Int. J. Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Vol. 18, No.

2, 2013 211

Role of social capital and self-efficacy in opportunity

recognition of female entrepreneurs: insights from
Turkey and Vietnam

Akin Koçak*
Ankara University,
A.Ü. Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi,
Cemal Gürsel Cad., Cebeci,
Ankara, 06590 Turkey
Fax: 90 312319 7738
E-mail: akin1kocak@gmail.com
*Corresponding author

Anh T. Phan
International University,
Vietnam National University – HCMC,
Linh Trung, Thu Duc,
Ho Chi Minh City, 70000 Vietnam
E-mail: aphan01@gmail.com

Vincent Edwards
Buckinghamshire New University,
Queen Alexandra Road, High Wycombe,
Buckinghamshire HP11 2JZ, UK
E-mail: adventamus@btinternet.com

Abstract: This paper seeks to explore how women entrepreneurs’ social capital
and self-efficacy affect their opportunity recognition. This study focused
exclusively on women entrepreneurs rather than comparing men and women
entrepreneurs. The study is based on a multiple case study and cultural
comparison of six Turkish and six Vietnamese women entrepreneurs. Social
cognitive theory is used as the theoretical framework in this study. The
results showed that social capital plays a significant role in affecting
opportunity recognition in both countries. Self-efficacy effects vary across the
cases and the two countries. Culture has a significant role in mediating the
effect of self-efficacy.

Keywords: women entrepreneurs; social capital; self-efficacy; opportunity

recognition; cultural comparison; Turkey; Vietnam.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Koçak, A., Phan, A.T. and
Edwards, V. (2013) ‘Role of social capital and self-efficacy in opportunity
recognition of female entrepreneurs: insights from Turkey and Vietnam’, Int. J.
Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp.211–228.

Copyright © 2013 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

212 A. Koçak et al.

Biographical notes: Akin Koçak is an Associate Professor of Marketing at

the Faculty of Political Sciences, Ankara University. He teaches marketing
management and entrepreneurship. His research interests are the interface
between marketing and entrepreneurship, marketing strategies for SME,
strategic marketing management, market and entrepreneurship orientation,
and innovation. He received his PhD degree from Ankara University. He
is a former Fulbright scholar (Syracuse University). He has published
in the Journal of Marketing Management, Marketing Intelligence and
Planning, International Journal of Entrepreneurship Behavior and Research,
International Marketing Review and Journal of Small Business. His works have
also been published in various conference proceedings.

Anh T. Phan is a Lecturer at the School of Business, International University,

Vietnam National University – HCMC. His areas of research interests
include international business, human resource management and cross-culture
management.

Vincent Edwards is an Emeritus Professor of International Management at

Buckinghamshire New University, UK. His research and publications have
focused on management in transforming economies. He is co-author, with Anh
Phan, of Managers and Management in Vietnam, Routledge, 2013.

1 Introduction

The quintessence of entrepreneurship is the recognition and pursuit of opportunities

in the business environment. The entrepreneurial process starts with opportunity
recognition. Several scholars have endeavoured to explain opportunity recognition using
various assumptions and disciplines, ranging from neoclassical to Austrian economics,
cognitive process to environment view. For example, Sigrist (1999) and Krueger (2000)
focus on cognitive process, De Koning (1999) and De Carolis and Saparito (2006)
investigate from a social cognitive perspective, while Busenitz (1996) and Gaglio and
Katz (2001) focus on entrepreneurial alertness, Hills et al. (1997) on social networks,
and Shane (2000) on prior knowledge. Since entrepreneurship involves human agency
and entrepreneurial process occurs because people act to pursue opportunities (Shane et
al., 2003) our focus is on individual-internal factors (cognition). However, as social
cognitive theory explains behaviour, and cognitive and environmental events influence
each other (Wood and Bandura, 1989), entrepreneurial behaviour is a result of the
interplay of environment and the cognitive basis of entrepreneurs (De Carolis and
Saparito, 2006). Therefore, we focus on environment as well as the internal factor of
entrepreneurs.
In the social cognitive perspective, the individual is the product of a broad network of
social influences operating interdependently in a variety of societal subsystems (Bussey
and Bandura, 1999). Therefore an entrepreneur’s external connection can be interpreted
as social capital. Social capital is relevant to entrepreneurs in two ways: information and
influence. Social capital facilitates access to information, which is a critical component of
opportunity recognition (De Carolis and Saparito, 2006). The nature and extent of an
entrepreneur’s social capital assets can influence the ability to recognise and pursue
opportunities, depending on the nature of the social ties available to them in their social
 Role of social capital and self-efficacy in opportunity recognition of female 213

network (Anderson and Miller, 2003). On the other hand, opportunity recognition
essentially depends on the situational perception of controllability and self-efficacy
(Krueger et al., 2000). Krueger and Dickson (1994) report that business executives who
show greater self-efficacy will perceive opportunities and threats differently and will take
more risks (Monsen and Urbig, 2009).
Numerous studies examine the benefits of social capital for seeking opportunities
(Hills et al., 1997; Singh et al., 1999; Adler and Kwon, 2002; Davidson and Honig, 2003)
and the relation between self-efficacy and opportunity recognition (Neck and Manz,
1996; Krueger et al., 2000; Ardichvili et al., 2003). However, such research represents
a general perspective irrespective of gender differences. Despite the fact that almost
30% of all business in the developed world are owned by women and 10% of women
world-wide own their own business, there is minimal research about female
entrepreneurship, particularly regarding the factors that affect the strategies women
entrepreneurs use to find opportunities and become successful (Farr-Wharton and
Brunetto, 2006). De Bruin et al. (2007) argue that gender differences in network
structures and networking behaviour, i.e., in social capital, may influence both the
decision to start and grow a business, as well as business survival and success. Hampton
et al. (2009) point out that female entrepreneurs may develop different approaches to
network development and participation to that of their male counterparts. Moreover,
gender differences in work interest and performance can often be traced to differences in
self-efficacy (Krueger, 2000).
As social feminist theory argued that women and men are different because of unique
learning experiences (DeTienne and Chandler, 2007), this paper seeks to explore
how women entrepreneurs’ networking behaviour and self-efficacy affect their
opportunity-recognition behaviour. We focus exclusively on women entrepreneurs rather
than comparing men and women entrepreneurs based on the mentioned dimensions. We
seek to understand how women entrepreneurs established and used their social networks
while recognising opportunities, and how their self-efficacy affects these relations. In
order to understand the phenomena in detail, the approach in this study is multiple case
study.
The study was conducted in Turkey and Vietnam. Both countries are considered
emerging economies but with differing levels of economic development and different
institutional and cultural contexts. Such a comparative approach can contribute to
understanding of women entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship theory.

2 Theoretical background

2.1 Social capital

Social capital theory references the ability of actors to extract benefits from their social
structures, networks and membership. The social networks are provided by extended
family, community-based, or organisational relations (Davidson and Honig, 2003).
According to Liao and Welch (2005) social capital in the field of entrepreneurship
research encompasses two levels: company and individual. At the company level, the
entrepreneurship literature has highlighted the significance of social capital in
understanding how firms create and manage a network and the resulting outcomes. At the
214 A. Koçak et al.

individual level, studies (Ostgaard and Birley 1994; Burt, 1997) have demonstrated that
an entrepreneur’s personal network allows access to resources that are not possessed
internally. In this study we applied the individual level perspective of social capital.
Moreover, social capital can be a useful resource both by enhancing internal
organisational trust through the bonding of actors, as well as bridging to the external
network in order to access resources (Davidson and Honig, 2003). Bridging social capital
focuses on an individual’s external social ties and how the social capital, a resource
within this network, is used for an individual’s private benefit. Social capital considered
at the individual level includes social interaction, social ties, trusting relationships, and
value systems (Liao and Welch, 2005). Thus, as Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) suggest
social capital is considered in terms of three clusters: the structural, the relational, and the
cognitive dimensions.
The structural dimension refers to the overall pattern of connection between
actors – that is who you reach and how you reach them (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998).
Network structure includes such factors as the existence or absence of direct connection
between a focal actor and others (De Carolis and Saparito, 2006). The location of an
actor’s contacts in a social structure of interaction provides certain advantages for the
actors, such as information and access to specific resources. On the other hand the
relational dimension of social capital refers to assets that are rooted in these relations,
such as trust and trustworthiness (Tsai and Ghoshal, 1998). These relations between
people have developed through a history of interaction. It therefore also includes respect
and friendship (Liao and Welch, 2005). The relational dimension of social capital
consists in a pattern of particular ties between actors, i.e., strong and weak tie. Weak ties,
involving a loose relationship between individuals, are useful in obtaining information
that would otherwise be unavailable or costly. In contrast, a strong tie could be a sibling
or parent helping out for free with certain resources. In other words, strong ties derived
from family relationship provide secure and consistent access to resources (Davidson
and Honig, 2003). The cognitive dimension of social capital refers to those
resource providing shared representations, interpretations, and systems of meaning
among parties (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). Cognitive social capital enables individual
within a network to make sense of information and to classify it into perceptual
categories. Shared systems of meaning and language facilitate the exchange of
information, learning, and knowledge creation that allows individuals to share each
other’s thinking process (De Carolis and Saparito, 2006).
Shane (2000) noted that opportunities exist because different people process
information differently and there is a difference in recognition between entrepreneurs and
resource owners. Social capital provides necessary information to entrepreneurs. By
extending the network an entrepreneur can identify greater opportunity. Hills et al. (1997)
argue that entrepreneurs learn opportunity through their contacts with others and assess
viability through open discussion. This argument is derived from Granovetter’s (1973)
and Burt’s (1992) studies. Hills et al. (1997) indicate the strength of weak ties in
providing unique information. Burt’s (1992) discussion of structural holes within a
network closely parallels the weak ties argument. Entrepreneurs’ social network structure
and the quality of ties within the network may be predictors of an individual’s
opportunity recognition capability. Davidson and Honig (2003) argue that individuals
from families who own businesses (bonding social capital), or from community networks
that own or encourage self-employment (bridging social capital), will utilise their
individual level social capital, resulting in more successful discovery activities than those
 Role of social capital and self-efficacy in opportunity recognition of female 215

who do not. De Koning (1999) shows that entrepreneurs evolve opportunities by pursuing
three cognitive activities (information gathering, thinking through talking, and resource
assessing) through active interaction with an extensive network of people. This network
includes the entrepreneur’s inner circle (the set of people with whom an entrepreneur has
long-term, stable relationships, but who are not partners in the venture), ‘action set’
(people recruited by the entrepreneur to provide necessary resources for the opportunity),
and a network of weak ties [Ardichvili et al., (2003), p.115].
Hoang and Antoncic (2003) propose a contingency approach to determine the benefit
of strong and weak ties. For example, a focus on strong ties may be more relevant during
the foundation and early growth stages of new ventures. Moreover, young firms gain
more benefit from strong ties then older firms. Uzzi (1996) suggests that the network has
greater value if strong and weak ties can be balanced.
Social capital in the case of female entrepreneurs is also discussed in the literature.
Brush (1997) points out that similarly to their male counterparts, female entrepreneurs
need effective networks when seeking to establish new ventures or grow their business
because female business owners are at the centre of a network of various relationships
that include family, community, and business. In other words, when a woman starts or
acquires her own business, in her view she is not creating/acquiring a separate economic
entity, rather she is ‘integrating’ a new system of business-related relationships into her
life (Brush, 1992). As reviewed by Godwin et al. (2006), numerous studies have found
that men are more likely to have wider-ranging networks, while women are more likely
to have kin-centred and local support networks. They also discussed the advantages of the
high ratio of familial contacts and argued that contacts with females may be
disadvantageous to female entrepreneurs because contacting the same kind of people
provides similar information. Renzulli et al. (2000) suggest that the higher proportion of
familial ties may provide the emotional strength owners and managers need to cope with
daily experiences, but such ties may also limit the density and reach of women’s
networks [Godwin et al., (2006), p.632].
Cromie and Birley (1992) found that female networks are remarkably similar to those
of men. Thus, for example, they are just as active in their networking as men, their
personal contact networks are as diverse as those of men, and they are no more likely to
consult family and friends than are men. However, analysis of the cross ties shows that
they tend to rely heavily upon a male colleague as their prime contact but to revert to
their own sex for the rest. In contrast, their male colleagues relied almost entirely on
members of their own sex for advice. Moreover, Aldrich et al. (1989) tested this
implication by studying the personal networks of potential and active entrepreneurs in the
USA and Italy. They discovered a similarity in the networks of men and women within
and between countries. Networking activity is very similar within each country, as is
network density. However, the sex composition of networks differs dramatically by sex
in both countries. In some respects, the gap between the male and female worlds appears
to have closed substantially, but the personal networks of women in both countries still
include few men.

2.2 Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy relates to the belief in one’s ability to produce high levels of performance in
tasks and has been found to influence cognition and behaviour (Hmieleski and Corbett,
216 A. Koçak et al.

2008). Self-efficacy is a useful concept for explaining human behaviour as research

reveals that it plays an influential role in determining an individual’s choice, level of
effort, and perseverance (McGee et al., 2009). As De Noble et al. (1999) point out,
individuals accumulate their self-efficacy through prior cognitive, social and physical
experiences. Self-efficacy affects an individual’s thought patterns which can enhance or
undermine performance. Moreover, the individual is able to exercise control over his or
her own thoughts, feelings, and actions, and this control heavily influences an
individual’s view of self (Barbosa et al., 2007).
In the field of entrepreneurship, self-efficacy has been theoretically proposed to lead
to entrepreneurial intention, behaviour and motivation (Barbosa et al., 2007; Segal et al.,
2005; Zhao et al., 2005; Krueger et al., 2000). When self-efficacy is viewed as a
key antecedent to a new venture, it is referred to as entrepreneurial self-efficacy
(McGee et al., 2009). Barbosa et al. (2007) identified four types of entrepreneurial
self efficacy: opportunity identification, relationship, managerial and tolerance
self-efficacy.
As Kruger et al. (2000) mentioned the opportunity identification process is an
intention process and intentions are driven by perceptions of feasibility (self-efficacy)
and desirability (positiveness). In other words, perception of self-efficacy is a substantial
antecedent of perceived opportunity. If we see ourselves as competent we are more likely
to see a course of action as feasible; thus we are more likely to see an opportunity
(Kruger, 2000). Monsen and Urbig (2009) observed that the evaluation of a business
opportunity depends on control belief (i.e., self-efficacy). Research on the relationship
between self-efficacy and intention shows that individuals with higher entrepreneurial
self-efficacy tend to have higher entrepreneurial intention (Chen et al., 1998; Markman
et al., 2002; Zhao et al., 2005; Barbosa et al., 2007).
Kickul et al. (2009, p.422) discussed the influence of intuitive and analytic cognitive
style on self-efficacy and mentioned that as individuals process information, they develop
a sense of how capable they are to engage in a course of action in the stages of new
venture creation. For instance, when individuals use the intuitive cognitive style, their
self-efficacy perception is influenced as they sift through the “ambiguous, unordered bits
and pieces of information” they gather and form into an interesting and novel
entrepreneurial idea. Such thinking influences their perceived competences regarding
their abilities of invention and idea generation. Similarly, the analytic cognitive style
induces individuals to analyse with precision and rigor. Refining, improving, and
adapting the entrepreneurial idea into a business opportunity positively influences
individuals’ self-perceptions of their abilities to execute those tasks.
In the literature, the relationship between self-efficacy and opportunity is also
discussed when considering risk-taking and optimism. Ardichvili et al. (2003, p.116)
mentioned that entrepreneurial optimism is related to self-efficacy beliefs. It is important
to point out that optimism about one’s ability to achieve specific, difficult goals
(self-efficacy) is not related to optimism in the sense of higher risk-taking. Entrepreneurs’
optimism is an ‘inside view’ of the potential success of the venture, largely based on
entrepreneurs’ evaluations of their abilities and knowledge. When forced to take an
outside view, entrepreneurs were much more realistic in judging probable outcomes.
Research in organisational contexts also shows that perceived self-efficacy leads to
optimism and a higher propensity to see opportunities rather than threats in any given
situation. Monsen and Urbig (2009) point out that entrepreneurs may perceive less risk by
 Role of social capital and self-efficacy in opportunity recognition of female 217

overestimating their chances of success. Similarly we argue that when entrepreneurs with
high-level self-efficacy recognise opportunity, he/she perceives less risk in the
opportunity.
Regarding gender, Krueger et al. (2000) mentioned that gender differences in
career choice are largely explained by self-efficacy differences. Furthermore, female
students are more likely to have lower entrepreneurial self-efficacy (Zhao et al., 2005;
Wilson et al., 2007; Kickul et al., 2008). Boyd and Vozikis (1994) have examined the
role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. Anna et al. (2000)
explore the possibility that differences in career orientations and types of venture efficacy
distinguish women business owners in traditional industries from those in non-traditional
industries. However, literature explicitly linking self-efficacy and women entrepreneurs
is hardly seen.
In the entrepreneurship literature, a growing number of scholars have applied the
theory of social capital widely. Social capital research is concentrated on three core
dimensions: structural, relational and cognitive. Similarly self-efficacy has been invoked
in entrepreneurship literature and has recently been considered in connection with risk
perception (Monsen and Urbig, 2009; Barbosa et al., 2007). However, investigation of
both concepts together and linked with opportunity recognition is hardly seen. Especially,
regarding female entrepreneurs, there is a research gap in the literature relating to these
concepts.

3 Model development

As De Carolis and Saparito (2006, p.46) mentioned, social cognitive theory suggests that
social environments play a pivotal role in shaping individuals’ cognition and, ultimately,
behaviour. That is, individual cognition originates in social life, human interaction, and
communication. Therefore, social capital derived from being embedded in a network
shapes entrepreneurs’ cognitive process and ultimately their behaviour. Moreover as
Stajkovic and Luthans (1998) state, information is generated from the environment and
individuals process available information differently depending on their unique personal
characteristics.
In the study by Hindle et al. (2009) on a new extended entrepreneurial intention
model, it is suggested that social and human capital influence individuals’ likelihood to
develop entrepreneurial intentions and both forms of capital have an influence on specific
desirabilities, propensity to act and perceived self-efficacy. This argument and De Carolis
and Saparito’s (2006) study underpin our model.
It is believed that the social and cognitive structure of entrepreneurs can be shaped by
the cultural, economic and political context of a country (Baughn et al., 2005). We also
believe that in male dominant cultures, in order to recognise opportunities and be a
business owner, self-efficacy enhances the effects of female networks.
The structure of a network provides information benefits in two ways: redundant
and non-redundant contacts. While redundancy provides similar information and
same-source information benefits, non-reduntant contact offers information benefits that
are additive rather than redundant. The number gaps between non-reduntant contacts in
entrepreneurs’ networks provide richer information benefits (Burt, 1997). Accessing and
processing both types of information increases the chance of recognition opportunity.
218 A. Koçak et al.

When entrepreneurs access information from their network, they are more likely to
conduct implementation with high entrepreneurial self-efficacy simply because
self-efficacy initiates and perpetuates behaviour (Krueger et al., 2000).
Entrepreneurs who occupy a central location in a social interaction network with
family friends and/or family members and have started new businesses are more likely to
have more communication channels and resources (Liao and Welch, 2005). Moreover,
since strong ties are difficult to create and maintain entrepreneurs may have few strong
ties and may be exposed to less diverse information which affects optimism (De Carolis
and Saparito, 2006) which is related to self-efficacy. As Barbosa et al. (2007) mention
self-efficacy reflects capabilities to build relationships. So with high entrepreneurial
self-efficacy, entrepreneurs are likely to have larger networks and get more information.
This leads to an increase in entrepreneurs’ opportunity recognition.
Ties between entrepreneurs facilitate the diffusion of norms and beliefs across a
network and develop shared behavioural expectations. Shared information makes
entrepreneurs develop more trusting relationships (Liao and Welsch, 2005). A trusting
relationship between two parties implies that common goals and values brought and keep
them together. Common values and beliefs provide harmony of interest (Tsai and
Ghoshal, 1998) that can enhance the illusion of control, that is, individual’s belief that
their skills can impact the outcome of a decision (De Carolis and Saparito, 2006). The
illusion of control increases the likelihood of the entrepreneur taking action on an
opportunity (Krueger, 2003). The proposal is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Model of entrepreneurial social capital, self-efficacy and opportunity recognition

Social Capital
-Structural
-Relational Entrepreneurial Opportunity
Self-Efficacy Recognition
-Cognitive

4 Methodology

Our paper is based on a multiple case study, trajectory perspective and cultural
comparison. The study comprised six Turkish and six Vietnamese women entrepreneurs.
The two dimensions of the study, social capital and self-efficacy, and their effect on
opportunity recognition are examined in the period since the firms were founded.
Multiple cases enable researchers to use both literal and theoretical replication. In the
study, six cases from each country were chosen on the basis of literal replication. In other
words, cases were selected to extend existing theories by being typical representatives of
the population rather than selected randomly (Laanti et al., 2007).
In order to increase the reliability of the study, before entering the field, a case study
protocol was prepared according to Yin’s (2003) proposal. We conducted semi-structured
deep interviews with six Turkish and six Vietnamese female entrepreneurs who each own
a company. Interview time was 40–60 minutes. The interviews were recorded and a
database was created in line with the prepared case study protocol. In addition to deep
 Role of social capital and self-efficacy in opportunity recognition of female 219

interviews, various sources were used to collect information about the firms in order to
increase construct validity.
We used three dimensions of social capital: structural, relational and cognitive as
previously discussed. In order to ascertain the social dimension of the cases we used Liao
and Welsch (2005)’s study. For self-efficacy, we drew inspiration from Baughn et al.
(2006), Markman et al. (2002), Chen et al. (2001), De Noble et al. (1999), and Chen et al.
(1998).

Table 1 Description of sample

Case Year of founding Number of employees Industry

T1 2003 25 Construction
T2 1961 56 Office furnishing
T3 1991 21 Public security
T4 2007 5 Home made soap
T5 1999 4 Textiles
T6 1995 50 Construction
V1 2004 45 Forwarding and trading
V2 2002 15 Public relations
V3 2009 4 Network marketing
V4 2004 8 Travel
V5 2007 7 Design and decoration
V6 2008 4 Mini department store

Description of sample
Case T1 is a company in the steel construction sector. The company was founded in
2003. The female entrepreneur resigned from a government agency and established
her own business. Her husband and other relatives have their own business in a
different industry. She is married with two children and has a university degree.
Case T2 is a furnishing company founded in 1961 by the owner’s father. She took over
the business in 1990 since when the company has grown very fast and has started to
export. She is married with three children and has a high school qualification.
Case T3 is a company servicing security systems. The owner’s brother has his own
company. She has no previous business experience. She is president of Ankara
Women Entrepreneurs Association. She is married and has a university degree.
Case T4 produces home made soap. She has knowledge of how soap is made in house for
household needs. She transformed this knowledge into business life and established
her own manufacturing unit in 2007. She has a high school qualification.
Case T5 was founded in 1999 in the textile sector. The owner has experience of the
textile sector and specialised in textiles at university. After graduation she worked in
a company for two years and then founded her own business. Since 2003, the
company has grown very fast. Currently, she is only exporting.
220 A. Koçak et al.

Case T6 is a company in the construction sector. The owner had experience of

advertising and the automotive sector. She saw new opportunities in construction and
established her company in 1995. She has a university degree.
Case V1 is a lawyer turned entrepreneur in forwarding and trading. She did not practise
law after graduating from university but focused on the business. The company was
established in 2004 focusing on sea transportation services.
Case V2 is a public relations expert who founded a marketing and communication
business in 2002. She has a university degree. The opportunity was identified before
PR had become as popular as it is today in the city.
Case V3 was separated from a logistics business. Having observed a logistics business
owner give and take from his network of business partners, V3 applied an
international model of networking and referrals to establish her own organisation.
Previously, she was a secretary to the managing director of the logistics company.
Case V4 is the manager of a travel agency founded in 2004. With relatives living in
North America, she found herself having advantages with customers coming from
the West so that inbound tours can be scheduled all year round. Group sizes range
from several to over a hundred guests. The business has been stable and survived
recent economic recession in the guests’ countries.
Case V5 set up a business in design and decoration in her home country after having
studied and lived in a foreign country for over ten years. She identified the need to
have business documents and image designed professionally in local companies. An
actively networking businesswoman, she found a handful of customers from the
different associations of which she is a member.
Case V6 is the owner of small home-based department store. After years working in state
companies, where the salary and benefits were too modest to support her family, she
took early retirement and gradually developed her own store. Today, her business
serves the neighbours with diversified everyday essential goods.

5 Analysis and results

In analysing the data from the 12 case studies, cross-case synthesis (Yin, 2003) is used to
identify similarities and differences in terms of the factors mentioned in the model.

5.1 Social capital

Regarding network structure, the founder or owner of Turkish firms in this research have
established a network in their industry except case T2. Case T2 established a wider and
different network from the other cases. Frequency of contacts is very high in all cases.
Findings from the Turkish cases revealed that they contact other entrepreneurs or people
irrespective of gender. In other words, the six Turkish female entrepreneurs contact men
very easily. All mentioned that they have to contact male entrepreneurs because the
majority of entrepreneurs are male. Case T5 said: “Elderly male entrepreneurs did not
 Role of social capital and self-efficacy in opportunity recognition of female 221

enjoy joining their group at the beginning but as time went by a trusting relationship
developed”. Case T1 also said: “You can understand from the behavior of male
colleagues that they question my competence in the construction sector”. Trust is an
important social asset which can play a pivotal role for female entrepreneurs as it makes
the acquisition of essential resources more easy. In all cases female entrepreneurs
mentioned that they acquired new business ideas from their network. Case T1 said: “Most
of the opportunities arise from friends who work with us in the same sector”. The
situation seems similar for the Vietnamese cases. Most of the owners/managers regarded
networking highly. Only V6 demonstrated less than active seeking for more relationships,
focusing more on fostering trust with frequent suppliers. When challenged about whether
there is a need to contact other entrepreneurs from businesses of different sizes, V1
confirmed that they needed the relationships to identify business opportunities primarily,
as well as learning and collective protection. The women entrepreneurs underlined the
benefits of social capital. V2 even mentioned the networking and B2B events she
attended: “We had to accept the risk of letting out our business ideas on such occasions.”
Moreover, risks to one entrepreneur can be opportunities for another, advantages were
considered to outdo disadvantages. Therefore the official networking events were still
very much supported. It was reported that inside different business associations, it was
customary to have sub-units of female entrepreneurs. Such organisations help women to
have their special networks in which the contact and interaction can be less formal, as
well as serving other purposes of exchanging non-business information, or facilitating
charitable work together.
In five out of six Turkish cases female entrepreneurs have relatives who own firms. In
other words most cases come from families with business experience. So they obtain
market information from strong ties. Case T5 has no relative in business. However, there
is no indication that new entrepreneurial opportunities come from strong ties. All cases
mentioned that they get only moral support from their family. Although their family
(especially husband) was not initially keen for them to work, later on their family
supported their ventures. Strong ties for Vietnamese women entrepreneurs are more
essential than weak ties in two cases. In the first place, V4 and V6 had support from
inside the families when starting their businesses. Meanwhile, the other cases tended to
rely more on their own and weak business ties. V5 in particular became philosophical
when observing the benefits of networking: “I do not ponder much on potential financial
benefits and losses. Just give to any business person in need, and opportunities and
contracts come later.” One can identify the tendency of reaching out beyond strong ties in
this group.
All Turkish cases refer to the legitimacy of female entrepreneurs in society. Case T1
said: “When male entrepreneurs see our success in the sector, especially during the global
crisis, they feel more comfortable sharing their knowledge. This opens new opportunities
for us”. Case T2 noted: “After becoming president of the women entrepreneurs’
association and appearing on local news, we gained more orders and have been offered
partnerships”. As mentioned above, Vietnamese women entrepreneurs have been
recognised alongside their male counterparts when they were actively forming their own
organisations. The relationships between entrepreneurs of the opposite sex were reported
to be more cooperative than between those of the same sex.
 222

Social capital Self-efficacy Opportunity recognition

T1 Establishes network in her industry; high frequency of General and Excited when seeing an opportunity; searches gaps in the
contacts; contact irrespective of gender; has relative who entrepreneurial self- market and develops new machine under her patent; exports
A. Koçak et al.

owns firm; strong ties; moral support from family efficacy; knows herself to several countries; still seeking new markets; acquires new
legitimacy and what she can do business ideas from her network
Table 2 Summary of findings

T2 Establishes wider and different network; high frequency General and Excited when seeing an opportunity; searches the markets to
of contacts; contact irrespective of gender; has relative entrepreneurial self- find opportunities; acquires new business ideas from her
who owns firm; strong ties; moral support from family efficacy; knows herself network
legitimacy and what she can do
T3 Establishes network in her industry; high frequency of General and Excited when seeing an opportunity; searches the markets to
contacts; contact irrespective of gender; has relative who entrepreneurial self- find opportunities; acquires new business ideas from her
owns firm; strong ties; moral support from family efficacy; knows herself network
legitimacy and what she can do
T4 Establishes network in her industry; high frequency of General and Excited when seeing an opportunity; searches the markets to
contacts; contact irrespective of gender; has relative who entrepreneurial self- find opportunities; acquires new business ideas from her
own firm; strong ties; moral support from family efficacy; knows herself network
legitimacy and what she can do
T5 Establishes network in her industry; high frequency of General and Excited when seeing an opportunity; searches the markets to
contacts; contact irrespective of gender; has no relatives entrepreneurial self- find opportunities; acquires new business ideas from her
who own firm; moral support from family legitimacy efficacy; knows herself network
and what she can do
T6 Establishes network in her industry; high frequency of General and Excited when seeing an opportunity; searches the markets to
contacts; contact irrespective of gender; has relative who entrepreneurial self- find opportunities; imports material which is new for the
owns firm; strong ties; moral support from family efficacy; knows herself Turkish market; acquires new business ideas from her
legitimacy and what she can do network
 Social capital Self-efficacy Opportunity recognition
V1 Acquires new business ideas from her network; official Demonstrates self- Relies mainly on herself to identify business opportunities;
networking; relies more on her own and weak business confidence in and outside needs the relationships to identify business opportunities
ties; relationships with males are more cooperative work
V2 Acquires new business ideas from her network; official Demonstrates self- Relies mainly on herself to identify business opportunities
networking relies more on her own and weak business confidence in and outside
ties; relationships with males are more cooperative work
V3 Acquires new business ideas from her network; official Demonstrates self- More active in combining both efficacy and networks to
Table 2 Summary of findings (continued)

networking; relies more on her own and weak business confidence in and outside expand business
ties; relationships with males are more cooperative work
V4 Acquires new business ideas from her network; official Demonstrates self- More active in combining both efficacy and networks to
networking; support from inside the family when starting confidence in and outside expand business
her businesses relationships with males are more work; support from
cooperative different sources;
confidence in her power
V5 Acquires new business ideas from her network; official Demonstrates self- More active in combining both efficacy and networks to
networking; relies more on her own and weak business confidence in and outside expand business
ties; relationships with males are more cooperative work
V6 Acquires new business ideas from her network; official Demonstrates self- Not so active; more opportunities offered on the basis of
networking; support from inside the family when starting confidence in and outside customer suggestions
her businesses; relationships with males are more work; confidence in her
cooperative strong ties
Role of social capital and self-efficacy in opportunity recognition of female 223
224 A. Koçak et al.

5.2 Self-efficacy
Along with social capital, self-efficacy is also a determining factor in the entrepreneurial
process. Beside other factors in opportunity recognition, self-efficacy plays a vital role.
This is important in male dominant countries since given women’s given role in
such societies is not associated with business. In such countries firm owners, seeking
opportunities and growth, need a high level of self-efficacy. All Turkish cases reflect
both general and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. For example, case T1 mentioned: “When I
see a difficult task I feel a powerful desire to overcome it. I never give up;” and case T2
said: “Success is overcoming obstacles” and “I have never been a person that called for
finishing the business that someone had already started. Instead I rule my own business”.
However, case T5 commented: “Although I feel I have self-efficacy in my business
market conditions and situation, you can sometimes be overstretched”. Though the levels
of self-confidence differ from one to another, the Vietnamese female entrepreneurs in the
study seem to demonstrate it in and outside their work. The moderating effect of social
capital also showed up as fostering confidence in the women during hard times. V6 noted
that she believed that her business may not make a lot of money, but the confidence in
her strong ties helped her to find peace of mind, and she gained further confidence to
widen her stocks and offers. V4 also mentioned the support from different sources, but
indicated firmly that vice versa, as the head of the business, she naturally finds
confidence in her power, and that when she was on top of all internal affairs, external
business problems did not seem as challenging. Additionally, remarks on the role of head
of the business, responsibilities to staff and confidence thus needed were also common.
Regarding opportunity recognition, all Turkish cases referred to ‘being excited’ when
they saw an opportunity in the market. In common with all cases they know themselves
and know what they can do. With high self-efficacy, they search the markets to find
opportunities. Case T1 searched the gaps in the market and developed new steel
machined under their patent. They now export to several countries and are still seeking
new markets. Case T6 imports construction material which is new for the Turkish market.
Meanwhile, methods of opportunity recognition for Vietnamese women entrepreneurs
were found to be more diversified. V6 was not so active, she found more opportunities in
her own work as she offered more and more on the basis of customer suggestions. Others
like V1 and V2 relied mainly on themselves (or self-efficacy) to identify business
opportunities. One explanation can be that the industries were too competitive so that less
had been shared among women. V3, V4 and V5 on the other hand were more active in
combining both efficacy and networks to expand business. The complexity of this issue
might suggest that the model proposed earlier can be adjusted to accommodate the direct
linkage between social capital and opportunity recognition.

6 Conclusions

Our main contribution consists in a cultural comparison of women entrepreneurs and how
women use their social networks to seek opportunities. Social capital plays a significant
role in affecting opportunity recognition in both countries. Social capital greatly increases
entrepreneurs’ accessibility and appropriation of resources from their networks. For both
countries, legitimacy plays an important role for female entrepreneurs. However, the
extent of influence of each dimension of social capital varies across the two countries.
 Role of social capital and self-efficacy in opportunity recognition of female 225

Moreover, high entrepreneurial self-efficacy – the belief that they can succeed in an
entrepreneurial role – affects both opportunity recognition and network building. The
effects of self-efficacy and methods of opportunity recognition vary across the cases
and the two countries. Thus, culture has a significant role in mediating the effect of
self-efficacy. However, all cases regardless of country reflect both general and
entrepreneurial self-efficacy. The differences across cases and cultures might suggest that
the model proposed earlier can be adjusted to accommodate the direct linkage between
social capital and opportunity recognition. We nevertheless acknowledge the practical
limitations of the study because the results are valid only for the cases themselves and
cannot be generalised.

References
Adler, P.S. and Kwon, S. (2002) ‘Social capital: prospects for a new concept’, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp.17–40.
Aldrich, H., Reese, P.R. and Dubini, P. (1989) ‘Women on the verge of a breakthrough: networking
among entrepreneurs in the United States and Italy’, Entrepreneurship and Regional
Development, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp.339–356.
Anderson, A. and Miller, C. (2003) ‘‘Class matters’: human and social capital in the entrepreneurial
process’, Journal of Socio-Economics, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp.17–36.
Anna, A.L., Chandler, G.N., Jansen, E. and Mero, N.P. (2000) ‘Women business owners in
traditional and non-traditional industries’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 15, No. 3,
pp.279–303.
Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R. and Ray, S. (2003) ‘A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity
identification and development’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp.105–123.
Barbosa, S., Gerhardt, M. and Kickul, J. (2007) ‘The role of cognitive style and risk preference on
entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intentions’, Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp.86–104.
Baughn, C., Cao, J., Le, L., Lim, V. and Neupert, K. (2006) ‘Normative, social and cognitive
predictors of entrepreneurial interest in China, Vietnam and the Philippines’, Journal of
Developmental Entrepreneurship, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp.57–77.
Boyd, N.G. and Vozikis, G.S. (1994) ‘The influence of self-efficacy on the development
of entrepreneurial intentions and actions’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 18,
No. 4, pp.63–90.
Brush, C. (1997) ‘Women-owned businesses: obstacles and opportunities’, Journal of
Developmental Entrepreneurship, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.1–25.
Bursh, C. (1992) ‘Research on women business owners; past trends, a new perspective and future
directions’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp.5–30.
Burt, R.S. (1992) Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Burt, R.S. (1997) ‘The contingent value of social capital’, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 42, No. 2, pp.339–365.
Busenitz, L.W. (1996) ‘Research on entrepreneurial alertness’, Journal of Small Business
Management, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp.35–44.
Bussey, K. and Bandura, A. (1999) ‘Social cognitive theory of gender development and
differentiation’, Psychological Review, Vol. 106, No. 4, pp.676–713.
Chen, G.C., Greene, P.G. and Crick, A. (1998) ‘Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish
entrepreneurs from managers?’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp.295–317.
226 A. Koçak et al.

Chen, G., Gully, M.S. and Eden, D. (2001) ‘Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale’,
Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.62–83.
Cromie, S. and Birley, S. (1992) ‘Networking by female business owners in Northern Ireland’,
Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp.237–251.
Davidson, P. and Honig, B. (2003) ‘The role of social and human capital among nascent
entrepreneurs’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp.301–331.
De Bruin, A., Brush, C. and Welter, G. (2007) ‘Advancing a framework for coherent research
on women’s entrepreneurship’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 31, No. 3,
pp.323–339.
De Carolis, D.M. and Saparito, P. (2006) ‘Social capital, cognition, and entrepreneurial
opportunities: a theoretical framework’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 30,
No. 1, pp.41–56.
De Koning, A. (1999) ‘Opportunity formation from a social-cognitive perspective’, Paper presented
at the UIC/AMA Research Symposium on the Interface of Marketing and Entrepreneurship,
Nice, France.
De Noble, A., Jung, D. and Ehrlich, S. (1999) ‘Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: the development of a
measure and its relationship to entrepreneurial action’, in Reynolds, R.D., Bygrave, W.D.,
Manigart, S., Mason, C.M., Meyer, G.D., Sapienze, H.J. and Shaver, K.G. (Eds.): Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship Research, pp.73–78, P& R Publication Inc., Waltham, MA.
DeTienne, D.R. and Chandler, G.N. (2007) ‘The role of gender in opportunity identification’,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp.365–386.
Farr-Wharton, R. and Brunetto, Y. (2006) ‘Women entrepreneurs, opportunity recognition and
government-sponsored business networks’, Women in Management Review , Vol. 22, No. 3,
pp.187–207.
Gaglio, C.M. and Katz, J.A. (2001) ‘The psychological basis of opportunity identification:
entrepreneurial alertness’, Small Business Economics, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp.95–111.
Godwin, L.N., Stevens, C.E. and Brenner, N.L. (2006) ‘Forced to play by the rules? Theorizing
how mixed-sex founding teams benefit women entrepreneurs in male-dominated contexts’,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp.623–642.
Granovetter, M. (1973) ‘The strength of weak ties’, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 78, No. 6,
pp.1360–1380.
Hampton, A., Cooper, S. and McGowan, P. (2009) ‘Female entrepreneurial networks and
networking activity in technology-based ventures’, International Small Business Journal
Vol. 27, No. 2, pp.193–214.
Hills, G., Lumpkin, G.T. and Singh, R.P. (1997) ‘Opportunity recognition: perceptions and
behaviors of entrepreneurs’, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College,
Wellesley, MA, pp.203–218.
Hindle, K., Kluyver, K. and Jennings, D.F. (2009) ‘An ‘Informed’ intent model: incorporating
human capital, social capital, and gender variables into the theoretical model of
entrepreneurial intentions’, in Carsrud, A. and Brännback, M. (Eds.): Understanding the
Entrepreneurial Mind: Opening the Black Box, pp.35–50, Springer, New York.
Hmieleski, K. and Corbett, A.C. (2008) ‘The contrasting interaction effects of improvisational
behavior with entrepreneurial self-efficacy on new venture performance and entrepreneur
work satisfaction’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp.482–496.
Hoang, H. and Antoncic, B. (2003) ‘Network-based research in entrepreneurship: a critical review’,
Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp.165–187.
Kickul, J., Wilson, F., Marlino, D. and Barbosa, S.D. (2008) ‘Are misalignments of perceptions and
self-efficacy causing gender gaps in entrepreneurial intentions among our nation’s teens?’,
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp.321–335.
Kickul, J., Gundry, L., Barbosa, K. and Whitcanack, L. (2009) ‘Intuition versus analysis? Testing
differential models of cognitive style on entrepreneurial self-efficacy and the new venture
creation process’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp.439–453.
 Role of social capital and self-efficacy in opportunity recognition of female 227

Krueger, N.F. (2000) ‘The cognitive infrastructure of opportunity emergence’, Entrepreneurship

Theory and Practice, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp.5–23.
Krueger, N.F. (2003) ‘The cognitive psychology of entrepreneurship’, in Acs, Z.A. and Audretsch,
D.B. (Eds.): Handbook of Entrepreneurial Research, pp.105–140, Kluwer Law International,
London.
Krueger, N.F. and Dickson, P. (1994) ‘How believing in ourselves increases risk taking:
self-efficacy and perception of opportunity and threats’, Decision Science, Vol. 25, No. 3,
pp.385–400.
Krueger, N.F., Reilly, M.D. and Carsrud, A.L. (2000) ‘Competing models of entrepreneurial
intentions’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 15, Nos. 5–6, pp.411–432.
Laanti, R., Gabrielsson, M. and Gabrielsson, P. (2007) ‘The globalization strategies of business-
to-business born global firms in the wireless technology industry’, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 36, No. 8, pp.1104–1117.
Liao, J. and Welch, H. (2005) ‘Roles of social capital in venture creation: key dimensions and
research implications’, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp.345–362.
Markman, G., Balkin, D. and Baron, R. (2002) ‘Inventors and new venture formation: the effects of
general self-efficacy and regretful thinking’, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 27,
No. 2, pp.149–165.
McGee, J.E., Peterson, M., Mueller, S.L. and Sequeira, J.M. (2009) ‘Entrepreneurial self-efficacy:
refining the measure’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp.965–988.
Monsen, E. and Urbig, D. (2009) ‘Perceptions of efficacy, control and risk: a theory of mixed
control’, In Carsrud, A. and Brännback, M. (Eds.): Understanding the Entrepreneurial Mind:
Opening the Black Box, pp.259–281, Springer, New York.
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998) ‘Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp.242–266.
Neck, C.P. and Manz, C.C. (1996) ‘Thought self-leadership: the impact of mental strategies
training on employee cognition, behavior, and affect’, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 17, No. 5, pp.445–467.
Ostgaard, T.A. and Birley, S. (1994) ‘Personal networks and firm competitive strategy: a strategic
or coincidental match?’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp.281–305.
Renzulli, L.A., Aldrich, H. and Moodey, C. (2000) ‚Family matters: gender, networks and
entrepreneurial outcomes’, Social Forces, Vol. 79, No. 2, pp.523–546.
Segal, G., Borgia, D. and Schoenfeld, J. (2005) ‘The motivation to become an entrepreneur’,
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp.42–57.
Shane, S. (2000) ‘Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities’,
Organization Science, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp.448–469.
Shane, S., Locke, E.A. and Collins, C.J. (2003) ‘Entrepreneurial motivation’, Human Resource
Management Review, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp.257–279.
Sigrist, B. (1999) ‘Entrepreneurial opportunity recognition’, Paper presented at the UIC/AMA
Research Symposium on the Interface of Marketing and Entrepreneurship, Nice, France.
Singh, R., Hills, G.E., Hybels, R.C. and Lumpkin, G.T. (1999) ‘Opportunity recognition through
social network characteristics of entrepreneurs’, paper presented at the UIC/AMA Research
Symposium on the Interface of Marketing and Entrepreneurship, Nice, France.
Stajkovic, A. and Luthans, F. (1998) ‘Social cognitive theory and self-efficacy: going beyond
traditional motivational behavioral approaches’, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 26, No. 4,
pp.62–74.
Tsai, W. and Ghoshal, S. (1998) ‘Social capital and venture creation: the role of intrafirm
networks’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp.464–476.
Uzzi, B. (1996) ‘The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance
of organizations: the network effect’, American Sociological Review, Vol. 61, No. 4,
pp.674–698.
228 A. Koçak et al.

Wilson, F., Kickul, J. and Marlino, D. (2007) ‘Gender, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and
entrepreneurial career intentions: implications for entrepreneurship education’,
Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp.387–406.
Wood, R. and Bandura, A. (1989) ‘Social cognitive theory of organizational management’,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp.361–384.
Yin, R.K. (2003) Case Study Research-Design and Method, 3rd ed., Applied Social Research
Method Series, Vol. 5, Sage Publication, California.
Zhao, H., Seibert, C. and Hills, C. (2005) ‘The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development
of entrepreneurial intentions’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90, No. 2, pp.1265–1272.