (2013) add motherland to the 5 M framework to investigate the historical influence of the meso and macro environments at hand. Since institutional, cultural and social norms constantly change, the motherland dimension refers to the historical and temporal contexts of entrepreneurship and gender.
Marital obligations. By investigating women's entrepreneurship in Zimbabwe in a multi-generational family context, Katsande (2016) proposes adding marital obligations (e.g. care obligations for extended family members) as these can influence the business models in which women can engage. Such a recognition of differences in family systems and obligations due to cultural differences enriches the 5 M framework by offering a perspective on contextual factors that influence women's entrepreneurship.
Motivations. Showing that individual factors such as women's positive attitude towards entrepreneurship are a key driver of women's decision to enter into entrepreneurship, Bianchi et al. (2016) propose adding motivations to the 5 M framework so as to enable researchers to identify gender-specific characteristics of women's entrepreneurship.
Myself. To emphasize the role of women entrepreneurs' personal characteristics (e.g. attitudes towards life) and personal fulfillment (e.g. perceptions of self-employment) that may influence their work-life balance, Zerwas (2019) adds a perspective on the crucial role played by individual factors in women's entrepreneurship.
Medioambiental thinking (environmental thinking). In their analysis of contextual factors that shape the identification and exploitation of mumpreneurs' and copreneurs' entrepreneurial opportunities in Ecuador, Chávez Rivera et al. (2021) acknowledge the relevance of sustainable thinking and how this shapes entrepreneurship, specifically with an eye to inspiring women's entrepreneurship research on green thinking, sustainable business and sustainable development.
Mental health, maturity and maintainability. Abuhussein and Koburtay (2021) extend the 5 M framework to become an expanded 8 Ms model. By emphasizing that entrepreneurship also has its dark sides, involving individual factors such as an increase in emotional stress and an impact on well-being, these scholars add mental health to the 5 M framework. Furthermore, as the capability of women entrepreneurs to make critical decisions and resolve problems in the context of their entrepreneurial activities is linked to individuals' degree of maturity, these scholars similarly add maturity as a dimension. Finally, they add individual maintainability, that is, women entrepreneurs' skills in terms of persistence and self-analysis, as the challenges experienced by women entrepreneurs are often connected to a failure of creating a stable business.
Entrepreneurial capacities and perspectives of change. In their so-called 7 M + framework, Cummings and Lopez (2022) draw on Abuhussein and Koburtay's (2021) 8 Ms model and focus on temporal and individual factors for modifying the 5 M framework. By shedding light on the physical and mental pressures experienced by rural women entrepreneurs, they add entrepreneurial capacities (experienced risks associated with entrepreneurship, the entrepreneurial spirit of women entrepreneurs and the burden of being a woman entrepreneur) to emphasize the role played by mental health. Moreover, the addition of perspectives on change serves to illustrate women's perceptions of shifts in their agency and gender norms over time, both of which highlight the significance of temporal factors in these expanded dimensions.
Mobile technology. Ameen et al. (2023) show how, as a temporal factor, the use of mobile technology plays a decisive role for women technology entrepreneurs in post-conflict economies and can form a strategy to overcome entrepreneurial barriers during times of crisis.
[I/3] Explaining 5 M framework dynamics
Works here either explain the dynamics amongst the 5 M framework dimensions or illustrate how these dimensions impact women's entrepreneurship activities both directly and indirectly (see Table 4).
Overview of 5 M framework dynamics
| Explaining 5 M framework dynamics | [I/3] Description of 5 M framework dynamics | Factors (reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Direct and indirect impact of 5 M dimensions | In the context of learning and opportunity recognition, the meso environment has an indirect impact while the macro environment and motherhood have a direct impact on women's entrepreneurship. Market, money and management have both a direct and indirect impact (Ettl and Welter, 2010) | Individual |
| Motherhood and macro environment | Dynamics between the macro environment (regulations, financing and societal perceptions) and motherhood dimension (Hatoum et al., 2023) | Contextual |
| Direct and indirect growth factors of women-owned enterprises | In the context of the business growth of women entrepreneurs in a developing country, the study identifies direct (market, management and money) and indirect (motherhood, the meso environment and macro environment) growth factors. Motherhood (gender-related/household characteristics) and the macro environment (e.g., socio-cultural restrictions) can inhibit the access and utilization of the original 3 Ms (Ogundana, 2020; Ogundana et al., 2021) | Contextual |
| Dynamics between management, maturity and maintainability | The dimensions of management, maturity and maintainability are closely intertwined (Abuhussein and Koburtay, 2021). Maintainability, mental health and maturity either support or restrict women's entrepreneurship | Individual |
Building on contextual factors, these contributions describe the dynamics between the meso and macro environments and the dimension of motherhood. In their investigation of the 5 M framework in the context of the growth of women entrepreneurs' businesses in an emerging market and developing economy, Ogundana (2020) and Ogundana et al. (2021) arrange the 5 M framework dimensions into indirect (motherhood, macroenvironment, meso environment) and direct (management, money, market) business growth factors. Additionally, motherhood (gender-related household characteristics) and the macro environment (e.g. socio-cultural restrictions) can inhibit the access and utilization of the original 3 Ms. By exploring factors that affect women's entrepreneurship in the macro environment (regulations, financing, societal perceptions) and motherhood dimension in a Muslim society, Hatoum et al. (2023) offer insights into how the dynamics between these two can positively or negatively impact individuals' entrepreneurial prospects. In a similar vein, other papers focus on how individual factors are interrelated and affected by further framework dimensions. Ettl and Welter (2010) show that learning and opportunity recognition are indirectly affected by the meso environment (regional context), directly affected by the macro environment (its influence on individuals' lives and decisions) and motherhood (family influence) and how the original 3 M dimensions of management, money and market affect these individual factors both indirectly and directly. Finally, Abuhussein and Koburtay (2021) accentuate the close intertwining of the individual factors of management, maturity and maintainability.
[I/4] Specifying 5 M framework
Research works belonging to this category specify the 5 M framework in manifold ways, chiefly by building on contextual factors that linking embeddedness perspectives to all 5 M framework dimensions (see Table 5): the meso environment (spatial embeddedness), macro environment (institutional embeddedness), micro environment/motherhood (family embeddedness), market, management and money (business embeddedness) (Ettl and Welter, 2010). With the goal to offer a holistic framework that applies to “new forms” of entrepreneurship, such as migrant and indigenous entrepreneurship, a framework for exploring unusual forms of entrepreneurship is derived by reframing all original 5 M framework dimensions as “unusual” and replacing the motherhood dimension with an “unusual micro-environment” (Burger-Helmchen, 2020). By drawing on contextual factors, Berger and Kuckertz (2016) show how different constellations of the 5 M framework dimensions can explain gender gaps in entrepreneurial ecosystems. Gallellalage (2020) refers to the 5 M dimensions as the specific success factors for micro-retail pop-up entrepreneurs; and Lobo et al. (2023) discuss specific “pain points” of women entrepreneurs in the emerging market and developing economy of the Philippines in the context of the 5 M framework. Furthermore, crisis-related challenges (altruism, emotional exhaustion, uncertainty and fear of failure) are related to individual factors, and cognitive and psychological factors may impact women's entrepreneurship at all times (Bagheri et al., 2023).
Overview of 5 M framework specifications
| Specifying the 5 M framework | [I/4] Description of 5 M framework specifications | Factors (reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Embeddedness level | The 5 M framework dimensions are linked to embeddedness perspectives: meso environment (spatial), macro environment (institutional), micro-environment/motherhood (family), market, management and money (business) (Ettl and Welter, 2010). | Contextual |
| Gender gaps in entrepreneurial ecosystems | Based on an analysis of the world's most successful start-up ecosystem, scholars study how constellations of the 5 M framework dimensions (market, management, money, meso environment and macro environment) can explain gender gaps in entrepreneurial ecosystems (Berger and Kuckertz, 2016). | Contextual |
| Unusual entrepreneurship | Based on the original 5 M framework, a new framework for exploring unusual forms of entrepreneurship is derived by reframing all original 5 M framework dimensions as being “unusual” and adding the unusual micro-environment (Burger-Helmchen, 2020). | Contextual |
| Success factors of women micro-retail pop-up entrepreneurs in light of the 5 M framework | These revolve around the market (its temporary nature, a focus on target markets, creating urgency and buzz in market networking), money (accessing finance, reducing overheads or expenditure, a minimum level of expectations, lower running costs, lower rent, a focus on a narrow product), management (differential strategy, innovation, business management skills, level of education, personal characteristics, team work and staying fresh), motherhood (support from family and friends, opening a pop-up when convenient, closing down at difficult times without losing money) and meso/macro environment (support from the government and non-government organizations) (Gallellalage, 2020). | Contextual |
| Crisis-related challenges for women entrepreneurs | Scholars criticize that cognitive and psychological factors are not included in the original 5 M framework. Crisis-related challenges (altruism, emotional exhaustion, uncertainty and fear of failure) are also relevant for women's entrepreneurship at all times (Bagheri et al., 2023) | Temporal |
| “Pain points” in the 5 M framework | Explains why women entrepreneurs face challenges. Macro environment (political institutions, government and technology), meso environment (social and cultural norms), money (financial capital from governments and financial institutions), management (capacity-building, research, mentors and coaches), market (capacity-building and research) and motherhood (role of men in household help) (Lobo et al., 2023) | Contextual |
[II] Themes of women's entrepreneurship research
This layer encompasses research that leverages the 5 M framework as a methodological or theoretical foundation, yet does not actively contribute to the development of the 5 M framework itself, instead aiming to generate greater insight into women's entrepreneurship. Our thematic analysis of this layer resulted in the inductive emergence of five key categories within the layer Themes and mechanisms of women's entrepreneurship research emerged inductively: [II/1] barriers for women entrepreneurs and strategies to overcome these, [II/2] entrepreneurial identity and motivation of women entrepreneurs, [II/3] contextual factors of women's entrepreneurship, [II/4] success factors of women entrepreneurs and [II/5] family context of women's entrepreneurship. Across all categories, we identified temporal, contextual and individual mechanisms –or a combination of individual and contextual mechanisms – that shape women's entrepreneurship (see Table 6). Importantly, in this way, we show that the mechanisms identified here prevail in the broader literature on women's entrepreneurship and impact women's entrepreneurship in numerous ways. In comparison to those factors that describe how researchers have contributed to 5 M research (see section above), the mechanisms in this section synthesize the ways in which women's entrepreneurship is affected within each thematic category.
Themes of women's entrepreneurship research and underlying mechanisms
| Sub-categories (Mechanisms) | Key categories (Themes) |
|---|---|
Temporal mechanisms
| [II/1] Barriers for women entrepreneurs and strategies to overcome these (n = 16) |
Individual mechanisms
| [II/2] Entrepreneurial identity and motivation of women entrepreneurs (n = 16) |
Contextual mechanisms
| [II/3] Contextual factors of women's entrepreneurship (n = 12) |
Individual mechanisms
| [II/4] Success factors of women entrepreneurs (n = 12) |
Individual mechanisms
| [II/5] Family context of women's entrepreneurship (n = 7) |
Note(s): The references are organized chronologically
The majority of research that uses the 5 M framework to explore themes relevant to women's entrepreneurship was published between 2012 and 2023 (see Appendix 3). In particular, this applies to the barriers for women entrepreneurs and strategies to overcome these [II/1], entrepreneurial identity and motivation of women entrepreneurs [II/2] and contextual factors of women's entrepreneurship [II/3], while the family context [II/5] was predominantly investigated until 2014.
[II/1] Barriers for women entrepreneurs and strategies to overcome these
This category of research sheds light on the barriers faced by women entrepreneurs and offers insights into the strategies used to overcome these barriers. In this layer, it is this area that contains the largest body of research and the main mechanisms identified in the papers in our sample are temporal, contextual and individual in nature or involve a combination of individual and contextual mechanisms. These mechanisms are particularly relevant for women's entrepreneurship in emerging and developing economies.
In relation to temporal mechanisms, Hughes et al. (2022) and Villaseca et al. (2020) show that, during times of crisis, women entrepreneurs experience crisis-related challenges, including heightened uncertainty. Here, scholars emphasize the role played by women entrepreneurs' positive attitudes, aspirations and opportunity recognition in overcoming these challenges (Hughes et al., 2022), as well as the importance of drawing on support provided by public organizations (Villaseca et al., 2020).
Contextual mechanisms relating to barriers for women entrepreneurs and the strategies they employ to overcome these include society, institutions, culture, family and gender. For instance, Danish and Lawton Smith (2012) emphasize the role of societal (gender-based restrictions) and institutional (institutions of the state and trade bodies) barriers for women entrepreneurs in a context characterized by patriarchal structures in an emerging and developing economy, suggesting that removing discriminatory administrative procedures toward women entrepreneurs would serve to overcome such barriers. Individual mechanisms are evident in the education, financial capital resources and personal skills of women entrepreneurs. Here, for example, studies in emerging market and developing economies identify a lack of financial capital and low levels of education as a significant barrier (Amaechi, 2016), while creativity and resourcefulness are mechanisms that may help women entrepreneurs to overcome these barriers (Hodges et al., 2015; Sonbol, 2018). In contrast, other studies show a combination of individual and contextual mechanisms at play in gendered barriers, including those that pertain to ventures and economic, socio-cultural, political or educational aspects (Somià, 2022).
[II/2] Entrepreneurial identity and motivation of women entrepreneurs
Research belonging to this category encompasses insights for researchers on women's entrepreneurship in terms of entrepreneurial motivation and identity across various contexts. The main mechanisms discussed in papers in our sample are contextual or individual in nature or a combination of both (see Table 6). Individual mechanisms here encompass gender role identity and the role of social and human capital, as well as that of necessity. For instance, Leung (2011) shows that Japanese women who strongly identify with their family roles, especially their role as mothers, are driven to entrepreneurship. On the other hand, contextual mechanisms in this body of research cover family, culture, gender, policies and support organizations. For example, gender-specific attitudes towards women (e.g., gender-based factors) influence the entrepreneurial process and currently result in a gender gap in entrepreneurship in emerging and developing economies (Sabri and Thomas, 2019). Furthermore, studies here also identify a combination of individual and contextual factors, with, for example, Abuhussein (2023) emphasizing the role of the individual motivation (e.g. personal ambitions) and contextual motivation (e.g. overcoming restricted mobility) of refugee women entrepreneurs in an emerging and developing economy.
[II/3] Contextual factors of women's entrepreneurship
In our ILR, we identify contextual mechanisms and a combination of contextual and individual mechanisms that shape the contextual factors of women's entrepreneurship (see Table 6). Contextual mechanisms cover family embeddedness, (gender-specific) institutions and culture. For example, Ballesteros-Sola and Osorio-Novela (2021) offer specific insights into how factors at the micro-level (family embeddedness and gender roles), meso-level (institutions) and macro-level (cultural norms, national policies and societal expectations) influence the venture creation process of women entrepreneurs in an emerging and developing economy. Individual and contextual mechanisms include personal factors, regional support, policies, institutions, religion and culture. For instance, Nguyen (2014) identifies community-inherent factors (social and cultural norms, governmental impact and networks) and individual factors (human capital, motivation and goals and demographics) that shape rural women's entrepreneurship in an emerging and developing economy.
[II/4] Success factors of women entrepreneurs
We identify individual mechanisms, contextual mechanisms and a combination of both of these that influence women entrepreneurs' success (see Table 6). Individual mechanisms include human and social capital, trait-based factors, behavior-related factors and social-psychological factors. For instance, Rafiki and Nasution (2019) demonstrate how trait-related factors (e.g. managing risk), behavior-related factors (e.g. leadership and management skills) and social-psychological-related factors (e.g. understanding rules and regulations) affect the success of women entrepreneurs in an emerging and developing Muslim society. Contextual mechanisms include entrepreneurial support programs and researchers reveal how gendered and mixed incubator and accelerator programs can serve as crucial platforms influencing the success of women in advanced economies (Gibard and Chalus-Sauvannet, 2022; Grandy and Culham, 2021; Hughes and Yang, 2020). In addition, a combination of individual and contextual mechanisms includes personal internal factors and the significance of internal and external support. Here, for example, Javadian and Singh (2012) show illustrate how personal internal factors (self-efficacy and risk-taking) and external factors (gender stereotypes, societal culture and traditions) all impact the success of women entrepreneurs in a patriarchal society in an emerging and developing economy.
[II/5] Family context of women's entrepreneurship
The studies in this group all offer a perspective on the intersection between family, gender and entrepreneurship. We identify individual mechanisms (motherhood/family embeddedness and familial influence) related to the family context of women's entrepreneurship (see Table 6). For instance, Brush et al. (2010) show how motherhood/family embeddedness affects perceptions of opportunity and aspirations for growth, thereby highlighting their importance; Gundry et al. (2014) show how familial influence can fundamentally shape the strategic entrepreneurial behavior (e.g. opportunity recognition) of women entrepreneurs in an emerging and developing economy context.
[III] Methods of 5 M framework research
The research works of Layer II also contribute to work conducted in the third layer, where research on themes of women's entrepreneurship, research either [III/1] applies single or multiple 5 M framework dimensions, [III/2] leverages the 5 M framework dimension(s) as a foundation for building theoretical frameworks or [III/3] draws on the 5 M framework dimensions to conduct a literature review. In the following, we illustrate the types of methods used here by drawing on representative examples (see Appendix 4 for a comprehensive categorization of all research works in this layer).
[III/1] Applying single or multiple 5 M framework dimensions
Research works in this group use either a single or multiple 5 M framework dimensions to explore women's entrepreneurship, depending on the specific context at hand. For instance, Leung (2011) draws on the motherhood dimension to investigate gender role identity as a resource amongst Japanese women. In contrast, Tahir and El Baradie (2019) draw on all 5 M framework dimensions to offer detailed insights into how these dimensions play out in the empirical setting of the United Arab Emirates.
[III/2] Leveraging the 5 M framework dimension(s) as a foundation for building theoretical frameworks
Works here draw on elements of the 5 M framework and integrate them into novel theoretical frameworks to explain novel entrepreneurship phenomena, including the e-business entrepreneurial intentions of women entrepreneurs (Salman and Jamil, 2017), social entrepreneurship (Gerlach, 2021) or a gender-barrier framework for women's entrepreneurship (Somià, 2022).
[III/3] Drawing on the 5M framework dimensions to conduct a literature review
The 5 M framework has served to guide literature reviews conducted on areas of importance in women's entrepreneurship research. For instance, Villaseca et al. (2020) draw on the money dimension to conduct a systematic literature review of start-up financing during the COVID-19 pandemic; and others draw on Brush et al. (2009) to justify literature review criteria (Cabrera and Mauricio, 2017).
[IV] Empirical settings and 5 M framework dimension(s) research
Studies using the 5 M framework investigate emerging market and developing economies [IV/1], as well as advanced economies [IV/2], in Asia (27), Europe (22), the Americas (14), Africa (10), Oceania (1), multiple world regions (2) or women's entrepreneurship globally (11). Our data reveal a recent shift in women's entrepreneurship research towards applying the 5 M framework in emerging market and developing economies, as well as in world regions previously underrepresented in the field. Furthermore, in terms of research on the various 5 M framework dimensions [IV/3], the ILR reveals differences in the number of studies and their application across global contexts. The studies included in our analysis primarily draw on the motherhood dimension and the meso/macro environment (see Appendix 5 for a detailed overview of countries and 5 M framework dimensions studied in this layer).
[IV/1] Emerging markets and developing economies
Research on women's entrepreneurship using the 5 M framework in emerging market and developing economies has gained traction in recent years. Although the majority of studies on the 5 M framework investigate emerging market and developing economies rather than advanced ones, research on these world regions remains focused on a limited set of countries. For instance, most studies concerning Africa draw on states in the North (Algeria, Egypt) or East (Ethiopia, Kenya and Zimbabwe) of the continent, while countries in Central Africa (Democratic Republic of Congo), the South (South Africa) and the West (Nigeria) have received less attention. Similarly, studies set in Western Asia (e.g. Bahrain, Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia), Southern Asia (Bangladesh, India and Pakistan) and Southeastern Asia (Indonesia, Philippines and Thailand) are numerous, while Kazakhstan is the only emerging markets economy in Central Asia to have been used for 5 M framework research and not a single study here has drawn on such economies or markets in East Asia – strikingly, as one of the world's largest emerging markets, the People's Republic of China has yet to be explored by 5 M framework researchers. Finally, studies that focus on Oceania, the Caribbean or Central and South America remain scarce.
[IV/2] Advanced economies
Studies in advanced economy settings primarily draw on Northern Europe (e.g. Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom), Western Europe (e.g. France and Germany) and North America (Canada and the USA). We show that studies mainly draw on advanced economies in the “West” but less on the “East.” For instance, only one study (Leung, 2011) leveraged the 5 M framework to explore an advanced economy setting in the East (Japan), whereas none investigated, for instance, the Republic of Korea.
[IV/3] 5 M dimension(s) research
Our ILR reveals that one-third of all studies (25) draw on merely one M dimension, whereas half of the studies draw on multiple M dimensions (16) or on all 5 Ms (46). When zooming in on these studies, the majority here investigate or draw on motherhood (72) and the meso/macro environment (69), while the traditional 3 Ms, namely money (55), market (47) and management (47), are explored to a lesser extent. Importantly, our findings illustrate that nearly all studies drawing on the 5 M framework consider the motherhood dimension. Appendix 5 provides a detailed overview of which 5 M framework dimension has been studied in which country.
Discussion
For this study, we conducted an ILR on one of the most prominent theoretical frameworks of women's entrepreneurship and developed a conceptualization of the extant 5 M framework research. Our conceptualization shows four layers: [I] contributions to 5M framework research, [II] themes and mechanisms of women's entrepreneurship research, [III] methods of 5M framework research and [IV] empirical settings and 5M dimension(s) research. So, what does this ILR on the 5 M framework tell us about the 5 M framework research, the field of women's entrepreneurship and broader management studies? In line with these questions and with researchers calling for a high level of reflexivity in literature reviews (Alvesson and Sandberg, 2020), our ILR inquires into the status of 5 M framework research, the field of women's entrepreneurship and broader management studies and, with these questions in mind, we now proceed to discuss our study's critical contributions.
Our study contributes to women's entrepreneurship research by extending and deepening knowledge of extant 5 M framework research and conceptualizing it afresh, as well as expanding and challenging our knowledge on the status of the field of women's entrepreneurship by offering a novel perspective on how, and where, the research community has leveraged the 5 M framework in the past. In the following, we reflect on our contributions and the implications thereof for the gender and entrepreneurship literature. In line with the power of integrative literature reviews (Cronin and George, 2023), we critically reflect on the possibility of how our findings may offer opportunities for future research and serve to redirect research practices commonly employed in the women's entrepreneurship community.
Our review identifies four strategic pathways for future research. First, scholars could rethink and refine theoretical frameworks, such as the 5 M framework, beyond surface-level modifications, moving to embrace a deeper conceptual and critical mode of engagement. Second, greater efforts may be strived for to connect individual, contextual and temporal mechanisms across various levels of analysis. Third, methodological pluralism could be accompanied by epistemological reflection to bring underlying assumptions to the surface. And fourth, future studies could integrate underrepresented regions and research traditions, so as not only to expand empirical reach but also to question and potentially reconfigure dominant theoretical approaches.
Theoretical insights on extant contributions to the 5 M framework and women's entrepreneurship research as a blueprint for future progress
We identify a divergence between studies that treat the 5 M framework as static and those that attempt to adapt or critique it. For instance, the motherhood dimension has been repeatedly criticized (e.g. Muntean and Ozkazanc-Pan, 2015; Wang, 2018) and a number of works have replaced this with other dimensions (e.g. Cummings and Lopez, 2022). Additionally, the meso/macro environment has frequently been separated into two dimensions and other framework dimensions have undergone further refinement. A consistent pattern emerges from our analysis in which most studies have adapted the 5 M framework dimensions in response to contextual, individual and/or temporal factors. However, researchers have omitted explicating the specific nature of this differentiation, and it is only through conducting our ILR that this differentiation has become evident. Future research on the 5 M framework could draw on our findings to structure and highlight the underlying factors for their contributions to 5 M framework research. Beyond this, future research could consider adopting a more reflexive and dialogical approach (Cronin and George, 2023) that intentionally bridges communities of practice (e.g. women's entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship, management research) by conducting research across empirical settings, epistemological assumptions and theories.
Since 2009, 5 M framework-based research has undergone significant change and evolved. Complementing the 5 M framework by adding additional dimensions has offered fresh ways in which to investigate women's entrepreneurship across a range of contexts. While we acknowledge that prior studies that use the 5 M framework have advanced research by drawing on contextual, temporal and individual factors, such as pathways for exploring the 5 M framework in light of historical and temporal factors (Iakovleva et al., 2013), we suggest that the framework could further benefit from changes that go beyond simply adding new dimensions – in particular those beginning with the letter “M,” the searching for which may have limited scholars' creativity, out-of-the-box thinking and, consequently, their approaches to data analysis and theory development in seeking to develop and frame new M dimensions. Only one recent study by Cummings and Lopez (2022) adds two non-M dimensions (entrepreneurial capacities and perspectives of change) to their so-called 7 M + framework for rural women's entrepreneurship in low- and middle-income countries. What is more, this type of discussion may also be relevant for research beyond the 5 M framework and much future research could benefit from reflecting on how frameworks can be meaningfully refined or extended and how we frame these linguistically and, hence, either constrain or foster further theoretical development.
The ILR has enabled us to identify the mechanisms involved in the five themes of women's entrepreneurship, and we show how individual, contextual and temporal mechanisms, as well as combinations of individual and contextual mechanisms, shape women's entrepreneurship. Yet, what can be learnt from this in regard to the broader field of women's entrepreneurship? The mechanisms we identify are apparent across all five themes, thus emphasizing that each mechanism is at play regardless of the specific themes at hand in women's entrepreneurship research. It follows that women's entrepreneurship research stands to benefit fundamentally from a broad view of the possible mechanisms shaping the outcome of women's entrepreneurship activities. As a result, the synthesis of these mechanisms for women's entrepreneurship in this research article can serve as a starting point for future research that draws on the 5 M framework.
Themes for the field of women's entrepreneurship and their outlook
In the past, researchers have reflected on the state of women's entrepreneurship and offered recommendations for future research directions (e.g. Brush et al., 2020; Jennings and Brush, 2013; Yousafzai et al., 2019). In relation to such previously formulated legacies for women's entrepreneurship outlined by Brush et al. (2020), we discuss how our findings contribute to these.
Gender and entrepreneurship. Due to the nature of the 5 M framework, scholars who leverage the 5 M framework have predominantly contributed to understanding the intersection between gender and entrepreneurship. Here, research especially offers perspectives on gender and entrepreneurship across contexts, thereby responding to prior calls for more contextualized women's entrepreneurship research (e.g. Henry and Lewis, 2023; Welter, 2020; Yousafzai et al., 2019). Nevertheless, studies do differ substantially in how they interpret and operationalize “context”, with some focusing on institutional or cultural barriers, while others concentrate on family dynamics or resource access. Few studies, however, offer cross-level integration. Mirroring calls for research that generates additional and more nuanced perspectives of women entrepreneurs in emerging market and developing economies (e.g. Anderson and Ojediran, 2022), our findings indicate a dearth of research conducted in various national settings. This suggests a missed opportunity to connect multiple levels more coherently across contexts, especially “Eastern” advanced economies and “Eastern” emerging market and developing economies. Moreover, conducting research that goes beyond dichotomies, a binary comparison between women and men entrepreneurs, or gender stereotyping may generate more entrepreneurial diversity and open up broader possibilities for theorizing (e.g. Ettl et al., 2021; Jennings and Tonoyan, 2022; Marlow and Martinez Dy, 2018).
Contributions of gender and women's entrepreneurship to the field of entrepreneurship and other research domains. The majority of studies that employ the 5 M framework continue to focus on barriers faced by women entrepreneurs and the specific strategies to overcome these. Previously, Yousafzai et al. (2019) concluded that future research should adopt a more comprehensive approach by shifting from developing short-term strategies that help women overcome existing barriers to longer-term approaches that focus on discovering how to prevent gendered barriers in the first place. This, then, could pave the way for a more diversified women's entrepreneurship research agenda. Furthermore, as extant 5 M framework research predominantly integrates the motherhood dimension, which has indeed offered relevant insights into understanding women's entrepreneurship across contexts, scholars have recently provided approaches to integrate a fatherhood perspective for entrepreneurship (e.g. Hytti et al., 2024).
Additionally, the most highly cited research works drawing on the 5 M framework as their theoretical underpinning or as part of their methodological application have been published in women's entrepreneurship or entrepreneurship and management journals (see Appendix 6 for an overview of the most-cited papers that draw on the 5 M framework). Nevertheless, as research drawing on the 5 M framework is still predominantly published in women's entrepreneurship journals, such as the IJGE, future research on women's entrepreneurship could contribute by engaging with different communities of practice (Cronin and George, 2023), including for instance wider entrepreneurship and management audiences, thereby moving beyond research silos (Baker and Welter, 2017).
Gender, women's entrepreneurship and global challenges. Brush et al. (2020) emphasize that rather than only exploring how global challenges affect women entrepreneurs, research should consider examining how women entrepreneurs contribute to solving so-called grand challenges. As argued above, research drawing on the 5 M framework continues to focus on the barriers experienced by women entrepreneurs, on how these affect them and on how women entrepreneurs can overcome these, including those related to global challenges (e.g. Bagheri et al., 2023). While initial approaches do exist, the 5 M framework is yet to be leveraged for deepening our understanding of how women entrepreneurs contribute to solving global challenges.
Gender, intersectionality and entrepreneurship. Research drawing on the 5 M framework includes only a small number of works exploring gender, intersectionality and entrepreneurship, such as for instance Wang (2018), who explores the intersection between gender, race/ethnicity and entrepreneurship. Consequently, our findings indicate a dire need for the research community to continue in their efforts to use theoretical frameworks, such as the 5 M framework, to explore gender, race and entrepreneurship. This resonates with other calls for moving research located at the intersection between entrepreneurship and race forwards (e.g. Bruton et al., 2023). In a similar vein, other studies explore the intersection between gender, refugee status and entrepreneurship, and scholars have recently called for more research to be conducted on refugee women's entrepreneurship (Al-Dajani, 2022). Here, research drawing on the 5 M framework (e.g. Abuhussein, 2023) unveils pathways for how the 5 M framework can be used to study refugee women's entrepreneurship.
Implications for the methods used to study women's entrepreneurship and how to proceed
Our conceptualization of the 5 M framework reveals the ways in which researchers have engaged with the 5 M framework in regard to methodological applications. Concretely, here the 5 M framework dimensions have been used to build theoretical frameworks, apply single or multiple 5 M framework dimensions or draw on the 5 M framework dimensions to conduct a literature review. The various methods identified in this ILR can serve as a starting point for structuring future researchers' methodological approaches when engaging with the 5 M framework. Moreover, the approach underlying our ILR goes beyond traditional systematic literature reviews, where researchers apply keyword searches to map literature, instead offering an innovative method to execute an ILR of major entrepreneurship frameworks, thereby contributing to the call for more creative methods in conducting qualitative research (e.g. Hlady-Rispal et al., 2021). As a result, an ILR of key entrepreneurship and management frameworks could allow scholars to obtain a better overview and understanding of how the research community has utilized the field's major theoretical frameworks in the past. It is in this way that we provide researchers with a possible pathway and blueprint for obtaining a more nuanced understanding of the status of other research fields.
Critical reflections on the empirical settings for theory-building in women's entrepreneurship
To date, scholars have encouraged the women's entrepreneurship community to draw on diverse empirical settings, especially in terms of investigating women's entrepreneurship in “Eastern” emerging market and developing economies (e.g. Henry et al., 2021; Hughes et al., 2012). While we can acknowledge that the 5 M framework has been explored in advanced economies in North America (the United States and Canada) and Europe (e.g. Germany, the United Kingdom and Italy), our analysis reveals that such research has indeed predominantly been situated in emerging market and developing economies, for instance Cummings and Lopez's (2022) work on rural women's entrepreneurship in Ethiopia. As a result, and in line with hopes expressed in the IJGE (Henry, 2009) and Brush et al. (2009), the 5 M framework has been used for a more holistic study of women's entrepreneurship across contexts and suggests an avenue for moving the field forward.
This notwithstanding, while the 5 M framework has generated greater insights into women's entrepreneurship across a range of contexts and regions, research on the 5 M framework can be still further extended by continuing research on emerging market and developing economies, thus increasing the diversity of research settings beyond those currently on the research map, for example in Oceania, Asia and Africa, as well as by exploring “Eastern” advanced economies in Asia further, e.g. Japan and the Republic of Korea.
With this in mind, we ask what can be learnt from theory development in research settings that have yet to be added to the research map. We suggest that frameworks for studying entrepreneurship – not only those informed by a gender perspective – could be scrutinized with an eye to their cross-cultural applicability and their necessary modification in terms of particular country contexts. Theory-building in “non-Western” settings could help us re-evaluate entrepreneurship frameworks, allowing us to not take these for granted but, instead, serve as blueprints for studying entrepreneurship across contexts. Bringing in such perspectives may allow the (women's) entrepreneurship field to go beyond its contemporary status, thereby complementing, or possibly challenging, our current knowledge thereof. This carries broader implications for entrepreneurship and management theory in that it invites re-evaluating, not only from a gender perspective, whether theoretical frameworks are applicable across cultures or whether individual theoretical components need to be added or modified. In this way, our ILR on the 5 M framework offers initial approaches for the future direction of women's entrepreneurship, deepens entrepreneurship and the broader field of management research and contributes to a more diversified approach that paves the way for greater diversity in the research streams at hand.
To conclude, we firmly echo scholars who call for “recalibrating entrepreneurship research” (George et al., 2023, p. 1) and diverse theory development in broader entrepreneurship and management theory (e.g. Bruton et al., 2018; Welter et al., 2017); and we specifically add to this by calling for the inclusion of advanced “Eastern” economies in Asia, particularly in reference to Barkema et al.’s (2015) plea for exploring management puzzles or phenomena of the “East.”
Limitations
In conducting our ILR, we thoroughly investigated all works citing the 5 M framework article, transparently presenting our approach to thematic analysis as inspired by Liñán and Fayolle (2015). As we organized those research works eligible for further analysis, we observed that some works overlapped with the themes in women's entrepreneurship that we had developed inductively. The author team discussed each of these overlaps and agreed on assigning such instances to one of the five thematic groups and underlying mechanisms we identified; nevertheless, we do acknowledge the potential existence of partial overlaps in our categorization. For our review, we drew on Scopus and Google Scholar to include a complete list of all the works that cite the Brush et al. (2009) 5 M framework article in our analysis (published prior to the end of 2023). While both of these databases taken together have arguably provided us with an all but complete listing of all research works, we may have overlooked a small number of works by not incorporating further research databases.
Conclusion
Our findings highlight specific gaps in the existing women's entrepreneurship literature and contribute to advancing pluralism in women's entrepreneurship research by illustrating the manifold ways in which one of the field's most prominent frameworks has been applied. We echo calls for rethinking how we approach theory application and development. By doing so, we contribute to the broader entrepreneurship and management literature and emphasize the need to pay more attention to the contexts in which entrepreneurship is investigated, as well as joining calls for more contextualized entrepreneurship research and entrepreneurship framework creation (Baker and Welter, 2020; Welter, 2020; Welter and Baker, 2020; Welter and Gartner, 2016).
Our study accentuates the crucial nature of paying more attention to the concrete contexts in which entrepreneurship is embedded and to integrating these distinct contextual characteristics into theory-building, thus closing concrete gaps in the literature and informing a research agenda for broader entrepreneurship and management research. In this, we relate to Brush et al. (2009) and hope to inspire theory-building in future studies based on our findings and insights. For the 15th anniversary of the 5 M framework, we wish to conclude this ILR with a to-do-list for the women's entrepreneurship research community and call researchers to (1) go beyond exclusively studying the barriers for women entrepreneurs and the role of motherhood, (2) make use of the richness of all world regions and their respective contexts, (3) question existing theoretical frameworks by challenging their underlying structures and logics and (4) collaborate with scholars from world regions and countries that remain underrepresented in our research community. We shall keep these to-dos in mind for our own future studies and hope for the community's broad support in our endeavors, for all of us, as researchers, are the ones who shape the future of our field. Let's do it!
Author contributions
Conceptualization: Anna-Katharina Schaper and Kerstin Ettl; Methodology: Anna-Katharina Schaper; Formal analysis and investigation: Anna-Katharina Schaper; Writing – original draft preparation: Anna-Katharina Schaper; Writing – review and editing: Anna-Katharina Schaper and Kerstin Ettl.
We thank the authors of the 5M framework, Friederike Welter, Candida Brush and Anne de Bruin, for discussing earlier versions of the manuscript and providing valuable feedback. We are also grateful for comments from Doris Fischer, William B. Gartner and Hannes Gohli and the feedback we received at the 2022 Diana International Research Conference in Dublin and the 2022 Nordic Conference on Small Business Research in Kolding. We are also grateful for the feedback from the anonymous reviewers and the Editor-in-Chief, Diana M. Hechavarria.
The supplementary material for this article can be found online.
