This article contains a meta-analysis of representations of the main models of recruiting women into the field of professional business in European, English language and Russian periodical press. The aim of this study is to systemize the theoretical-conceptual and practical aspects of reproducing certain means of recruitment into the economic elite, as well as the restrictions which women face when choosing a professional development trajectory. A meta-description of the career paths of those women who established themselves in the entrepreneurial field allows for reconstructing women’s scenarios of choosing and forwarding their career in business, as well as for constructing a typology of narrative strategies which affect women’s choices in professional development trajectories in the context of different countries. The empirical basis for this study consists of full-text articles from periodical and serial publications in leading foreign and domestic academic journals. Using critical discourse analysis of articles and open data allows for reconstructing the significance of gender aspects when it comes to choosing a career in business, as well as for tracing the influence of the context of developing female entrepreneurship on recruitment mechanisms in various countries. The results of the empirical study show that the representation of mechanisms for recruiting women into the professional environment is differentiated in different ways in English language and Russian periodic press. Peculiarities inherent to different countries are one of the factors which affect the development of business trajectories specific to certain regions. In Europe a discourse-system education prevails as the most adequate means for establishing oneself in the economic field. Eastern Asian countries mostly focus on the immigration process. In Russia we see gender labeled strategies in leadership positions. The manner in which recruitment mechanisms are pitched also varies: European articles mostly focus on positive trends and representing the discourse of successful business cases, while Russian periodical press concentrates on the obstacles and restrictions women have to deal with when choosing a career path. The narratives used for reconstructing the mechanisms for recruiting women into the realm of business, together with the terminology chosen by the authors of this article, confirm a positive representation of female entrepreneurship in Europe, an ambiguous nature of the business environment in countries of the Far East, and a certain degree of underdevelopment in Russia’s segment.

meta-description, female entrepreneurship, women in business, mechanisms of involvement, professional trajectories

Adame S., Caplliure E., Miquel M. Work-life balance and firms: A matter of women? Journal of Business Research, 2016; 69; 4: 1379–1383.

Ambrose M., Schminke M. Asymmetric Perceptions of Ethical Frameworks of Men and Women in Business and Nonbusiness Settings. Journal of Business Ethics, 1997; 16/7: 719–729.

Ankudinov A., Biktemirova M., Khairullina E. Investment in Higher Professional Education in Russia: Value-based Approach. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2014; 152: 1154–1159.

Borenstein M., Hedges L.V., Higgins J.T., Rothstein H. Introduction to Meta-Analysis. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2009: 415.

Brown D., Robson A., Charity I. International Masters’ student perspectives of team business simulations. The International Journal of Management Education, 2018; 1.

Chirikova A.E. Woman in charge of the firm. Moscow: IS RAS publ., 1998: 358 (In Russ.).

Davis J., Mengersen K., Bennett S., Mazerolle L. Viewing systematic reviews and meta-analysis in social research through different lenses. Springerplus, 2014; 3: article 511.

De Massis А., Kotlar J. The case study method in family business research: Guidelines for qualitative scholarshi: Journal of Family Business Strategy, 2014; 30: 15–29.

Enders C. K. Applied Missing Data Analysis. New York: Guilford Press, 2010: 377.

Glass J., Estesn S. The family Responsive Workplace. Annual Review of Sociology, 1997; 23: 289–313.

Glass G. V. Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research. Educational Researcher, 1976; 5: 3–8.

Greenhause J., Kossek E. The Contemporary Career: A Work-Home Perspective. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2014; 1: 361–388.

Grigorieva E. Features of Male and Female Leadership. Sovremennye strakhovye tekhnologii = Contemporary Technologies of Insurance, 2010; 3: 5–17 (In Russ.).

Gupta V., Goktan B., Gunay G. Gender differences in evaluation of new business opportunity: A stereotype threat perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 2014; 29/2: 273–288.

Harden A., Thomas J. Methodological issues in combining diverse study types in systematic reviews. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 2005; 8: 257–271.

Hardill I., Raghuram. Diasporic Connections: Case Studies of Asian Women in Business. Area, 1998; 30/3: 255–261.

Hoveskog M. and oth. Education for Sustainable Development: Business modelling for flourishing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018; 172: 4383–4396.

Idigoraz I., Vicente-Molina M. Gender issues related to choosing the successor in the family business. European Journal of Family Business, 2017; 7/1: 54–64.

Idrus S., Pauzi N., Munir Z. The Effectiveness of Training Model for Women Entrepreneurship Program. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2014; 129: 82–89.

Jacobs J. Gender Inequality and Higher Education. Annual Review of Sociology, 1996; 22: 153–185.

Kim E., Park H. Perceived gender discrimination, belief in a just world, self-esteem, and depression in Korean working women: A moderated mediation model. Women’s Studies International Forum, 2018; 69: 143–150.

Kim J. The gendered desire to become cosmopolitan: South Korean women's motivations for migration to the UK. Women’s Studies International Forum, 2010; 33/5: 433–442.

Kimle A., Damhorst M. A Grounded Theory Model of the Ideal Business Image for Women. Symbolic Interaction, 1997; 20/1: 45–68.

Koricheva J., Gurevitch J., Mengersen K. Handbook of Meta-Analysis in Ecology and Evolution. 2013: 520.

La Font S. One step forward, two steps back: women in the post-communist states. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 2001; 34/2: 203–220.

Lagerberg F. and oth. Women in business: beyond policy to progress. London: Grant Thornton International, 2018: 24.

Lipsey M.W., Wilson D.B. Practical Meta-Analysis. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage, 2001: 258.

Littell J. H., Corcoran J., Pillai V. Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press, 2008: 216.

Liu X. Narratives of mothers in diaspora: Motherhood reconstruction in Chinese transnational families. Women’s Studies International Forum, 2019; 73: 16–23.

Miller J., Garrison H. Sex Roles: The Division of Labor at Home and in the Workplace. Annual Review of Sociology, 1982; 8: 237–262.

Mooney M. Sex Differences in Earnings in The United States. Annual Review of Sociology, 1989; 15: 343–380.

Mussolino D. et al. Daughters’ self-positioning in family business succession: A narrative inquiry. Recent Journal of Family Business Strategy. 2019.

Nishimura J. Socioeconomic status and depression across Japan, Korea, and China: Exploring the impact of labor market structures. Social Science and Medicine, 2011; 73/4: 604–614.

Ong A. The Gender and Labor Politics of Postmodernity. Annual Review on Anthropology, 1991; 20: 279–309.

Rijke L., Plucker J. Getting what we wish for: the realities of business education for a global economy. Buziness Horizons, 2011; 54/4: 375–382.

Schulze R. Current methods for meta-analysis: Approaches, issues, and developments. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie, 2007; 215: 90–103.

Schwab K. and oth. The Global gender gap report 2015. Davos (Switzerland): WEF publ., 2015: 378.

Working women: Key facts and trends in female labor force participation. Our World in Data (The Web portal), release 16.10.17. Available at: https://ourworldindata.org/female-labor-force-participation-key-facts [accessed: 15.10.2019].

Zakirova V. Gender inequality in Russia: the perspective of participatory gender budgeting. Reproductive Health Matters, 2014; 22/44: 202–212.