Copreneurship and rural tourism: observations from New Zealand and future research directions.
The activities of couples in business have long been recognised, but it was not until the 1980s that this phenomenon was defined as copreneurship (Barnett & Barnett, 1988). Copreneurs are domestic couples who share ownership, commitment and responsibility for a business together or, as Marshack (1994) put it, copreneurship represents the dynamic interaction of the systems of love and work. Copreneurship has typically been included within family business studies, a field where numerous attempts have been made to articulate conceptual and operational definitions of family firms (Chrisman, Chua & Litz, 2003; Habbershon et al., 2003; Sharma, 2004; Astrachan & Shanker, 2006) although the homogeneity of firms described as family businesses is clearly debatable given the contested notion of what constitutes a family.
Couples in business together (copreneurs) are one form of family business. Research suggests that partners in life decide to start copreneurial ventures in reaction to a number of factors including the existence of the 'glass ceiling', and corporate downsizing and redundancy (Smith, 2000), strong economies, easier access to capital and early retirement programmes (Michael, 1999). Copreneurship is often profiled throughout the mainstream media in stories of partnership success (e.g. Dyer & Handler, 1994; Fitzgerald & Muske, 2002). The majority of this work is based largely on anecdotal evidence and small samples (Smith, 2000). According to Marshack (1994), at the time of her research there were only five empirical studies that represented the research literature on copreneurs. Bryson et al. (1976) and Epstein (1971) focused primarily on the marital relationship and Cox et al. (1984), Wicker & Burley (1991) and Ponthieu, and Caudill (1993) focused on business partnerships. Since then, several more research initiatives have been implemented including Smith's (2000) study of twenty copreneurial marital partners in New South Wales, Australia; Fitzgerald and Muske's (2002) work with over 200 copreneurs in the USA; the theoretical models of work-family conflict (Foley & Powell, 1997) or work on the effects of structural changes and economic policy on small business in Britain (Baines & Wheelock, 1998).
Until recently, no published studies discussed the relationship between copreneurship and tourism, which is remarkable, given that many tourism businesses integrate family and partners (Hall & Rusher, 2004). However, the potential significance of copreneurship has been noted. Hall and Williams (2008) in discussing tourism entrepreneurship, observed: the role of couples as entrepreneurs may be far more important than (family businesses) being operated on an inter-generational basis. Therefore, the idea of co-preneurship would seem to be useful avenue with which to investigate such businesses, and others like them in the tourism industry, as part of a life-course approach to examining business development and entrepreneurial behaviour.
Specifically, this paper responds to Hall and Williams (2008); it reports on a study of rural tourism firms in New Zealand. Following a discussion of the literature on rural tourism and entrepreneurship, the paper briefly discusses the results of a mixed method study of rural tourism copreneurs and then presents some observations on the research, along with suggestions for future research directions.
The research reported in this paper explored both roles within and experiences of tourism production whilst in a copreneurial relationship. In order to achieve this, a mixed method research design was employed which aimed to explore the experiences of owners of rural tourism accommodation businesses in New Zealand within the framework of copreneurship. The triangulation of data sources and methods, that's combining qualitative and quantitative techniques, enabled a rich understanding of copreneurial expectations, roles and responsibilities, and of women's experiences in particular. The use of multiple mixed method research strategies in an interpretive approach challenges traditions of male experiences and voices, framed within the positivist approach in tourism research, where women's voices have remained largely unheard (e.g. de Bruin & Lewis, 2004). The research made use of both a postal survey of rural tourism accommodation businesses, and in-depth interviews with women in copreneurial business relationships.
A questionnaire was used to elicit descriptive information from owners of rural tourism businesses. Information collected from the questionnaires enabled data to be gained on a broad spectrum of issues, and enabled comparison with previous studies on rural tourism businesses (e.g. Getz & Carlsen, 2000; Hall & Rusher, 2004, 2005). This was important given the scarcity of scholarly research on copreneurship in tourism. The majority of the questions required either a tick-the-box answer, or a circle to be drawn on a seven point Likert scale. The remaining questions required responses to open ended questions, for example "What, for you, has been the most rewarding thing about owning and operating an accommodation business?"
Owners of rural accommodation businesses in New Zealand were sought as questionnaire participants within the survey region of the River Region (Manawatu, Tararua, Rangitikei, Wanganui and Ruapehu), Nature Coast (Horowhenua), Wairarapa and Hawkes Bay. The survey region was chosen because the researcher had research experience within this area, meaning that relationships existed which helped with access to participants, while the area was also under research with respect to rural tourism (Hall & Rusher, 2005). Taking a random sample of rural tourism businesses was impossible due to the lack of a suitable New Zealand database. Even if "rural" and "tourism" businesses could be isolated, the difficulty of determining in advance what businesses are owned and operated by copreneurial couples remained. For this reason, the sample was generated largely by using a snowball technique, beginning with the membership in the Regional Tourism Organisations (RTOs) and the Rural Tourism Council, supplemented by guidebooks and websites.
Two hundred and one questionnaires were sent out by mail in a first posting, with a reminder letter sent to non-respondents. One hundred and eight completed questionnaires were returned, twenty four incomplete questionnaires were returned, and seven were undelivered, giving an overall response rate of 66% and a usable response rate (questionnaires returned and completed) of 54% (108 responses).
Following the analysis of the questionnaire, semi-structured interviews were conducted with women respondents. These women were female copreneurs from the farmstay or B&B sector of rural tourism. In total, 10 interviews were completed in the survey region, usually at the home/business of the participant. The interviews were audio-taped with the consent of the copreneurs, and then transcripts were compiled verbatim from the tapes after each interview. Thematic categories were then established from the interview data.
The businesses and individuals
The majority of businesses surveyed were relatively young businesses, with over half having been established since the year 2000, and with income from their accommodation properties typically producing less than 20% of owners' total income. The business owners were on average 51-70 years old (75% of owners), were married or partnered (82%), and had lived an average of 16-20 years in the region within which their business operated. The owners worked on average less than 30 hours per week in their accommodation business, in both peak and low seasons. 78% of respondents identified their gender as female, out of which 73% had a spouse/partner involved in the business.
The most commonly cited reasons for starting the accommodation business were: to meet people; share with others; fun; a desire to balance lifestyle with occupation; and a desire to work from home. When asked specifically about the rewards gained from owning and operating an accommodation business, respondents commonly reported meeting people as a reward, along with the satisfaction gained from providing a positive experience for guests, and the positive feedback that this brought to them as owners.
Owners generally stated that they wanted their business to suit their lifestyle goals and would rather keep the business modest and under control, than have it grow too big. Open-ended questions, where business owners were asked to describe the most rewarding thing about owning and operating their accommodation business, revealed that meeting people and enjoying the company of their guests ranked highly, along with providing positive experiences for guests, and receiving the positive feedback and satisfaction. The most difficult thing about owning and operating an accommodation business was, most commonly, the necessary time commitment in always having to be available, cleaning, and maintaining standards. Despite this, however, 86% of respondents said they would enter a similar business again.
Individual respondents (78% of whom were women) reported very high personal responsibility for tasks associated with their accommodation business. Differences in responsibility for tasks, according to gender, were reported with women showing more responsibility for the majority of tasks, particularly cleaning and cooking for guests, along with marketing, promoting the business, and taking bookings.
Being in business with spouse /partner
Seventy-nine of one hundred and eight respondents stated that their spouse/ partner was involved with the accommodation business. This equates to 73% of respondents having a partner who is involved in the same accommodation business, a finding similar to that of Hall and Rusher (2004, 2005) who reported that the majority of their respondents had a spouse who was involved to some degree in the running of the business. Other studies have reported that couples commonly run accommodation enterprises (e.g. Getz & Carlsen, 2000), but fail to report specific numbers of businesses involved. Some studies (e.g. Gladstone & Morris, 2000; Getz & Carlsen, 2005;) also note the dominance of the female partner in terms of responsibility and task completion, but again do not report numbers of couples involved, stating instead that family businesses are common and that women take a central role.
Respondents who had indicated that their spouse/partner was involved in the accommodation business were asked to state what had been the most rewarding thing about being in business with their spouse/partner. Answers to this open-ended question are grouped into themes in Table 1. Although "enjoying working together" and "sharing tasks" are the most commonly agreed rewards of being in business with one's partner, responses show that working from home was only mentioned twice and lifestyle was only mentioned once. Financial rewards were not mentioned at all, nor was the ability to accommodate family demands with work, a fact which sets this research apart from suggestions that copreneurial ventures are created with the incentive of earning more money in self employment than in paid employment (Smith, 2000).
Copreneurial partners appear to see their business as much more of a lifestyle choice and as a way of life than their non-copreneurial counterparts (Roha & Blum, 1990; Baines & Wheelock, 1998; Smith, 2000; Fitzgerald & Muske, 2002). In this way, the copreneurial business owners are similar to other rural tourism businesses (e.g. Shaw & Williams, 1998; Morrison et al., 1999; Ateljevic & Doorne, 2000; Getz & Carlsen, 2000; Hall & Rusher, 2004, 2005; Lynch et al., 2009). The participants' responses about enjoying working together, sharing experiences, and freedom to go on holiday could all be related to enjoying a particular lifestyle, and they fit well with earlier research which suggests that starting/ operating these businesses often relates as much or more to lifestyle, locational, and leisure preferences than to a desire for profit or security (Hall, 2005).
A theme emerges from this research which suggests that women may be enjoying the copreneurial venture, even while their spouse/partner does not shoulder as much of the responsibility for tasks associated with the business. Some women suggested that they may be doing most of the work associated with the accommodation business, noting that "He isn't able to address detail. E.g. Bed making, meal service. That's why I do it all"; "[it is difficult] when he is not there to help" and "[it is difficult] when there is 'stuff to do and he wants to go skiing". However, respondents note different views on their roles: "He is supportive of what I have accomplished, and although he cannot 'help' on a regular basis, due to his own business commitments, he is there as back-up" and "The fact that my husband leaves everything to me [is a reward of being in business with spouse/partner]--it's the first time that I have had sole responsibility for a business that we jointly own--we have several other businesses that HE is responsible for which we jointly own. Also, the fact that he values the fact that I am good at, and enjoy, the Lodge".
More detail about being in business with a spouse/partner is revealed from responses to the question: "What has been the most challenging thing about being in business with your spouse/partner?" Fifty-nine individual responses were received to this question, with some respondents noting more than one challenge. However, eighteen respondents noted specifically no challenges, or that things for them were all positive. Responses are grouped into themes in Table 2.
Individual respondents reported very high personal responsibility for tasks associated with their accommodation business. There appeared to be differences according to gender in responsibility for tasks, with women showing more responsibility for the majority of tasks, particularly cleaning and cooking for guests, along with marketing and promoting the business and taking bookings. Owners identified their own responsibility for tasks typically associated with operating an accommodation business and this question was repeated for respondents, later in the questionnaire, when they were asked to indicate how responsible their partner/spouse was for the same tasks.
Table 3 reports women's perceptions of task responsibility, not actual measures of divisions of labour; however, the results indicate that the greatest difference in means, indicating the least shared tasks, can be seen in the responsibility for the tasks of cleaning and marketing/promoting the business, which both have differences of three or above. The tasks of cooking meals for guests and taking bookings have differences in means of just fewer than three. The only tasks which have a difference in a mean of less than one were providing activities for guests (0.58) and transporting guests (0.2), in which the majority of businesses do not report engaging, anyway.
This study then clearly reflects earlier investigative studies in copreneurship, where it was reported that the majority of copreneurial ventures were still structured along traditional sex-role lines (e.g. Smith, 2000; Fitzgerald & Muske, 2002). The findings show a huge discrepancy in equalness when tasks responsibilities are compared by gender. Women do the cooking, cleaning, taking bookings and marketing/promoting the business.
Observations and research directions
In this study, the researcher's initial aim was to explore entrepreneurship in rural tourism businesses. The research sought to explore the experiences of owners of rural tourism accommodation businesses in New Zealand within the framework of copreneurship. It examined roles within copreneurial rural tourism businesses and studied women's experiences of entrepreneurship specifically. The voices of women became integral to this study and contributed to the early shaping of the research objectives. The initial aim of the research was to contribute to the theoretical literature on copreneurship and rural tourism and this was achieved through the following objectives:
* To describe the experiences of owners of rural tourism accommodation businesses in New Zealand within the framework of copreneurship.
* To examine the gendering of roles within copreneurial rural tourism businesses.
* To describe and evaluate women's experiences of copreneurship within rural tourism.
Reflecting on these objectives reminds the researcher that research in copreneurship, to date, has been epitomised by stories published in the popular press about partnership and success strategies, and has been further characterised by small empirical studies, none of which have taken a tourism or a rural focus. Some questions exists about whether current research approaches and methodologies have adequately incorporated the reality of women's entrepreneurship. The experience of women starting rural tourism businesses (with their partners) is not a reality which has been widely explored in the rural literature. This study contributes to shaping the understanding of gender-related social constructions in relation to the wider literature on copreneurship and on rural tourism.
Clearly, however, the claim that "there is some doubt as to whether current research approaches adequately incorporate the reality of women's entrepreneurship" (de Bruin et al, 2007) may even understate the case. Through the triangulation of the literature and the data from both quantitative and qualitative collection methods, at least two realities exist:
* The reality of what it is like--who does what? And
* The reality of how women perceive this.
The quantitative research reported in this study provided information about descriptions of the owners and the businesses, and what happens within the business (the reality of who does what?), but the qualitative part of this research offered insights into women's experiences of this--not what happens, but how it is experienced. The interview part of this research meant that the gendered nature of work in and on the business became concrete and vivid. Exploring both realities of copreneurship within rural tourism has shown that any perception of copreneurship as a tool for enabling women to become freed from traditional gender roles may not equal the reality.
The study used an interpretive approach and triangulation of methods in a field where the dominant paradigm remains positivism (Riley & Love, 2000). This interpretive approach enabled the researcher to "get inside the minds of the subjects and see the world from their point of view" (Veal, 1997) and enabled a more flexible and inductive approach to the data collection. The two data collection methods (survey and interviews) complemented each other and led to greater understanding of experiences of copreneurship within rural tourism. As argued by Oppermann (1997) and Decrop (1999), triangulation in this instance helped to bridge the divide between positivist and interpretive research, and combining the methods within this one study has helped overcome deficiencies of a singular method.
The survey and the interview parts of this research enabled women's voices to be heard, whilst women's voices from the interviews, which were biographic in many cases, enabled the portrayal of life stories in relation to the women's experiences of operating a rural tourism business. This biographic approach, served to "work outwards from the domestic instead of from the public inwards" (Edwards & Ribbens, 1991). The result is that the woman, not existing theory, was considered the expert on her experience (Anderson & Jack, 1998). This revelation makes this study one of a small general movement towards this approach in the studying of rural lives, in particular the lives of women (e.g. Inhetveen, 1990).
As alluded to previously in this paper, within the small business and entrepreneurship literature to date, doubt has been expressed about whether current research approaches and adequately incorporates the reality of women's entrepreneurship (e.g. de Bruin et al, 2007). Bird and Brush (2002) highlighted the importance of allowing a gendered viewpoint to add to knowledge on how individuals perceive and operationalise entrepreneurship, and the research outlined in this paper goes some way toward addressing the fact that there exists an underexplored and unarticulated feminine set of processes and behaviours in new venture production. Women's voices were able to come through in both the survey and the interview research, and their experiences are reported through their narratives. What they reveal is that a gendered ideology persists, even through copreneurial relationships in rural tourism.
This particular gendered ideology which persists appears to be based on socially constructed relationships and may be apparent amongst the activities of rural women, both within business and within the private home. It may be a particular way of being that then affects how roles in a copreneurial business exist, and are subsequently reported and experienced. The researcher is aware that this work is not representative of all women in this situation and the respondents did not all agree with each other, nor did they have access to what was written to see if they felt that she had 'got it right'. Taking an approach to doing and presenting research using the interpretive approach and biographic reporting can lead to substantive and methodological insights, since by listening and learning from the respondents' experiences, the researcher can learn that the experience of copreneurship in rural tourism is not the same for everybody.
Stories taken from life are of systematic value for research. The quantitative results provided facts and information about the owners and the businesses they operate, and also about what happens within the businesses. The interview part of the research offered insights into experiences of this--not what happens, but how it is experienced. The biographical interviews allowed the gendered nature of work within and on the business to become concrete and vivid.
This research has also gone some way toward exploring the under-explored and unarticulated set of feminine processes and behaviour that influence venture creation and operation in that it highlights that there may be differing views of entrepreneurship between male and female copreneurs. The women in this study expressed ideas about their business along the lines of the business being a dream, a lifestyle, and the business creating social opportunities. The women further suggest in the interview part of this research that their partners (all men) perhaps see the business as being an investment and, therefore, creating economic opportunities, rather than social ones.
The research reported here has indicated that the rural tourism accommodation sector is characterised by lifestylers and copreneurs running their businesses as a hobby, with the majority of businesses providing less than 10% of a household's total income and the most common reason for entering business and for continuing to operate the business is to meet people. This study, therefore, echoes calls of Hall and Rusher (2004) for our understanding of small business performance and entrepreneurial success to incorporate lifestyle quality of life measures as an important component. It remains apparent from earlier research (Hall, 2004) and is reinforced in this study, that the economic development goals of the tourism industry as a whole, or national and regional economic development agencies may not be the same as some of the SMEs that operate at their intended core. This study found that non-economic, lifestyle motivations are important stimuli to business formation, a theme echoed throughout the literature (Shaw & Williams, 1987, 1990, 1998; Lynch, 1998; Morrison et al., 1999; Busby & Rendle, 2000; Getz & Carlsen, 2000; Hall & Rusher, 2002).
This research has also provided further development in the observation that blurring of production and consumption is a feature of rural tourism businesses. The motivation and behaviour blurring that occurs within some small businesses has not been delineated or explained by current copreneurship, or even gender-based production literature. Hall and Williams have reported a 'blurring of production and consumption' when referring to temporarily mobile individuals (2002). This has been reported to be a factor in rural tourism production for the individuals of this study, when not only do production and consumption objectives become blurred, but also when both home and business objectives and tasks become blurred. The overlapping of home and business production and consumption objectives has been previously reported (e.g. Edwards & Edwards, 1990; Ashton-Hodgson, 2005; Monin & Sayers, 2005), but again, the motivations and behaviour blurring which occurs has not been, to date, explained by copreneurship literature. This study has demonstrated that blurring between production and consumption occurs in these rural tourism businesses, with start-up goals being most commonly to 'meet people' and a desire to balance lifestyle with occupation. Respondents also rated as highest when considering their goals in relation to starting their business, the statement 'to meet interesting people', closely followed by 'to enjoy a good lifestyle' and 'to live in the right environment'. For the operators surveyed and interviewed in this research, their consumption goals of living in the right environment and enjoying a good lifestyle are partly met by operating their accommodation business, via the income that the business produces and by the opportunities to meet people that the businesses provide.
The copreneurs in this study have strong and widely shared preconceptions of their roles as accommodation providers and as task managers in their households, role perceptions, which appear to be largely invariant of the situation. These role perceptions may be formed through institutionalized role expectations, which owners/individuals internalise through socialisation, upbringing and experience. To some extent, these role expectations are influenced by owners'/ individuals' backgrounds, as findings from this study show that gendered roles are still dominant in copreneurial rural tourism accommodation businesses. Gendered societies contribute to gendered tourism practices and these, in turn, contribute to and reinforce the gendered nature of society (Pritchard, 2004). Copreneurial couples appear to engage in running the accommodation business using traditional gender-based roles mirroring those found in the private home. This highlights the conventional character along traditionally stereotypical lines, as previously reported by Baines and Wheelock (1998) and Smith (2000). Thus, traditional gender divisions of labour are transferred from the private home domain and extended into the business.
Marlow (2002) argued that women's subordination within wider society is brought with them into self-employment, and that this factor fundamentally underpins the evidence which indicates that enterprises owned by women are located in highly competitive sectors with low margins, and are likely to remain small and perform poorly. Rural tourism is characterised by low margins and highly competitive small businesses, and copreneurial businesses are typically small in size (typically they have no employees and only provide part time employment for the owners).
The notion of family business may also be a misnomer, because although the term 'family business' is widely used, there is no concise, measurable, agreed-upon definition of family business. The term family business most often encompasses the family having a role in terms of determining the vision and control mechanisms used in a firm, and implies a multi-generational involvement (e.g. Chrisman, Chua & Litz, 2003; Habbershon et al., 2003). However, although it was argued that for the purposes of this research, copreneurship is a subset of family business, the reality may be that the majority of family businesses are in fact copreneurial, involving partners/spouses and that many of these copreneurial businesses are run by women. This is a finding which expands on a suggestion from Hall and Williams (2008) that the role of couples as entrepreneurs may be 'far more important than the notion of family business as being operated on an inter-generational basis' (Hall & Williams, 2008). This researcher suggests that there exists an idealised version of family business, which mostly incorporates multi-generational involvement, the role of family in terms of determining the vision and control mechanisms used in a firm, and the creation of unique resources and capabilities when it may be the case, certainly in rural tourism that what the family business actually is reflects the traditional definitions of copreneurship.
Following from the research reported in this study, studies immersed in overlapping home and business worlds, using the copreneurial framework seem both feasible and intellectually intriguing. Further research is possible into changing motivations of business owners in copreneurial ventures over time. Asking specifically about how a business met stated initial goals and lifestyle objectives, for example a particular lifestyle goal, providing retirement income, meeting new people, and so on would provide further insight into the motivations and start up goals reported in this research. Research into copreneurship in environments other than rural and in sectors other than tourism would also be useful. As noted in this study, copreneurship research remains typified by small scale and, often, anecdotal studies. Further investigation into themes rose in this research, in urban environments for example, would help to answer a question raised when reviewing this current research--would findings be replicated in an urban environment? Are the positioning and role perceptions of women with respect to their responsibilities for tasks within a business invariant of the situation beyond the rural? Likewise, would surveying a sector which was not dominated by middle-aged business operators yield similar or different results?
Further research is also necessary into the area of copreneurship and work-family conflict, particularly exploration of the hypothesis that copreneurship may improve or reduce work-family conflict. Is there an expectation when people enter copreneurial businesses that there will be less work-family conflict than experienced in non-copreneurial businesses or in paid employment for example? Similarly, further research on how owners/individuals/women share their role with others, or explain their role to others, may provide insights into power relationships and gendering within rural tourism businesses.
It has been suggested that recent studies on the family embeddedness perspective of entrepreneurship (Aldrich & Cliff, 2003), or "enterprising households" (Wheelock, 1998; Welter et al, 2006; Jennings & McDougald, 2007), may hold promising avenues for future research on women's entrepreneurship (de Bruin et al, 2007). The current study supports this concept, as the enterprising household may provide a suitable vehicle from which to explore aspects of entrepreneurship. Also, as yet, there is not any longitudinal study to investigate whether the children of copreneurs are more or less likely to follow in their parents' entrepreneurial footsteps. Therefore, a study of this kind may reveal whether or not a parent's involvement in a copreneurial venture is influential on their children's career choices.
Men's views are also significantly absent from the interview part of this research. Their experiences are not present in the research except in aggregated form in the survey findings. Research into men's experiences of copreneurial businesses is obviously possible and desirable, and taking an interpretive approach to such research may offer new insights into copreneurial businesses.
Finally, this researcher believes it possible to further investigate gender based identities, stereotypes, and perhaps, coping strategies of both female and male copreneurs. It may be particularly interesting to further investigate the male reactions and coping strategies of male copreneurs in view of the theme which emerged as part of the interview research for this study--the apparent commonly expressed wish of male hosts in accommodation businesses to remain 'behind the scenes'. This would add to existing discussions on the views and experiences of men in female-dominated occupations (Williams, 1995; Lupton, 2000; Cross & Bagilhole, 2002; Simpson, 2004, 2005;) because there is value in comparative research that considers the embeddedness of life-worlds in communities and the contingencies of personal circumstances.
Received February 9, 2011. Resubmitted May 10, 2011
ALDRICH, J. & CLIFF, J. (2003), The pervasive effects of family on entrepreneurship: Toward a family embeddedness perspective; Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 573-596.
ANDERSON, K. & JACK, D. (1998), Learning to listen: Interview techniques and analyses; in The oral history reader, R. Perks, and A. Thomson (Eds.), Routledge, 157-171.
ASHTON-HODGSON, K. (2005), Committed couples in business: A delightful dance between work and home; The Global Garage: Home-based Business in New Zealand; Thomson/ Dunmore Press, 223-242.
ASTRACHAN, J. H. & SHANKER, M. C. (2006), Family businesses' contribution to the US economy: A closer look; Handbook of research on family business; Edward Elgar, 56-66.
ATELJEVIC, I. & DOORNE, S. (2000), Staying within the fence: Lifestyle entrepreneurship in tourism; Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8, 378-392.
BAINES, S. & WHEELOCK, J. (1998), Working for each other: Gender, the household and micro-business survival and growth; International Small Business Journal, 17 (1), 16-35.
BARNETT, F. & BARNETT, S. (1988), Working together: Entrepreneurial couples; Ten Speed Press.
BIRD, B. & BRUSH, C. (2002), A gendered perspective on organizational creation; Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26 (3), 41-65.
BRYSON, R., BRYSON, J., LICHT, M. & LICHT, B. (1976), The professional pair American Psychologist, 31, 10-16.
BUSBY, G. & RENDLE, S. (2000), The transition from tourism on farms to farm tourism; Tourism Management, 21 (6), 635-642.
CHRISMAN, J., CHUA, J. & LITZ, R. (2003), Commentary: A unified perspective of family firm performance: An extension and integration; Journal of Business Venturing, 18 (4), 467-472.
COX, J., MOORE, K. & VAN AUKEN, P. (1984), Working couples in small business; Journal of Small Business Management, 22, 24-30.
CROSS, S. & BAGILHOLE, B. (2002), Girls' jobs for the boys? Men, masculinity and non-traditional occupations; Gender, Work and Organization, 9 (2), 204-26.
DE BRUIN, A. & LEWIS, K. (2004), Toward enriching united career theory: Familial entrepreneurship and copreneurship Career Development International, 9 (7), 638-646.
DE BRUIN, A., BRUSH, C. & WELTER, F. (2007), Advancing a framework for coherent research on women's entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31 (3), 323-339.
DECROP, A. (1999), Triangulation in qualitative tourism research, Tourism Management, 20 (1), 157-161.
DYER JR, G. W. & HANDLER, W. (1994), Entrepreneurship and family business: Exploring the connections; Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 19 (1), 71-83.
EDWARDS, P. & EDWARDS, S. (1990), Working from home: Everything you need to know about living and working under the same roof; Los Angeles: Jeremy P. Tarcher.
EDWARDS, R. & RIBBENS, J. (1991). Meanderings around 'strategy': A research note on the strategic discourses in the lives of women, Strategy, 25 (3), 477-489.
EPSTEIN, C. (1971), Law partners and marital partners: Strains and solutions in the dual-career family enterprise, Human Relations, 24 (6), 549-564.
FITZGERALD, M. A. & MUSKE, G. (2002), Copreneurs: An exploration and comparison to other family businesses, Family Business Review, 15 (1), 1-17.
FOLEY, S. & POWELL, G. (1997), Reconceptualizing work-family conflict for business/ marriage partners: A theoretical model; Journal of Small Business Management, 35 (4), 36-48.
GETZ, D. & CARLSEN, J. (2000), Characteristics and goals of family and owner-operated businesses in the rural tourism and hospitality sectors; Tourism Management, 21 (6), 547-560.
GETZ, D. & CARLSEN, J. (2005), Family business in tourism: State of the art; Annals of Tourism Research, 32 (1), 237-258.
GLADSTONE, J., MORRIS, A. (2000), Farm accommodation and agricultural heritage; Tourism in peripheral areas: Case studies, Channel View, 91-100.
HABBERSHON, T. G. & WILLIAMS, M. L. (2003), A unified systems perspective of family firm performance; Journal of Business Venturing, 18 (4), 451-465.
HALL, C. M. (2005). Tourism: Rethinking the social science of mobility; Harlow: Pearson.
HALL, C. M. & RUSHER, K. (2002), A risky business? Entrepreneurial and lifestyle dimensions of the homestay and bed and breakfast accommodation sector in New Zealand; Tourism and Well-being The 2nd Tourism Industry and Education Symposium May 16-18, Jyvaskyla, 197-210.
HALL, C. M. & RUSHER, K. (20049, Risky lifestyles? Entrepreneurial characteristics of the New Zealand bed and breakfast sector; Small firms in tourism: International perspectives; Elsevier; 83-97.
HALL, C. M. & RUSHER, K. (20059, Entrepreneurial characteristics and issues in the small-scale accommodation sector in New Zealand; Tourism SMEs, service quality and destination competitiveness: International perspectives; CABI; 143-54.
HALL, C. M. & WILLIAMS, A. M. (Eds.), (20029, Tourism and migration: New relationships between production and consumption; Kluwer Academic Publishers.
HALL, C. M. & WILLIAMS, A. M. (2008), Tourism and innovation; Routledge.
INHETVEEN, H. (1990), Biographical approaches to research on women farmers; Sociologia Ruralis, 30 (1), 100-114.
JENNINGS, J. & MCDOUGALD, M. (2007), Work-family interface experiences and coping strategies: Implications for entrepreneurship research and practice; The Academy of Management Review, 32 (3), 747-760.
LUPTON, B. (2000), Maintaining masculinity: Men who do women's work; British Journal of Management, 11 (3), 33-48.
LYNCH, P. (1998), Female microentrepreneurs in the host family sector: Key motivations and socio-economic variables; International Journal of Hospitality Management, 17 (3), 319-342.
LYNCH, P., MCINTOSH, A. & TUCKER, H. (Eds.), (2009), The Commercial Home, Routledge
MARLOW, S. (2002), Women and self-employment: A part of or apart from the theoretical construct, Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 3 (2), 83-91.
MARSHACK, K. J. (1994), Copreneurs and dual-career couples: Are they different?; Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practise, 19 (1), 49-70.
MICHAEL, K. (1999), Couple extend partnerships into the working world; The HeraldSun, 1.
MONIN, N. & SAYERS, J. (Eds.), (2005), The global garage: Home based business in New Zealand; Thomson/Dunmore Press.
MORRISON, A., RIMMINGTON, M. & WILLIAMS, C. (1999), Entrepreneurship in the hospitality, tourism and leisure industries; Butterworth-Heinemann.
OPPERMANN, M. (1997), Rural tourism in Germany: Farm and rural tourism operators; The business of rural tourism: International perspectives, International Thomson Business Press, 108-119.
PONTHIEU, L. & CAUDILL, H. (1993), Who's the boss? Responsibility and decision making in copreneurial ventures; Family Business Review, 6 (1), 3-17.
PRITCHARD, A. (2004), Gender and sexuality in tourism research; A companion to tourism; Blackwell, 316-326.
RILEY, R. W. & LOVE, L. L. (2000), The state of qualitative tourism research; Annals of Tourism Research, 27 (1), 164-187.
ROHA, R. & BLUM, A. (1990), Enterprising couples: What does it take to run a business with your spouse? Changing Times, 44 (12), 73-76.
SHARMA, P. (2004), An overview of the field of family business studies: Current status and directions for the future; Family Business Review, 17 (1), 1-36.
SHAW, G. & WILLIAMS, A. M. (1987), Firm formation and operating characteristics in the Cornish tourism industry - the case of Looe; Tourism Management, 8 (4), 344-348.
SHAW, G. & WILLIAMS, A. M. (1990), Tourism economic development and the role of entrepreneurial activity; Progress in tourism, recreation and hospitality management. Bellhaven, 2, 67-81.
SHAW, G. & WILLIAMS, A. M. (1998), Entrepreneurship and tourism development; The economic geography of the tourist industry, Routledge, 235-255.
SIMPSON, R. (2004), Masculinity at work: The experiences of men in female-dominated occupations; Work, Employment and Society, 18 (2), 349-68.
SIMPSON, R. (2005), Men in non-traditional occupations: Career entry, career orientation and experience of role strain; Gender, Work and Organization, 12 (4), 363-380.
SMITH, C. R. (2000), Managing work and family in small "copreneurial" business: an Australian study; Women in Management Review, 15 (5-6), 283-289.
VEAL, A. J. (1997), Research methods for leisure and tourism: A practical guide (2nd ed.); Pearson Education.
WELTER, F., SMALLBONE, D. & ISAKOVA, N. (2006), Enterprising women in transition economies; Aldershot, Ashgate.
WHEELOCK, J. (1998), Working for each other: Gender, the household and micro business survival and growth; International Small Business Journal, 17 (1), 16-35.
WICKER, A. & BURLEY, K. (1991), Close coupling in work-family relationships: Making and implementing decisions in new family business and home; Human Relations, 44 (1), 77-92.
WILLIAMS, C. (1995), Still a man's world: Men who do 'Women's Work'; University of California Press.
Jo BENSEMANN, School of Management, Massey University, 11222 Private Bag, Palmerston North, New Zealand, email@example.com
Table 1 What has been the most rewarding thing about being in business with your spouse/partner? N=68 Response theme Number of responses citing this theme We enjoy working together 13 Working together/sharing tasks 12 Socialising with guests 8 Sharing experience of meeting people 6 Working as a team 5 Other responses given more than once: Working from home Enjoying each other's company Improvement in relationship Freedom to go on holiday Learning about the farm Having her about/like being with partner Table 2 What has been the most challenging thing about being in business with your spouse/partner? N=59 Response theme Number of responses citing this theme Learning to work as a team/consider other view 5 Juggling demands of business and family commitments 5 Defining roles/tasks 3 Sharing experience of meeting people 3 Spouse/partner not available to help when needed 3 Keeping own space/personal time 2 Table 3 Self and spouse/partner responsibility for tasks associated with accommodation business. Women's answers reported, N=56. Task How responsible are YOU for the following tasks involved with the accommodation business? 1= not at all responsible 7= totally responsible Mean N Std Deviation Cleaning 5.79 78 1.833 Cooking meals for guests 5.03 75 2.594 Taking bookings 6.38 76 1.423 Providing activities for guests 4.12 73 2.426 Advising guests about travel plans and activities 4.82 77 2.101 Staff management 4.88 60 2.768 Transporting guests 3.10 71 2.474 Business planning 5.91 74 1.931 Marketing/promoting the business 6.40 78 1.303 Financial management 6.34 77 1.527 Task How responsible is your partner/spouse for the following tasks involved with the accommodation business? 1=not at all responsible 7=totally responsible Mean N Std Deviation Cleaning 2.79 53 1.864 Cooking meals for guests 2.25 51 1.885 Taking bookings 3.48 54 2.053 Providing activities for guests 3.54 52 2.043 Advising guests about travel plans and activities 3.63 54 1.825 Staff management 2.49 43 2.131 Transporting guests 3.08 52 2.066 Business planning 3.75 52 2.334 Marketing/promoting the business 3.20 54 2.096 Financial management 3.70 53 2.407
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Publication:||Journal of Tourism Challenges and Trends|
|Date:||Jun 1, 2011|
|Previous Article:||Rural tourism in the Romanian Carpathians.|
|Next Article:||Methodology of determining the agri-tourism potential on Georgia's example.|