This paper is published in Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08276331.2015.1017869 #abstract . THE STIGMATIZATION OF BANKRUPT ENTREPRENEURS IN DUTCH NEWSPAPERS Wakkee, I., Dorrestein, F. and Englis, P. Abstract - We examine to what extent bankrupt entrepreneurs are stigmatized in the mass media. Based on a decade of newspaper articles, we show that while overall the level of stigmatization is lower than expected based on popular belief, stigmatization increases in the years with many bankruptcies, and in the months following a prominent bankruptcy. These differences are caused by the distinctions made by journalists between entrepreneurs in charge of large and small firms respectively as villains responsible for the bankruptcy and its consequences, or as hard- working victims of the system. Findings are explained in terms of experienced peril and cultural factors. 1
54
Embed
research.vu.nl T… · Web viewThis paper is published in Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship .
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
This paper is published in Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship
Turning to the type of media frames used then, the FD predominantly uses economic
frames to report about bankruptcies, the articles in de Telegraaf most commonly adopted a
responsibility frame, and the VK mainly used the human interest frame. From our analysis we
conclude that when considering all three newspapers over the entire period, the responsibility
frame is used most commonly (n = 103), followed by the human interest frame (n = 84) and the
economic frame (n =72). The morality frame is used less frequently (n =49) while the conflict
frame is used only rarely (n = 15). Following insights from An and Gower (2009), the wide use
of the responsibility frame suggests that journalists generally believe that bankruptcies are
avoidable; yet, the usage of the responsibility frame varies rather widely throughout the decade.
From the analysis however no apparent explanation for this variation could be identified. As can
be observed from Table 1, the usage of the human interest frame (HF) began to be more
dominant in the second half of the decade. This is in line with earlier observations that suggested
the competitive landscape forces journalists to try and capture the audience’s interest
(Wiesenfeld et al. 2008; Skovsgaard et al. 2013).
Table 1 about here
Next, subcategories of frames were identified to determine in more detail how the Dutch
mass media report about bankrupt entrepreneurs and to what extent these reports could lead to
stigmatization of or stigma-reduction for such entrepreneurs. While this was not a focal area of
attention at the start of our analysis, when conducting this analysis it became increasingly clear
that across all types of media frames journalists clearly distinguish between entrepreneurs who
are in charge of medium to large sized firms and corporations and entrepreneurs who operate
micro and small firms. Although the number of employees or the sales level (prior to the demise
of the firm) was not always explicitly mentioned, either the approximate size class of the firm
became apparent from the story or in some cases it was already known to one of the authors
through previous exposure to information about these firms. While we identified stigmatizing,
neutral and stigma-reducing reports about both types of entrepreneurs, the tenor proved distinct
across the different frame types.
As mentioned previously, the responsibility frame is used most frequently over the course
of the decade. Careful analyses of the content of these articles lead to the identification of nine
qualitatively different types of reports - four of which are clearly stigmatizing bankrupt
14
entrepreneurs. Specifically we distinguished the following qualitative categories: fraudulent large
entrepreneurs (n = 23), overall poor quality of entrepreneurial skills in the Netherlands (n = 12),
incompetent ‘small’ entrepreneurs (n = 11), and mismanagement by entrepreneurs running larger
firms (n = 10). In these articles, the role and responsibility of other contributing stakeholders
and environmental factors is neglected or trivialized as shown from the following example:
“While the poor economic situation is often asserted as causing the problems in 75% of all cases
we can simply point to mismanagement.” (Telegraaf, November 9th 2005). Likewise an article in
the VK of October 2003 suggests: “The large number of startups in 2000 and 2002 is part of the
boom in bankruptcies. The starting entrepreneur from the latter days of the economic boom was
poorly educated and only had hobby-like knowledge.”
In the other five categories, journalists do inform on the role of other parties. Several
pointed to the poor quality of support and consultancy services (n = 15), inadequate legislation (n
= 14) or the impact of customers who do not pay their invoices or do so too late (n = 9). Whereas
most of the articles in these categories have a neutral tone, about one third can be typified as
stigma-reducing for entrepreneurs involved in a bankruptcy as they either offer an alternative
explanation for the occurrence of a bankruptcy, other than misconduct or lack of capabilities of
the entrepreneur or actually portray the entrepreneur as being the victim of other actors’
behaviors An example of such an article can be found in FD on April 7th 2004: “Late-paying
debtors are a huge expense: the supplier suffers from an interest loss and recovering the claims
requires manpower. When the money does not come at all it may be the fatal blow”.
Furthermore, reports about the role of monitoring and controlling bodies such as boards of
governors or (financial) watchdogs (n = 6) or the rigid (credit) approach of banks (n = 3) can be
seen as potentially reducing stigmatization for entrepreneurs as they offer an explanation for the
occurrence of bankruptcies that does not involve incompetency or misconduct of entrepreneurs.
For instance “Research of State Secretary Ybema (Economic Affairs) shows that two out of three
bankruptcies is unnecessary and would be avoidable if banks were more lenient.” (Telegraaf,
January 23rd, 2002). The reports in these last two categories are typically neutral in tenor as they
do not completely discharge entrepreneurs from their responsibility but rather suggest that they
are not the only ones to blame.
15
Turning to articles using a human interest frame, seven qualitative categories were
identified. The majority of these focused on the personal life of the entrepreneur. Very few
articles devoted attention to potential other “victims” of bankruptcies such as former employees
or un-served customers (n = 4) or to bankruptcy lawyers reflecting on the bankruptcy
phenomenon (n = 6). From the articles focusing on the entrepreneurs, we could again observe a
strong distinction between the way in which entrepreneurs running small firms and entrepreneurs
running medium sized to large firms are being depicted. Entrepreneurs running small businesses
are most typically portrayed as “foolish or naive” or as “Muddling through against the Odds” (n
= 29). As the following example shows: “… a break out of a bacterial disease, for which a
costly vaccine had to be developed…tremendous increases in the price of fodder and extensive
competition from imported fish due to the cheap dollar … the labor-intensive character of the
tilapia production is detrimental to the sale of expensive Dutch farm fishes. In an attempt to save
his firm he sets up a pilot to breed another fish even though he knows he officially is not allowed
to do so: according to the regulations of the Ministry his cannot breed other fishes until at least
three years after having obtained a subsidy for breeding tilapia. Anonymous breeders tip off the
inspection and he receives a fine” (FD, October 29th 2008). The majority of these articles are not
stigmatizing in nature. We also identified several articles that may contribute to the reduction of
stigma on bankruptcy as they portrayed entrepreneurs running small businesses who had become
very successful in a new venture after having experienced a bankruptcy in the past (n =8).
When it comes to the articles about entrepreneurs running larger firms, we identified a
qualitative category that depicted these as Struggling against the Tide (n = 11) . These articles
resembled those about entrepreneurs running small businesses who are muddling through. For
instance on June 13th 2000, De Telegraaf reports about a particular entrepreneur as “emaciated,
as poor as a church rat but with admirable resilience he is fighting for complete rehabilitation.”
Another category presents entrepreneurs running larger firms as “Cunning and focused on
protecting their personal interest.” (n = 18). For instance, the VK reported that “While financially
business may be bad…. – his corporation has been declared bankrupt last Tuesday – his
personal finances are apparently in good shape: he recently bought a brand new airplane” (VK,
April 4th 2005). Articles in this final category are without exception stigmatizing in nature.
16
When analyzing articles using an economic frame, we identified seven qualitative
categories of arguments to explain the occurrence of bankruptcies. Two of these categories
establish a direct connection between the behavior of the entrepreneurs and the bankruptcy and
as such could be considered stigmatizing towards entrepreneurs involved in bankruptcy. The first
category (n = 12) suggests that many starting entrepreneurs go bankrupt as a result of a lack
education and training and thus a lack of knowledge and skills. The second category points to
more general and sometimes even deliberate mismanagement (n = 19). These articles typically
also point to the residual debts that such entrepreneurs leave behind when their firm goes
bankrupt. For instance, The FD reports that “Some analysts began to question the reliability of
the financial reports openly. In addition, insiders suggested that the book keeping at Landis was
rattling. The word ‘Mismanagement’ is mentioned repeatedly”. In the other five categories
bankruptcies are attributed to factors beyond the control of the entrepreneur and as such these
articles cannot be classified as being stigmatizing towards entrepreneurs. In particular in these
articles, reporters attribute bankruptcies to late or non-paying customers (n = 5), government
policies (n = 10), general economic decline (n = 13), termination of support from others (n = 9),
and drops in demand (n = 4). For instance the VK reports that: “Based on the numbers produced
by Euler Hermes we can conclude that, relatively in no other European country so many firms
go bankrupt as in the Netherlands. According to Toemen this cannot only be attributed to poor
entrepreneurship. The economic decline of recent years plays a significant role. Especially
amongst consumer-oriented companies there are many casualties. Consumers after all keep a
tight hand”.
Articles in which a morality frame is used tend to incorporate one of three pleas. Two of
these pleas (for reduction of stigma (n= 29) and for changing the role of the administrator during
the bankruptcy process (n = 9)) contain strong stigma reducing elements. The third type of plea
(for dealing with malicious or incapable entrepreneurs (n = 11)) clearly stigmatized
entrepreneurs as is shown from an example in the VK: “Companies sometimes use a bankruptcy
to get rid of their employees. In case of a through-start they recruit new personnel. The FNV <a
trade union> examines why this type of fraud is so difficult to fight” (June 7th 2004).
Finally, while analyzing the articles in which a conflict frame is being used, we could
distinguish between five types of conflicts stakeholders with whom bankrupt entrepreneurs are
17
considered to be in conflict with: franchisers (n = 3), investors (n =5), bankruptcy lawyers/
administrators (n = 2), customers (n = 4) and banks(n = 1). These articles predominantly placed
the blame for the conflict with the entrepreneur. For instance the VK reported that “This type of
management is really killing the Fund. They show they are incapable of running a firm.”
However, in six cases the reporter sought to create a more balanced picture that does justice to
both parties. Also in a number of reports, the entrepreneur is being portrayed as the victim of
their customer or of the executor handling the bankruptcy case.
When looking at the differences across the three newspapers, VK and FD both use
stigmatizing elements in just over half of their articles about bankrupt entrepreneurs. The use of
such stigmatizing frames in the Telegraaf is less common, at 30%. This result might at first seem
surprising because of the more populist-oriented tone of voice, which is often associated with a
higher level of stigmatization. Yet, this newspaper is very well-read amongst entrepreneurs and
this might explain why this newspaper is more careful when it comes to stigmatizing part of its
audience.
Effect of the Number of Bankruptcies
The number of bankruptcies in a particular period might lead to the use of different media
frames and the use of more or less stigmatizing reports. We proposed that a negative relationship
would occur between the number of bankruptcy cases and the level of stigmatization in the
media. As can be seen in Figure 1, there are five years where the number of bankruptcies is
relatively high: 2003-2006 and 2009. In the years 2000 till 2002 and 2007 – 2008, the number of
bankruptcies was much lower. During the first half of the decade in years with many bankruptcy
cases, the responsibility frame (RF) was used most frequently. Since 2005 however, the human
interest frame has steadily become more and more popular and it has been the most dominantly
used media frame in relation to bankruptcy cases, even surpassing the responsibility frame
during the peaks in the number of bankruptcies in 2004/5 and 2009.
Figure 1 about here
Subsequently we examined whether in years with more bankruptcies the content of the
articles was less negative towards bankrupt entrepreneurs. As can be seen in Table 2 and Figure
2, a relationship could indeed be observed. In years with many bankruptcies, the number and
18
percentage of stigmatizing reports was higher than in years with fewer bankruptcies and these
patterns extend to each of the three newspapers. The exception to this pattern however is the year
2006. In this year the number of bankruptcies is still very high but the share of stigmatizing
articles drops sharply. An explanation for this could be that in that the media observed a
downward trend in the number of bankruptcy cases and anticipated that the trend would
continue. Alternatively, journalists might at this stage also begin to recognize that since so many
entrepreneurs suffered from bankruptcy in the preceding period, clearly they could not be to
blame for all of these bankruptcies.
Table 2 and Figure 2 furthermore show that the relationship between the number of
bankruptcies and the extent of stigmatization extends to all media frames but were most apparent
for articles adopting a human interest frame. In years with few bankruptcies, less than 12% of the
articles using a human interest frame is stigmatizing while in years with many bankruptcies this
share rises to more than 53%. The apparent volatility that is observed with respect to the use of
stigmatizing elements in articles based on a conflict frame is explained by the very small number
of articles in this category (n = 6) rather than by another underlying mechanism.
While overall the number of stigma-reducing articles is relatively limited (n = 63), more
than half of the articles adopting a morality frame are stigma-reducing. In years with fewer
bankruptcies this share rises to almost two thirds.
Figure 2 about here
To explore the relationship between the number of bankruptcies and the share of
stigmatizing frames further we investigated the previously observed difference between reports
about large and small entrepreneurs in more detail. As was reported, journalists use relatively
more stigmatizing frames when portraying entrepreneurs running larger businesses while they
typically use more neutral or stigma-reducing frames in their reports about entrepreneurs with
micro or small businesses. Figure 2 shows that the increased use of stigmatizing media frames in
years with many bankruptcies extends to small and large firms and likewise to reports about the
bankruptcy phenomenon in general. While the stigmatization of large firms was already
extensive in years with few bankruptcies, it rises further in years with many bankruptcies.
Stigmatizing reports about small firms and bankruptcy in general are not common in years with
19
few bankruptcies; yet, stigmatizing frames are used a lot more frequently in years with many
bankruptcies – though still much less compared to large firms. Based on these analyses, we
conclude that the level of stigmatization of all (ex-) bankrupt entrepreneurs in the media
increases when the number of bankrupts is high.
Effects of Prominent Bankruptcy Cases
In our theoretical framework we argued that prominent bankruptcy cases would lead to the usage
of more stigmatizing frames in the reports about other bankruptcy cases in the period following
the announcement. We expected this effect to be the largest when the reports about the
prominent case would be stigmatizing.
To determine the effects of these prominent cases on the framing of later bankruptcies, we
selected all the articles in our sample that were published in the three months prior to and the
three months after the announcement, whereby the articles published in the months prior to the
announcement of the prominent case were used to set a baseline. Next we determined which
frame types were used in these two periods and to what extent the articles in each period could
be classified as stigmatizing, neutral or stigma-reducing. The results are shown in Table 3.
Table 3 about here
As can be seen from Table 3, after all three prominent cases the relative use of stigmatizing
media frames increased as was in line with expectation. While the number of articles published
in the periods prior and after the announcement is too limited to infer robust conclusions, the
trend suggests that after the announcement of a prominent bankruptcy case, the articles about
other bankruptcy cases contain relatively more stigmatizing frames compared to the baseline
period. This effect is strongest when the baseline was less stigmatizing.
In the three months after the announcement of the DSB bankruptcy, we observed both an
increase in stigmatizing frames and in stigma-reducing frames in articles about other bankruptcy
cases. While these articles refer explicitly to the DSB case, these findings possibly mean that
rather than seeking balance, journalists find it more important to take a position in the public
20
debate on bankruptcy in general. Furthermore, in-depth analysis revealed an interesting pattern:
The increase in stigmatizing frames applied predominantly to articles about the bankruptcy
phenomenon in general and about entrepreneurs involved in medium sized and larger firms.
Almost all articles about entrepreneurs involved in micro and small firms remained neutral or
stigma-reducing in nature. This can be seen as further evidence that the stigmatization of
bankrupt entrepreneurs in the Netherlands does not apply to entrepreneurs involved in micro-
and small sized firms. Rather stigmatization of bankruptcy remains confined to the domain of
entrepreneurs running larger firms. In the discussion and conclusion section some possible
explanations will be discussed.
Discussion and conclusion
Through systematic analysis of newspaper reports about bankruptcies appearing in Dutch
newspapers in the past decade, we examined how mass media report about bankrupt
entrepreneurs and explored whether these reports contain evidence of stigmatization. In
particular, we sought to relate the nature of the reporting to the number of bankruptcies occurring
in a specific period and to the occurrence of prominent cases.
We have shown that over the entire decade about half of the articles published in the VK and the
FD on (ex-) bankrupt entrepreneurs contained elements of stigmatization, while less than a third
of the articles in the Telegraaf did so. Almost as many articles were neutral in tone and a
considerable share even showed elements of stigma-reduction. From this we might conclude that
overall the media present a fairly balanced image of entrepreneurial bankruptcy. Closer scrutiny
reveals that two important factors play a role in the level of stigmatization. First, contrary to our
expectations the level of stigmatization rose sharply in years with many bankruptcies (2003-
2006, 2009). In such years, the share of stigmatizing reports increased to about 53% at the
expense of the neutral reports. When excluding the year 2006, this share would even rise to more
than two-thirds. The relative share of the stigma-reducing reports remained stable in years with
many bankruptcies. This suggests that exposure to bankruptcy does not lead to the development
of a more forgiving attitude towards those affected by it. This finding is in contrast to results
reported in studies on the stigmatization of people suffering from mental illnesses or epilepsy
(Corrigan et al. 2001; Jacoby et al. 2004). At least in the case of entrepreneurial bankruptcy,
exposure does not breed kindness. A possible explanation for the more negative reporting in
21
years with many bankruptcies might be found in early studies on stigmatization conducted by
Neuberg et al (2000). These authors have suggested that stigmatization will happen when
individuals perceive specific behavior to be a threat to themselves or to the functioning of their
group (Neuberg et al. 2000). Similar ideas have been formulated by (Jones et al. 1984) who
argued that the perceived peril of a given attribute contributes to stigmatization. When more
firms go bankrupt, the costs to the economy increase and this will be felt by a larger part of the
society. Journalists – possibly responding to what they expect their audience wants to hear
(Wiesenfeld, Wurthmann, and Hambrick 2008) – might respond to this potential peril and utilize
a more negative tenor in their reports about individual bankruptcy cases.
When looking at the pattern of frame usages after the announcement of prominent
bankruptcy cases, we observed an increase in the level of stigmatization. These findings are
similar to previous studies on the impact of large-scale events such as the Chernobyl disaster
(Gamson and Modigliani 1989; Van Gorp 2007). Contemplating these findings, we think that the
announcement of prominent bankruptcy with its large debt and massive layoffs is some sort of
wake-up call again directing the journalist’s attention to the possible perils of bankruptcy in a
way similar to years with many bankruptcies. Interestingly, in the case of the DSB we not only
observe an increase in the usage of stigmatizing frames but also an increase in the use of stigma-
reducing frames. Possibly this means that rather than seeking balance or nuances in their reports,
journalists give priority to taking a position in the public debate.
The idea that the experienced peril can indeed explain the extent of stigmatization also
seems to be corroborated when looking at the way in which journalists differentiate between
large and small entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs involved in large firms are more frequently blamed
for the demise of their firm and for the consequences for others, while entrepreneurs previously
running smaller firms are more often portrayed as being victims. Clearly, the threat of
bankruptcy of a larger firm to (members of) society is significantly larger than those of a smaller
bankruptcy where fewer jobs are lost and typically the residual debt is lower. If the perceived
peril explains the level of stigmatization, it is therefore not surprising that articles about large
entrepreneurs are more negative than those about small entrepreneurs or about the phenomenon
of bankruptcy in general.
22
Another explanation for the higher level of stigmatization of entrepreneurs involved in
larger firms might be found in the Dutch culture. On the one hand, panel studies suggest that the
majority of the population is of the opinion that successful entrepreneurs have a high social
status (Hessels, Bosma, and Wennekers 2005). On the other hand, other studies (Trompenaars
and Hampden-Turner 1994) portray the Dutch “as more egalitarian and less hierarchical in than
any other culture included in their survey, the Dutch distrust anyone who shows off or draws
attention to him- or herself...no one is permitted to rise too high” [p269-270]. This resentment of
success includes entrepreneurs who were able to create a large company. This resentment can
lead to malicious delight or hidden pleasure when such individuals eventually fail (Angenot
2010). This culture of resentment might explain the higher level of stigmatization against large
entrepreneurs compared to small entrepreneurs. These findings are visualized in Figure 3. In
short, this figure shows that the number of bankruptcies and perceived impact therefore directly
affect the perceived level of peril. Cultural dimensions have both a direct and an indirect effect
on perceived peril, with firm size mediating the impact of cultural dimensions on perceived peril
where bankruptcies of larger firms lead to higher levels of perceived peril. All of this affects the
level of stigmatization of bankruptcy in media.
Insert Figure 3 here
Like any study ours has limitations. One concerns the timeframe of this investigation. We
decided to incorporate a full decade of newspaper articles in our investigation. This choice is
justifiable as during this decade we witnessed more than a complete economic cycle. At the
beginning of the decade the number of bankruptcies was low, rising steadily until 2005, then
declining again for a number of years in order to rise to the highest point of the decade under the
influence of financial and economic crisis in the year 2009. While writing up our study, the
number of bankruptcies is once more declining. Future studies could examine whether the
sudden decrease in the share of stigmatizing articles in 2006 – while the number of bankruptcies
was still high – is repeated since 2010.
Also, when looking at the time frame choice to explore the effect of high profile
bankruptcy cases, we have to consider a potential bias. While the declaration of a bankruptcy
23
case causes considerable attention in the media, many bankruptcy cases involve long term
investigation and settlement processes. In fact each of the prominent cases described in this study
are still open. Throughout a bankruptcy process the media might go back and report on relevant
developments as they occur over time. When it comes to complex cases, it is more than likely
that more accurate information about the event surfaces after some time passes. Therefore the
reports that are published later on in the case might have a more extensive effect on how other
bankruptcy cases are portrayed. Future research involving case study designs should shed more
light on the influence of prominent bankruptcies on stigmatization of bankruptcies in general.
Another limitation of this study is that we only classified articles on the basis of the
stigmatizing characteristics. It is generally accepted that mass media play a role in how other
stakeholders perceive groups of individuals and social phenomena and that a slight change in the
frames that media use have a significant effect on these perceptions. For instance Sniderman and
Theriault (2004) showed that when referring to the freedom of speech 85% of their first sample
indicated that meetings of hate groups should be allowed, while only 45% of their second sample
would allow such meetings after reference was made to the risk of violence involved in such
meetings (Sniderman and Theriault 2004). We expect similar effects to occur in relation to
stigmatization of bankrupt entrepreneurs; however, we did not actually test the responses these
articles evoked in the attitudes and perceptions of relevant stakeholders including the
entrepreneurs and those who support them. Also we do not know whether these other
stakeholders such as policy makers, bankers, consultants or suppliers differentiate between small
and large entrepreneurs in a similar way as we observed here and adjust their level of support
accordingly. Future studies should therefore be undertaken to establish the effect of the media
reports on the number of renascent entrepreneurs. What we can say is that at least the media do
not portray (ex-) bankrupt entrepreneurs in an overly negative manner thus strongly contributing
to a climate of stigmatization.
Finally, while some findings were quantified we did not aim to seek statistical validity in
this study. The observed frequencies and percentages reported in this study are merely used to
offer insights in the developing trends and patterns underlying our qualitative observations.
To conclude, this research contributes to the extant literature by examining the extent to
which bankrupt entrepreneurs are stigmatized in the mass media. Based on analysis of a decade
24
of newspaper articles, our results show that in the media the level of stigmatization towards small
entrepreneurs is lower than we expected based on anecdotal reports and popular belief
(European_Commission 2007); however, stigmatization increases in the years with many
bankruptcies and in the months following a prominent bankruptcy. We also found distinctions
made by journalists between entrepreneurs in charge of large and small firms respectively.
Although the number of articles that are actually stigma-reducing is limited, small entrepreneurs
might take comfort in our findings - at least they do not have to battle against negative media
reports.
References
Achtenhagen, L., and F. Welter. "'Surfing on the ironing board' - the representation of women's entrepreneurship in German newspapers." Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 23 (9-10):763-786.
Alesina, A., and E. L. Glaeser. 2004. Fighting poverty in the US and Europe: A world of difference. Oxford: Oxford University Press
An, S-K., and K. Gower. 2009. "How do the news media frame crises? A content analysis of crisis news coverage." Public Relations Review 35 (2):107-112.
Angenot, M. 2010. "The Ideologies of Resentment." AmeriQuests 7 (1).Burchell, B., and A. Hughes. 2006. The stigma of failure: An international comparison of failure
tolerance and second chancing. Cambridge: Center for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
Byrne, P. 2003. "Psychiatry and the media." Advances in Psychiatric Treatment 9 (2):135-143.Cebuco. 2009. "Oplage - en bereikcijfers " Accessed December 20th 2009.
http://www.cebuco.nl/dagbladen/oplage_en_bereik_cijfers.Corrigan, P., A. Green, R. Lundin, M.A. Kubiak, and D.L. Penn. 2001. "Familiarity with and
social distance from people who have serious mental illness." Psychiatric Services 52 (7):953-958.
Crocker, J., and D. Quinn. 2003. "Social stigma and the self: Meanings, situations, and self-esteem." In The social psychology of stigma, edited by T. Heatherton, R. Kleck, M. Hebl and J. Hull, 153-183. New York: Guilford Press.
Dake, Karl. 1992. "Myths of nature: Culture and the social construction of risk." Journal of Social issues 48 (4):21-37.
Damaraju, N.L., J. Barney, and G. Dess. 2010. "Stigma and entrepreneurial risk taking." Summer Conference, Imperial College London Business School.
Decrop, A. 1999. "Triangulation in qualitative tourism research." Tourism management 20 (1):157-161.
Douglas, Mary, and Aaron B Wildavsky. 1983. Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers: University of California Pr.
Entman, R. 1993. "Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm." Journal of communication 43 (4):51-58.
European_Commission. 2007. Overcoming the Stigma of Business Failure – for a Second Chance Policy Implementing the Lisbon Partnership for Growth and Jobs. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.
Falk, G. 2001. Stigma: How we treat outsiders: Prometheus Books.Furuya, K. 2002. "A socio-economic model of stigma and related social problems." Journal of
economic behavior & organization 48 (3):281-290.Gamson, W.A., and A. Modigliani. 1989. "Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear
power: A constructionist approach." American journal of sociology:1-37.Ghanem, S. 1997. "Filling in the tapestry: The second level of agenda setting." Communication
and democracy: Exploring the intellectual frontiers in agenda-setting theory:3-14.Goffman, E. 1963. Stigma: Notes on a spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Groen, A.J., I. Wakkee, and P.C. De Weerd-Nederhof. 2008. "Managing Tensions in a High-tech
Start-up An Innovation Journey in Social System Perspective." International small business journal 26 (1):57-81.
Hallahan, K. 1999. "Seven models of framing: Implications for public relations." Journal of Public Relations Research 11 (3):205-242.
Hessels, J, N Bosma, and S Wennekers. 2005. "Nieuw ondernemerschap in herstel; global entrepreneurship monitor 2004 Nederland (in Dutch), EIM publieksrapportage A200502." Zoetermeer: EIM.
Hunt, S. D. 1997. "Resource-advantage theory: an evolutionary theory of competitive firm behavior?" Journal of Economic Issues 31 (1):59-77.
Iyengar, S., and A. Simon. 1993. "News Coverage of the Gulf Crisis and Public Opinion A Study of Agenda-Setting, Priming, and Framing." Communication research 20 (3):365-383.
Jacoby, A., J. Gorry, C.l Gamble, and G.A. Baker. 2004. "Public knowledge, private grief: a study of public attitudes to epilepsy in the United Kingdom and implications for stigma." Epilepsia 45 (11):1405-1415.
Jones, E., A. Farina, A. H. Hastorf, and R. French. 1984. Social stigma: The psychology of marked relationships: WH Freeman New York.
Kasperson, R., N. Jhaveri, and J.X. Kasperson. 2001. "Stigma and the social amplification of risk: Toward a framework of analysis." In Risk, media, and stigma: Understanding public challenges to modern science and technology, edited by J. Flynn, P. Slovic and H. Kunreuther, 9-27. London/ Sterling: Earthscan.
Krippendorff, K. 2012. Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology: Sage.Landier, A. 2002. "Entrepreneurship and the Stigma of Failure." Unpublished thesis. Mimeo,
MIT.McCombs, M. 2013. Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion: Polity.McCombs, M., and D. Shaw. 1972. "The agenda-setting function of mass media." Public
opinion quarterly 36 (2):176-187.NationaalOnderzoekMultimedia. 2010. Managers Verknocht Aan Dagbladen. Amsterdam:
Nationaal Onderzoek Multimedia.
26
Neuberg, S., D. Smith, T. Asher, T. Heatherton, R. Kleck, M. Hebl, and J. Hull. 2000. "Why people stigmatize: Toward a biocultural framework." The social psychology of stigma:31-61.
Nicholson, L., and A.R. Anderson. 2005. "News and Nuances of the Entrepreneurial Myth and Metaphor: Linguistic Games in Entrepreneurial Sense‐Making and Sense‐Giving." Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 29 (2):153-172.
Otieno, C., H. Spada, and A. Renkl. 2013. "Effects of News Frames on Perceived Risk, Emotions, and Learning." PloS one 8 (11):e79696.
Pinel, E.C. 1999. "Stigma consciousness: the psychological legacy of social stereotypes." Journal of personality and social psychology 76 (1):114.
Reeder, G., and J. Pryor. 2008. "Dual psychological processes underlying public stigma and the implications for reducing stigma." Mens sana monographs 6 (1):175.
Reynolds, Paul D, Nancy M Carter, William B Gartner, and Patricia G Greene. 2004. "The prevalence of nascent entrepreneurs in the United States: Evidence from the panel study of entrepreneurial dynamics." Small Business Economics 23 (4):263-284.
Saldaña, J. 2003. Longitudinal qualitative research: Analyzing change through time: Altamira Pr.
Saxenian, AnnaLee. 1996. Regional advantage: Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128: Harvard University Press.
Scheufele, D. 1999. "Framing as a theory of media effects." Journal of communication 49 (1):103-122.
Schultz, C. J. P., and L. Achtenhagen. 2013. "Discouraging stereotypes? US newspaper coverage of ethnic minority entrepreneurs before the economic downturn." Journalism.
Semadeni, M., A.A. Cannella Jr, D.R. Fraser, and D. S. Lee. 2008. "Fight or flight: Managing stigma in executive careers." Strategic Management Journal 29 (5):557-567.
Semetko, H., and P. Valkenburg. 2000. "Framing European politics: A content analysis of press and television news." Journal of communication 50 (2):93-109.
Shepherd, D. A., J. G. Covin, and D. F. Kuratko. 2009. "Project failure from corporate entrepreneurship: Managing the grief process." Journal of Business Venturing 24 (6):588-600.
Shepherd, D.A. 2009. "Grief recovery from the loss of a family business: A multi-and meso-level theory." Journal of Business Venturing 24 (1):81-97.
Shepherd, Dean A, Johan Wiklund, and J Michael Haynie. 2009. "Moving forward: Balancing the financial and emotional costs of business failure." Journal of Business Venturing 24 (2):134-148.
Skovsgaard, M., E. Albæk, P. Bro, and C. de Vreese. 2013. "A reality check: How journalists’ role perceptions impact their implementation of the objectivity norm." Journalism 14 (1):22-42.
Sniderman, P.M., and S.M. Theriault. 2004. "The structure of political argument and the logic of issue framing." Studies in public opinion: Attitudes, nonattitudes, measurement error, and change:133-65.
Sprangers, A. , R. Timmermans, and V. Lalta. 2010. Bedrijfseconomisch ontslag verdubbeld in 2009. In Sociaal Economische Trends Zoetermeer: Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (CBS)
Sutton, R.I., and A.L. Callahan. 1987. "The stigma of bankruptcy: Spoiled organizational image and its management." Academy of Management Journal 30 (3):405-436.
27
Taylor, M., and R. Jack. 2012. "Understanding the pace, scale and pattern of firm internationalization: An extension of the'born global'concept." International Small Business Journal.
Thornhill, S., and R. Amit. 2003. "Learning about failure: bankruptcy, firm age, and the resource-based view." Organization Science 14 (5):497-509.
Trompenaars, F., and C Hampden-Turner. 1994. The seven cultures of capitalism: Value systems for creating wealth in the United States, Britain, Japan, Germany, France, Sweden, and the Netherlands. London: Piatkus.
Upmedia. 2010. "Profielwijzer." Accessed January 8th 2010. http://www.upmedia.nl/Klantenservice/Profielwijzer/tabid/803/language/nlNL/Default.aspx
Van Gorp, B. 2007. "The constructionist approach to framing: Bringing culture back in." Journal of communication 57 (1):60-78.
Weber, R. 1985. Basic Content Analysis. London: Sage.Wiesenfeld, B.M., K.A. Wurthmann, and D.C. Hambrick. 2008. "The stigmatization and
devaluation of elites associated with corporate failures: A process model." Academy of Management Review 33 (1):231-251.
Wilkins, L. 2006. "The Normative Challenge: Balancing the Long-Term Social Capital Created by News with the Demand for Short-Term Profit." Leadership in the Media Industry:77.