==Data found by other studies==
@article{ahl2006metaresearch},
Unfortunately this study was done in Turkey but they found that "No gender differences are observed in the impact of financial capital on the likelihood of becoming an entrepreneur"
===Research for women on boards specifically==
@article{ahern2012valuation},
title={The Changing of the Boards: The Impact on Firm Valuation of Mandated Female Board Representation},
author={Ahern, Kenneth and Dittmar, Amy},
journal={The Quarterly Journal of Economics}
year={2012}
abstract={In 2003, a new law required that 40% of Norwegian firms' directors be women—at the time only 9% of directors were women. We use the prequota cross-sectional variation in female board representation to instrument for exogenous changes to corporate boards following the quota. We find that the constraint imposed by the quota caused a significant drop in the stock price at the announcement of the law and a large decline in Tobin's Q over the following years, consistent with the idea that firms choose boards to maximize value. The quota led to younger and less experienced boards, increases in leverage and acquisitions, and deterioration in operating performance.},
URL={https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/127/1/137/1832366/The-Changing-of-the-Boards-The-Impact-on-Firm?redirectedFrom=fulltext}
}
This study from Norway but is interesting still
@article{sila2016firmrisk},
title={Women on board: Does boardroom gender diversity affect firm risk?},
author={Sila, Vathunyoo and Gonzalez, Angelica},
journal={Journal of Corporate Finance}
volume={36}
page={26-53}
abstract={We investigate the relationship between boardroom gender diversity and firm risk. To identify a causal effect of gender on risk, we use a dynamic model that controls for reverse causality and for gender and risk being influenced by unobservable firm factors. We find no evidence that female boardroom representation influences equity risk. We also show that findings of a negative relationship between the two variables are spurious and driven by unobserved between-firm heterogeneous factors.},
URL={http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0929119915001248}
}
@article{rose2007danishboards},
title={Does female board representation influence firm performance? The Danish evidence},
author={Rose, Caspar},
journal={Corporate Governance: An International Review}
volume={15}
Issue={2}
page={404-413}
abstract={Board diversity has become a major issue within corporate governance where a number of studies seek to explore the impact of diversity on firm performance. The debate focuses on questions such as whether a corporation’s board should reflect the firm’s stakeholders or be more in line with society in general. This article uses a sample of listed Danish firms during the period of 1998–2001 in a cross sectional analysis. Despite that fact that Denmark has gone very far in the liberalisation of women, Danish board rooms are still to a large extent dominated by men. Contrary to a number of other studies, this article does not find any significant link between firm performance as measured by Tobin’s Q and female board representation. This is also the case for board members’ educational background as well as the proportion of foreigners. It is argued that board members with an unconventional background are socialised unconsciously adopting the ideas of the majority of conventional board members, which entails that a potential performance effect does not materialise.},
URL={http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2007.00570.x/full}
}
Unfortunately is a Danish study. But, Danish board rooms are still to a large extent dominated by men. Contrary to a number of other studies, this article does not find any significant link between firm performance as measured by Tobin’s Q and female board representation.
==External factors that could explain the data==