Keeping (Social) Entrepreneurship Hybrid: Towards a Dangerous Research Agenda? (original) (raw)
Related papers
Entrepreneurship in search of its foundations
in the fields of social science, economics, sociology or management are incomplete to understand and analyze the essence, aims and functions of entrepreneurship ; they tend to focus on one facet of entrepreneurial behaviour with regard to their predominant concern : for the economists : market and equilibrium, social production of the entrepreneur, profitable development of the activity ; for the sociologists, the influence of social norms, cultural values and structures. Collectively, however, much progress has been made. Our position, in this article, is that the problem of entrepreneurship is part of a broader theory of the firm, based on an epistemology of collective action (Hatchuel, 2005). According to Hatchuel, in this general theory of collective action, the foundation stone of what an enterprise really is, should be the major issue and result of management sciences, and not of sociology or economics which deal with restricted interpretations of collective action. In this perspective, a collective action theory requires combining two main dimensions : the design and the regulation of action. In this purpose, we propose to articulate the artificialist perspective defended by Herbert Simon in the 1960s with the Sciences of Design and the regulationist approach or rule-based approach from Jean-Daniel Reynaud in his social regulation theory. Through this position this article searchs to open a dialogue between the social sciences by introducing a Project-Based View (PBV).
The Routledge Companion to Entrepreneurship
2014
entrepreneurship creates actual value potential for users to act upon. This act on the part of the user can be a purchase decision. Such an act makes the user (of this potential) into a consumer. The offer-what is there to consume-is the value potential. The decision to purchase means the value of the offer is greater (to the user) than the price at which it can be purchased. An mp3 player, when it first appeared, represented a value offer for a user. Economists interpret the act to purchase it for, say, $200 as the result of an economic decision: my ownership and use of the mp3 player is worth more to me than the price at which it is offered. We all know the economic basis for a purchase decision is but one of many, where aesthetic, social, political and psychological grounds often are of greater importance for explaining the decision to buy. The point here is simply to exemplify entrepreneurship as this social creation process that rigs action in fictional anticipation of actual actionable value potential. For this we have suggested that fabulation (narratively performed imagination; Hjorth 2013) and organization creation (Gartner 2012; Hjorth 2010, 2012a, 2012b) are central. Seeing entrepreneurship as part of the central forces shaping society also makes its philosophy important as it provides concepts for how to reflexively think about this entrepreneurship-society relationship. How is actionable value potential actualized then? Actualization, which has no resemblance to actual models, progresses via differentiation-it creates an original organizational coherence in which new value in turn can be actualized (Hardt 1993). This is creation as no order stands model. This is also why it is driven by fictional anticipation-imagination has to provide the images of what could become actual. We are not yet in the realm of economy here, where we find concepts like risk, uncertainty (Knight 1921) and ambiguity (the latter already at the border of economic thought). Rather, this is thinking's groping after what is not yet there, a becoming sensible of thought. Imagination, Massumi suggests (2002a: 134) can also be called intuition (philosophical intuition concerns that for which there are no facts as yet available; Hofmann 2010), or a feeling of thought groping after the un-thought, a movement in the freedom of the postinstrumental and preoperative. 1 This is where we find entrepreneurship's white canvas (Hjorth 2003), its entre-space (Steyaert 2000) and its space for play (Hjorth 2005). This is thus another way in which we arrive at thinking's challenge in entrepreneurship studies: our study centres on how action is rigged, through social processes of organization creation, in fictional anticipation of actual actionable value potential. There are connections to Kirznerian alertness (if we think this upstream into imagination or intuition) and Shackle (see Popp and Holt 2013) who, when rethinking economy and history, stress inceptive thought, a concept that comes close to what we have described above as fictional anticipation. 2 Philosophy shares this interest with us, and we have much to learn from this 'partnership'.
in Scandinavian Journal of Management: Special Issue: Recontextualising / Recreating Entrepreneurship, 2008
""Summary The entrepreneur is a character with many faces and many names. In this paper, I come across one of these faces as I read a Danish government report issued in year 2000: The Creative Potential of Denmark. This reading exhibits the discourse on entrepreneurship: it is constructed as a fairy tale. I further argue that the function of the fairy tale of the entrepreneur amounts to the saving of the world. More pointedly, I argue that the premise for this act of saving is the act of creation: The entrepreneur is a religious figure, and the practice with which we enact this figure in research entails faith and beliefs that science thought it had long abandoned. This relationship is traced back to logical positivism and August Comte’s Church of Humanity. The analysis shows that the religious character of the entrepreneur can be traced through the history of entrepreneurship research and to religious myths of creation. The possible consequences of this for entrepreneurship research are finally considered.""
L'ABÉCÉDAIRE CRITIQUE EN ENTREPRENEURIAT / CRITICAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP ABC PRIMER
The word 'identity', 2021
Distribution électronique Cairn.info pour Académie de l'Entrepreneuriat et de l'Innovation. © Académie de l'Entrepreneuriat et de l'Innovation. Tous droits réservés pour tous pays. La reproduction ou représentation de cet article, notamment par photocopie, n'est autorisée que dans les limites des conditions générales d'utilisation du site ou, le cas échéant, des conditions générales de la licence souscrite par votre établissement. Toute autre reproduction ou représentation, en tout ou partie, sous quelque forme et de quelque manière que ce soit, est interdite sauf accord préalable et écrit de l'éditeur, en dehors des cas prévus par la législation en vigueur en France. Il est précisé que son stockage dans une base de données est également interdit.
Cadernos Ebape, 2022
This essay investigates the displacement of the capitalist spirit to the ideology of entrepreneurship through a historical-materialist approach, aiming to apprehend reality from its ontogenetic contradictions and in its social development. This is a theoretical essay beginning from the gap in "critical approaches to entrepreneurship", contributing to deepen criticism of entrepreneurial practice, situating it before the stage of development of the productive forces in its historical path, and not only limited to capitalist realism that delimits human action by individualist, competitive, or even liberal acting. We emphasize that the spirit of capitalism corresponds to the movement of capital expansion while entrepreneurship is the ideological version of that spirit today, needing a system of ideas that puts it in motion, given its effectiveness as a means for subordination and impoverishment.
Entrepreneurship: multiple meanings and consequences
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 2004
Aim of the paper is to question for the meaning of entrepreneurship. A view through relevant pieces of the literature indicates that no consensual understanding exists about the understanding of the term. The most conventual practise is to translate entrepreneurship with self-employment. In this sense, the political postulated need to strengthen entrepreneurship will mean consequently to strengthen the ratio of self-employment. What is taken tooless into account, however, is the fact that even self-employment is fragmented into different classes of actors having different socioeconomic attributes, rationalities, and related biographies. Among this category of people, one may find the potential keys for future positive developments as well as one can meet with just the opposite, eg. people who are settled here since they have no other chances in the labour market for getting a job and related income. One of the conclusions is that entrepreneurship has multiple meanings and consequences.
Creativity, innovation, and the historicity of entrepreneurship
Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy, 2019
PurposeCreativity and innovation are interrelated, and indeed often conflated, concepts. A corollary to this distinction is two different perspectives or types of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs. The purpose of this paper is to explore the distinction between creativity and innovation on the basis of their relationship to history and implications for understandings of entrepreneurship.Design/methodology/approachThis paper is a theoretical exploration of entrepreneurship understood in relation to a proper distinction between creativity and innovation. Creativity and innovation differ from the perspective of their relationship to what has already happened in history vs the radical novelty of a particular discovery or invention.FindingsCreativity can be understood as what human beings do in connection with the fundamental givenness of things. Innovation, on the other hand, can be best understood as a phenomenon related to the historical progress of humankind. Innovation is what huma...
The sublime object of entrepreneurship
Organization, 2005
This paper engages with debates on enterprise culture and one of its key subjects-the entrepreneur. Enlisting the work of Jacques Lacan and Slavoj Ž ižek, we attempt to explain the continuing failure of entrepreneurship discourse to assign the character of the entrepreneur a positive identity. Shifting away from stable categories such as 'the entrepreneur', we describe entrepreneurship in terms of Lacan's concept of the Real and Ž ižek's concept of the sublime object. This allows us to critically scrutinize the operation of the phantasmic category of the entrepreneur. In addition to indicating some prospects for the future of psychoanalytic cultural criticism in organization studies, we make a case for a continual questioning of the subject, a questioning that is today being foreclosed by those critics who were first to call the subject into question.