IJEBR – CFP – New Technologies and Entrepreneurship

Special issue call for papers from International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research
The submission portal for this special issue will open on October 1, 2020.

Guest Editors:

Ciro Troise, University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli” (Leading G.E.)
Cyrine Ben-Hafaïedh, IÉSEG School of Management
Sergey A. Yablonsky, Graduate School of Management Saint-Petersburg State University
Mario Tani, University of Neaples “Federico II”

Aims and Scope
Digital transformation offers both intriguing challenges and new opportunities for these days entrepreneurs (Cohen et al, 2017; Li et al., 2018). New technologies are spreading all over the world, and new industries are rapidly changing and developing (Aydalot & Keeble, 2018). These new technologies include a wide range of new players that entered into the global arena. Among these enabling technologies there are the artificial intelligence and machine learning, the IoT and the big data, the digital platforms, the mobile applications (i.e. apps), cloud computing, blockchain, and more (as the Fintech ones, such as ICOs and crowdfunding). Their adoption and use are expected to be more and more pervasive in the next years.

The digital transformation has had consequences on several contexts, and it cannot be ignored by individuals (Andriole, 2017). New technological developments favor the creation and the diffusion of several new types of entrepreneurship (Oukil, 2011). For example, the recent advances in digital technologies have played a key role in growing a new, digital-based, entrepreneurship and for the development of related business models (Kraus et al., 2019; Nambisan, 2017). New technologies are having a disruptive impact on entrepreneurship, they change the traditional patterns, and they help to disclose new frontiers for entrepreneurs to explore in order to understand how they want to become self-employed (Broomé & Ohlsson, 2018).

A growing number of entrepreneurs leverage online social networking in order to create relations and to exchange knowledge (Scarmozzino et al., 2017). Some other studies investigated the impact of social media technologies on company performance (Ahmad et al., 2019) or the importance of the entrepreneurial teams (Ben-Hafaïedh et al., 2018; Santos et al., 2019).

Digital Platforms are among the new technologies entrepreneurs can exploit (Srinivasan & Venkatraman, 2018; Troise, 2019; Yablonsky, 2018). These new technologies have helped developing new business idea as new entrepreneurs, in fact, have focused their business models on exploiting these platforms’ characteristics.

Despite various new studies on the new technologies in several fields, as consumer behavior and innovation (Dominici, et al., 2016), there is still only a few studies specifically exploring the detail of how they are used by entrepreneurs in developing new business. In entrepreneurship studies, there are still various significant gaps on how these technologies will impact the future of entrepreneurship. There is an ongoing call for more research contributing to shed some light on various issues such as understanding the entrepreneurs “new behaviors”, with a particular focus on their motivations, the cognitive and emotional aspects, the new decision-making processes, and so on.

In this special issue we aim to explore the new entrepreneurial behaviors developed in the digital transformation era. These technologies influence entrepreneurial behaviors and have a significant impact on entrepreneurial decision-making processes. The special issue focused on the identification and analysis of the main behaviors of entrepreneurs in different fields.

Possible Topics
The Guest Editors encourage submissions of theoretical and empirical contributions investigating the impact of new technologies on entrepreneurial behaviors.

We will welcome contributions rooted in different fields, as long as the focus is on entrepreneurial behaviors and new technologies. We expect authors to provide new evidence and reveal new insights in the digital transformation era, thus contributing to the current entrepreneurship literature.

We welcome both theoretical and empirical studies, using a wide variety of methods, that advances the extant knowledge. We will welcome contributions from several disciplines as well as papers based on either quantitative or qualitative approaches.

Suitable topics of interest include, but are not limited to, the following:

Entrepreneurs intentions and behaviors in the digital transformation era;
The roles of new technologies in entrepreneurship;
New technologies and entrepreneurial decision-making process;
Factors (related to new technologies) influencing entrepreneurial behaviors;
Impact and effects of new technologies on different types of entrepreneurship;
Entrepreneurial firms affected by new technologies;
Entrepreneurial teams and new technologies;
Technologies 4.0 and entrepreneurship 4.0;
New technologies and new venture creation;
New venture phases and performances (e.g. birth, survivor, growth, etc.) in the digital transformation era;
Influences of new technologies on spin offs and start ups;
Digital revolution and entrepreneurial revolution;
Understanding the future of technology and entrepreneurship, toward a definition of technology 5.0 and entrepreneurship 5.0;
Integration or convergence of new technologies in affecting entrepreneurial behaviors.
Possible research questions could be (but are not limited to):

How do new technologies influence entrepreneurial behaviors?
What is the role of new technologies in promoting entrepreneurship and the spread of new businesses?
What is the role of new technologies in entrepreneurial decision-making process?
How and to what extent new technologies influence new venture creation?
What is the impact of new technologies on the growth and development of entrepreneurial firms?
How do new technologies affect entrepreneurial teams creation?

Call for papers – IJESB – Business Transfers: An Opportunity for Dialogue between Entrepreneurship and Family Business Research

Didier Chabaud et Bérangère Deschamps pilotent un numéro spécial  dans la revue International Journal of  Entrepreneuship and Small Business.

L’intitulé est Business Transfers: An Opportunity for Dialogue between Entrepreneurship and Family Business Research ».

Echéance : Les articles sont attendus pour mi mai 2020.

Ils proposent l’organisation d’un workshop d’échanges pour préparer ce numéro spécial  à l’IAE de Paris les 17 et 18 mars 2020.

Pour ce workshop, les articles sont attendus le 30 janvier 2020 au plus tard

  • Précisez dans l’objet du mail : “soumission workshop business transfer”
  • Didier Chabaud – chabaud.iae(at)univ-paris1.fr
  • Bérangère Deschamps – berangere.deschamps(at)iut2.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr> e

IJESB CFP_Business Transfer

Call for papers – RFG – Special Issue – Gouvernance et financement des firmes entrepreneuriales innovantes: nouvelles perspectives

Gouvernance et financement des firmes entrepreneuriales innovantes: nouvelles perspectives

Rédacteurs invités:

Véronique Bessière, Université de Montpellier, IAE, MRM

Eric Stéphany, Université de Montpellier, IAE, MRM

Peter Wirtz, Université de Lyon, iaelyon school of management, Magellan

Date limite de soumission : 31 janvier 2020

https://mrm.edu.umontpellier.fr/files/2019/06/Gouvernance_et_financement_des_firmes_entrepreneuriales_innovantes.pdf

Call for Papers – Journal of Small Business Management – In search of creative qualitative methods to capture modern-day entrepreneurship research challenges

Call for Papers – Journal of Small Business Management – In search of creative qualitative methods to capture modern-day entrepreneurship research challenges 

Special Issue Guest Editors

Martine Hlady-Rispal, University of Limoges, France
Alain Fayolle, EM Lyon, France
William B. Gartner, Babson College, U.S.

Submission deadline: January 15, 2020

Call for submissions

In 2014 JSBM call for submissions, Karastas-Ozkan, Anderson, Fayolle  et al. (2014) aimed to challenge dominant entrepreneurship perspectives and theorize entrepreneurship through new post-positivist epistemologies. They invited researchers to be more explicit in their ontological, epistemological and methodological underpinnings. The special issue authors also called for more contextualized studies, interdisciplinary approaches, studies with more organizational micro-dynamics focus.

To date, a number of scholars still deplore the insufficient recourse to qualitative methods in entrepreneurship affirming their specific contribution to the development of the field (e.g. Chalmers and Shaw, 2017; Hindle, 2018). Yet, qualitative methodologies are able to address fundamental entrepreneurship questions because they rely on tools to capture and analyze open, creative, flexible and contextualized data. They are interpretative since they describe, decode, and question the meaning of facts, actions, decisions, and actors’ representations that are currently taking place or that took place in the past (Hlady-Rispal and Jouison-Laffitte, 2014). Besides, qualitative methodologies have the potential to enhance the comprehension of modern-day entrepreneurship research challenges because the related tools are well adapted to the study of entrepreneurial processes that comprises loops, ruptures, enrichments, and rejections (Bygrave, 1989; Huse and Landström, 1997; Gartner and Birley, 2002; Hindle, 2004).

Among major challenges, the uberisation of the economy, along with the rarefaction of resources, climate changes, customers’ and workers’ quality of life aspirations, etc. create new forms of ventures, operating largely on the model of entrepreneurship. This model has the advantage for organizations of discharging social contributions and suggests that autoentrepreneurs be responsible for their “profitability” and “performance”. Understanding these new concepts is complex and requires holistic protocols.

This special issue is a call for research on the postures, tools and methods used to capture modern-day entrepreneurship research challenges. We are seeking papers that are reflexive in their nature and transparent in their application of such paradigmatic qualitative designs and theoretical underpinnings. In so doing, we aim to promote qualitative studies in entrepreneurship research that develop entrepreneurship theory based on rich and credible qualitative data collected and analyzed through detailed research methods. We sense that methodological understanding of the role of qualitative methods in the study of entrepreneurial phenomena is a critical priority, because it contributes to the study of methods adapted to the field and more generally of the link between qualitative methods and theory construction (Weick, 1979; Miles and Huberman, 1994; Klag and Langley, 2013). The objective of this special issue, therefore, is to show why and how qualitative methods clearly and distinctively contribute to the understanding of modern entrepreneurship issues.

Researchers studying modern entrepreneurship challenges can deploy a specific method or combine case study approaches with observation, ethnography, phenomenology, narratives, grounded theory, interviews, questioning or action learning and use multiple sources of data such as participant application forms, written feedback, participants’ interviews, videos, figures, etc. All the same, a “full-cycle” methodology that associates inductive qualitative approaches (ethnography and interviews) and deductive experimental methods (including field, lab-in-the-field and natural experiments) could be considered (Kuruvilla and Ranganathan, 2008). The qualitative methods help to elaborate hypotheses linking novel mechanisms for identification with modern-day entrepreneurial challenges, while the quantitative methods help to causally test these hypotheses using experimental designs. Through the diversity and forms they take, qualitative methods can also capture crucial entrepreneurial processes, such as the entrepreneurial mindset, opportunity construction, work–life balance, managing emotions and learning from failure (Fayolle, 2013). Core contributions of qualitative methods in the study of entrepreneurial challenges include understanding context, theory building, sense-making and enacting action (Hlady-Rispal and Jouison-Laffitte, 2014). They may also show that creative design and scientific validation are legitimate and complementary research approaches that can impel the constant regeneration of the entrepreneurship field and reveal the potential of an inclusive body of knowledge that is both demanding and appropriate (Romme and Reymen, 2018).

We therefore invite papers that help establish the relevance and utility of different qualitative postures and methods to the study of modern-day academic and entrepreneurship challenges. We also welcome papers with novel qualitative frameworks and with empirical grounding.  

Possible questions and areas to be addressed include, but are not limited to, the following:

  • Theorization: do we need specific theories for the study of modern-day entrepreneurship challenges? Is there a need for an inclusive body of knowledge? How can creative design and scientific validation be complementary and of equivalent input to research activities in entrepreneurship research?
  • Modern-day entrepreneurial contexts: how can qualitative research deal with modern-day challenges such as uberization, digitalization, neurosciences or sustainable entrepreneurship? How can they reveal today’s entrepreneurs’ idealized representations as regards to society and innovative contexts; how can they unveil new ways of capturing aspects of modern entrepreneurial worlds?
  • Entrepreneurial actors: how can qualitative studies follow entrepreneurial actors, organizations and environment in transformation; studying them as ‘something in motion’. How can they capture entrepreneurs’ new sense-making process concerning responsibility and performance and establish the interdependence between the entrepreneur, their venture and their contemporary environment?
  • Entrepreneurial organizations: how can qualitative research explain the role of personal and historical contingencies in the setting up of innovative starts-ups? Can they show the situated nature of modern entrepreneurial routines and praxes? Can they grasp temporal processes and their acceleration due to information sciences?

We also welcome papers that develop innovative methodological approaches and cross-disciplinary expertise (especially in sociology, ethnography and social psychology), including the interaction between different qualitative methods or between quantitative and qualitative approaches, through real empirical examples. Papers may also tackle the problem of the replication of qualitative studies in entrepreneurship research (Arend, 2018) and should explain their nature and posture, such as realism, critical realism, pragmatism, interpretivism and social constructivism. The papers will search to extent concepts or expand a specific theory and debate the need for specific theories for the entrepreneurship field. They will study modern day entrepreneurship challenges and consider entrepreneurial contemporary contexts.

Review process and timetable

  • Submission deadline: January 15, 2020
  • Feedback from reviewers: March 15, 2020
  • Submission of revised papers: September 1, 2020
  • Sending SI package to JSBM: October 15, 2020
  • Publication: January 2021 (Volume 59, Issue 1)

References

Arend, R. J. (2018). Why we can’t have nice things: Replications, applied external theories and accumulated knowledge. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 10, e00098.

Bygrave, W. (1989). “The Entrepreneurship Paradigm (I): A Philosophical Look at Its Research Methodologies,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 14(1), 7–26.

Byrne, J., Delmar, F., Fayolle, A., & Lamine, W. (2016). Training corporate entrepreneurs: an action learning approach. Small Business Economics, 47(2), 479-506.

Chalmers, D. M., & Shaw, E. (2017). The endogenous construction of entrepreneurial contexts: A practice-based perspective. International Small Business Journal, 35(1), 19-39.

Chandler G.N. and D.W. Lyon. 2001. “Issues of Research Design and construct Measurement in Entrepreneurship research: the past decade”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 25 4: 101-113.

Fayolle, A. (2013). Personal views on the future of entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 25(7-8), 692-701.

Gartner, W. B., & S. Birley (2002). “Introduction to the Special Issue on Qualitative Methods in Entrepreneurship Research,” Journal of Business Venturing 17(5), 387–396.

Hlady‐Rispal, M., & Jouison-Laffitte, E. (2014). Qualitative research methods and epistemological frameworks: A review of publication trends in entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management, 52(4), 594-614.

Hindle K. 2004. “Choosing qualitative methods for entrepreneurial cognition research: A canonical development approach”. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 28 6: 575-607.

Hindle D. (2018). PDW – “Crafting Scholar / Researcher Wisdom: Co-constructing Learning and Identity – Observations, Reflections and Futures”. Rent conference, November 14, Toledo, Spain.

Huse M., & Landström H. (1997). “European Entrepreneurship and small business research: methodological openness and contextual differences”. International Studies of Management and Organization 27 3: 3-12.

Klag, M., & Langley, A. (2013). Approaching the conceptual leap in qualitative research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(2), 149-166.

Miles, M. B., and A.M. Huberman. 1994. “Qualitative Data Analysis. An Expanded Sourcebook”. 2nd ed. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Kuruvilla, S., & Ranganathan, A. (2008). Economic development strategies and macro-and micro-level human resource policies: The case of India’s “outsourcing” industry. ILR Review, 62(1), 39-72.

Mullen M., D.G. Budeva, and P.M. Doney. 2009. “Research Methods in the leading small business-entrepreneurship journals: a critical review with recommendations for future research”. Journal of Small Business Management 47 3: 287-307.

Neergaard, H., & Ulhøi, J. P. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of qualitative research methods in entrepreneurship. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3rd edition, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Romme, A. G. L., & Reymen, I. M. (2018). Entrepreneurship at the interface of design and science: Toward an inclusive framework. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 10, e00094.

Weick, K. E. 1979. “The Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading”. MA: Addison-Wesley.

SALON DE L’ENTREPRENEURIAT – APPEL À EXPOSANTS

Le Salon de l’Entrepreneuriat revient pour une 4ème édition organisée par l’Agglomération Creil Sud Oise (ACSO) le jeudi 14 novembre 2019 à la Faïencerie de Creil. Ce salon est dédié à l’accompagnement des entrepreneurs que ce soit dans la création ou l’installation de leur entreprise. Les inscriptions, gratuites, sont d’ores et déjà ouvertes pour participer en tant qu’exposant à cet événement.

Le Salon de l’Entrepreneuriat offre aux visiteurs, qu’ils soient créateurs, repreneurs d’entreprises ou déjà chefs d’entreprise, un espace de rencontres afin de les accompagner dans toutes les étapes de leur projet. C’est ainsi l’occasion d’échanges avec les exposants sur la création, la reprise, le financement ou le développement d’entreprises selon leur domaine d’expertise.

La fréquentation et la participation au Salon de l’Entrepreneuriat est croissante avec, pour l’édition 2018, la présence de plus de 300 visiteurs pour plus de 40 exposants. Après un focus en 2018 sur la reprise d’entreprise, l’édition 2019 propose un zoom sur l’entrepreneuriat chez les jeunes.

Le développement économique et l’emploi sont un axe primordial pour les élus de la Communauté d’Agglomération Creil Sud Oise. Le Salon de l’Entrepreneuriat, notamment, constitue un des moyens d’atteindre cet objectif, témoignant d’une volonté de dynamiser l’économie du territoire.

Inscriptions gratuites et renseignements :

Communauté d’Agglomération Creil Sud Oise (ACSO)

Séverine BERGER
Responsable de l’événementiel

s.berger@creilsudoise.fr
Tél : 03 44 64 74 67

Appel à candidature : prix de thèse Sphinx 2019

Prix de thèse Sphinx 2019 : Appel à candidature

Dans le cadre de sa politique d’encouragement de l’enseignement et de la recherche universitaire, la société Le Sphinx reconduit le volet relatif à la distinction des meilleurs travaux doctoraux en sciences de gestion, en sciences de l’Information et de la Communication et en sciences de l’Education et décerne son Prix de thèse Sphinx 2019.
Le Prix de thèse Sphinx a pour but de distinguer des jeunes chercheurs dont les travaux sont d’une grande qualité notamment sur le plan méthodologique. Les candidats éligibles sont des chercheurs ayant rédigé et soutenu une thèse entre janvier et décembre 2018, dans une université française ou francophone. L’usage des logiciels Sphinx n’est pas un critère de sélection pour ce prix.

L’objectif est de valoriser la recherche et les publications scientifiques et de renforcer la collaboration entre les grandes écoles et universités et la société Le Sphinx dans le domaine des techniques d’enquêtes et de l’analyse des données.
Les deux lauréats du Prix de thèse Sphinx 2019 recevront respectivement un prix de 1000 et 500 euros ainsi qu’un équipement logiciel Sphinx.

Pour plus d’informations, cliquez sur le lien suivant : https://www.lesphinx-developpement.fr/wp-media/uploads/2019/06/Prix-de-th%C3%A8se-Sphinx_2019.pdf

Revue de l’Entrepreneuriat – Appel à contributions – CFP –  Nascent (student) entrepreneur: from intention(s) to action

Call for Papers – Special Issue of La Revue de l’entrepreneuriat

 Nascent (student) entrepreneur: from intention(s) to action

 Guest Editors:

 Norris Krueger, Boise School of Advanced Studies, USA

Jean-Pierre Boissin, University of Grenoble Alpes, France

Adnane Maalaoui, IPAG Business School, France

Erno Tornikoski, University of Exeter Business School, UK

Jean Michel Sahut, IDRAC Business School, France

 

Has there ever been greater interest in business creation? From policymakers to business communities, up to the general public person, business creation is increasingly at the top of mind. For example, business creation occupies an increasingly important place in the educational ecosystem, in particular in the higher education sector. Universities and Business Schools provide students with numerous and varied entrepreneurship courses and other promotion actions. This movement is accompanied by a greater investment in business creation supporting structures like incubators and accelerators. In France, student entrepreneurship is considered of as a national priority, particularly through the Student Plan for Innovation, Transfer and Entrepreneurship (PÉPITE) supported by French government. Its mission is to encourage students willing to create their own business within higher education institutions by granting them the National Student Entrepreneur Status (SNEE). The plan aims to facilitate and encourage the experience of business start-ups and takeovers among students and young graduates.

Despite all this, entrepreneurship in modern economies is actually shrinking; entrepreneurial density has been in a long-term decline since the late 1970’s in most Western countries, even the USA. Business dynamism shows a similar decline.

Interest and intent are rising but action is not? This call for papers (CFP) directly addresses this conundrum with a particular focus on the potential role of entrepreneurial education and training. We invite scholars and educators to help us understand how intent becomes action and how educators and policymakers can address that.

Student entrepreneurship is receiving increasing attention in the world of practitioners and research (Marchand and Hermens, 2015). The use of psycho-cognitive models in particular enables the exploration of student entrepreneurial experience’s determinants, bringing a significant change in their thinking patterns (Maalaoui et al., 2018a). Research and entrepreneurial pedagogy are closely linked (Maalaoui et al., 2018b), one feeding another in an iterative process. For this reason, teachers and researchers have examined the issue of students’ entrepreneurial intentions (Boissin et al., 2009, Boissin et al., 2017).

Intention models are predictive (Krueger, 2003). They aim at understanding individual but also collective (Shepherd and Krueger, 2002) attitudes towards business creation. Researches on entrepreneurial intentions are numerous (Krueger and Carsrud, 1993; Krueger et al., 2000; Krueger, 2017, Nabi et al., 2017; Maalaoui and Germon, 2017). They are mainly based on Ajzen’ s theory of planned behaviour (1991) along with Shapero and Sokol’s entrepreneurial event theory (1982).

While these models have proven to be extremely robust in capturing students’ representations that underpin their intention to create business, recent works call for a deeper understanding of its implementation into actual behaviour (Fayolle and Linan, 2014). Recent works have addressed the now famous intention-action gap, through notions such as implementation intention (Krueger, 2017, Van Gelderen et al., 2018), motivation (Carsrud ​​and Brännback, 2011) or commitment (Adam and Fayolle, 2015). In a forthcoming article published in International Small Business Journal (ISBJ) (Tornikoski and Maalaoui, 2019), Icek Ajzen argues that intentions and behaviours are based on a cognitive and affective foundation that consists of three sets of beliefs readily accessible in memory at the time of the behaviour […] the ability to act on an intention depends on the degree of control over performance of the behavior.  Behavioral control can be increased by providing people with the required resources and by removing barriers”. However, so far, little empirical research integrates such constructs to extend the original model of intention.

Starting a business is a long and complex process, involving multiple activities (Carter et al., 1996, Gartner 1985, Reynolds and White, 1997) and a considerable amount of effort and time. It requires the entrepreneur to be fully engaged and focused on pursuing his or her goals. For a student at the end of his or her studies or a recent graduate, entrepreneurial experience can constitute a first brick in the construction of a professional career, but also a learning process, in continuity with the academic training they have received. Therefore, it is crucial to understand what leads these student-entrepreneurs to persevere in their efforts and to actually create their business. Studying how this subpopulation of nascent entrepreneurs translate their entrepreneurial intention into concrete action can thus help us better understand the entrepreneurial process.

The purpose of this special issue is to explore the gap between intention and action among students. The idea is to understand the students’ propensity to undertake and the singularity of these behaviours. We would like, in particular, to shed a new light on the models of cognitive psychology that would explain their enactment. The field of investigation of this file thus covers the study of student entrepreneurship in all its dimensions, but also the psychological and cognitive determinants of the latter.

Proposals to contribute to this special issue may include the following topics:

– Gap between intention and action for student entrepreneurs;

– The translation of entrepreneurial intention into entrepreneurial behaviour, including the role played by constructs like intention implementation, motivation or commitment;

– Impact of education and support structures on students’ entrepreneurial transition;

– Nature and specificity of the entrepreneurial commitment of student-entrepreneurs

This non-exhaustive list can be enriched with contributions addressing the topic through other disciplines.

The articles must comply with the requirements of the Entrepreneurship Journal. The publication of the thematic issue “Student Entrepreneurship: from intention to action” is planned for the 3rd quarter of 2020. The article proposals are to be sent to: Jean-Pierre Boissin: jean-pierre.boissin@grenoble-iae.fr  and Adnane Maalaoui: a.maalaoui@ipag.fr

Calendar:

  • Submission deadline : November 1st, 2019
  • Acceptance notifications (1st Round) : February 2, 2020
  • Transmission of amended proposals (2nd Round) : 30 March 2020
  • Feedback to authors (2nd Round) : May 30, 2020
  • Reception of the final version of articles: July 2, 2020

References :

Ajzen I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.

Boissin, J. P., Chollet, B., & Emin, S. (2009). Les déterminants de l’intention de créer une entreprise chez les étudiants: un test empirique. M@ n@ gement12(1), 28-51.

Boissin, J. P., Favre-Bonté, V., & Falcy, S. F. (2018). Diverse Impacts Of The Determinants Of Entrepreneurial Intention. Revue de l’Entrepreneuriat.

Branchet, B., Boissin, J. P., & Hikkerova, L. (2017). Modeling entrepreneurship intentions: an essay of typology. Management International21(2), 109.

Krueger, N. F. (2003). The cognitive psychology of entrepreneurship. In Handbook of entrepreneurship research(pp. 105-140). Springer, Boston, MA.

Krueger, N. F. (2017). Entrepreneurial intentions are dead: Long live entrepreneurial intentions. In Revisiting the Entrepreneurial Mind (pp. 13-34). Springer, Cham.

Krueger Jr, N. F., Reilly, M. D., & Carsrud, A. L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of business venturing15(5-6), 411-432.

Krueger, N. F., & Carsrud, A. L. (1993). Entrepreneurial intentions: applying the theory of planned behaviour. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development5(4), 315-330.

Tornikoski, E. , Maalaoui, A. (2019). Critical Reflections. Exploring the Theory of Planned Behavior

An Interview with Icek Ajzen and Implications for Entrepreneurship Research, International Small Business Journal, Forthcoming (Available online).

Maalaoui, A., Perez, C., Bertrand, G., & Razgallah, M. (2018). 2″ Cruel intention” or” entrepreneurial intention”: what did you expect?. A Research Agenda for Entrepreneurial Cognition and Intention, 7.

Maâlaoui, A., & Germon, R. (2017). Entrepreneurial Intention through the Cognitive Psychology Approach: Past, Present and Future Research. Revue de l’Entrepreneuriat17(2), 17-26.

Nabi, G., Liñán, F., Fayolle, A., Krueger, N., & Walmsley, A. (2017). The impact of entrepreneurship education in higher education: A systematic review and research agenda. Academy of Management Learning & Education16(2), 277-299.

Shapero, A., & Sokol, L. (1982). The social dimensions of entrepreneurship.

Shepherd, D. A., & Krueger, N. F. (2002). An intentions–based model of entrepreneurial teams’ social cognition. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice27(2), 167-185.

Van Gelderen, M., Kautonen, T., Wincent, J., & Biniari, M. (2018). Implementation intentions in the entrepreneurial process: concept, empirical findings, and research agenda. Small Business Economics51(4), 923-941.

Numéro Spécial RSG – L’entreprise libérée aujourd’hui : enjeux et perspectives

Parution : 2020

RSG appel à contributions Entreprise Libérée

Rédacteurs en chef invités
Pr. Annabelle JAOUEN Montpellier Business School
a.jaouen@montpellier-bs.com
Pr. Sylvie SAMMUT Université de Montpellier
sylvie.sammut@umontpellier.fr

L’entreprise libérée rencontre de plus en plus d’adeptes depuis quelques années. Ceux-ci voient en elle des innovations organisationnelles, managériales, voire sociales majeures (Getz, 2009 ; Getz & Carney, 2012 ; Jacquinot & Pellissier-Tanon, 2015 ; Vandermissen, 2015 ; Holtz, 2016). Cette démarche part du principe que d’autres formes d’organisation et de management sont nécessaires, notamment dans un contexte VUCA: l’un des postulats de ces approches, bien que différente, de l’entreprise libérée (p.ex. organisation agile, holacracy, organisation opale), est que le modèle classique d’entreprise a oublié l’homme. La Révolution Industrielle, qui a inauguré le modèle de la hiérarchie bureaucratique fondé sur la subordination et le contrôle, a été suivie de plusieurs évolutions, le taylorisme, le fordisme, la direction par objectifs ou encore la financiarisation de l’entreprise (Gomez, 2014). Toutes ont visé l’optimisation économique en traitant les salariés comme une ressource — la ressource humaine (Dupuis, 2015).
Mesurée par l’augmentation du niveau de vie, cette optimisation a triomphé comme jamais encore aucune organisation de travail dans l’histoire (Maddison, 1991, 2004). Toutefois, au début du milieu des années 2000, l’adéquation du modèle classique au monde VUCA, aux attentes de jeunes générations ainsi que de la société en générale est mise en question (Halévy, 2013), tandis que les entreprises cherchent des approches organisationnelles et managériales différentes (Jaouen & Le Roy, 2013 ; Aigouy & Granata, 2017) et la société questionne les pratiques des entreprises qui laissent peu de place à l’homme et au sens (voir l’émergence des entreprises à mission, celles de « conscious capitalism », etc).
Une entreprise libérée est définie comme « une forme d’organisation dans laquelle les salariés sont totalement libres et responsables dans les actions qu’ils jugent bon d’entreprendre » (Getz, 2009, p. 35). Elle est donc un concept philosophique défini à partir de la fonction de l’entreprise (permettre la liberté et la responsabilité d’initiative) et non un modèle (ensemble de caractéristiques structurelles et organisationnelles) (Getz, ibid.). Le rôle d’un leader libérateur consiste justement à articuler la philosophie de l’entreprise libérée pour coconstruire avec les salariés le mode d’organisation libérée unique de leur établissement (Getz, 2012, 2017 ; Holtz, 2016). Ces entreprises font confiance à l’intelligence des salariés, reconnaissent la richesse et les dons de chacun et permettent que chacun puisse s’auto-diriger (Getz, 2009 ; Vanhée, 2013 ; Trouvé, 2014 ; Jacquinot & Pellissier-Tanon, 2015).
Dans le passé, un grand nombre d’approches organisationnelles alternatives au modèle classique ont été avancées sur le plan théorique (p.ex., sociocracy, empowerment, équipes semi-autonomes). Toutefois, la mise en place de ces approches ne se faisait que marginalement jusqu’au milieu des années 2000. La misee n place de l’entreprise libérée, bien que non-conceptualisée à l’époque, restait aussi marginale (Getz, 2009). C’est à partir du milieu des années 2000que la mise en place massive de l’entreprise libérée a vu le jour. L’entreprise libérée est aujourd’hui déployée à différents degrés dans des centaines d’entreprises et organisations, y compris de grandes institutions comme Airbus, Décathlon, Michelin ou la Sécurité Sociale, et surtout en France (Getz, 2017). En 2016, elle était jugée par un échantillon de 1600 managers français comme le sujet de management le plus important en France (Kalika et al., 2016). L’adoption de l’entreprise libérée exige une transformation majeure des pratiques traditionnelles de l’entreprise, celles-ci étant initiées et défendues par la direction (Holtz, 2016), la co-construction de l’organisation libérée se faisant avec les salariés (Breu, et al., 2001 ; Dyer & Shafer, 1999 ; Goldman & Nagel, 1993 ; Shafer, 1997 ; Shafer, et al., 2001 ; Van Oyen, Gel & Hopp, 2001), ainsi que le travail du dirigeant sur son lâcher prise et sa posture (Davids, Carney & Getz, 2018 ; Vanhee, 2013). Mais l’entreprise libérée fait également l’objet de débats, tant sur les modalités que sur le concept lui-même.

Ce numéro spécial vise à avancer l’état de l’art sur le sujet de la libération des entreprises. Il privilégiera les articles fondés sur une forte connaissance du terrain des entreprises libérées et/ou de leurs dirigeants (données primaires), mais n’écartera pas des articles susceptibles de mettre la philosophie de l’entreprise libérée dans une plus large perspective théorique. Plusieurs thématiques pourront être abordées :

  • Processus de libération et rôle du leader libérateur,
  • Approche critique de l’entreprise libérée,
  • Conditions de faisabilité et prérequis organisationnels,
  • Motivation de dirigeants et de managers pour adopter ce process,
  • Conséquences humaines, organisationnelles et stratégiques de la libération de l’entreprise,
  • Place du salarié dans l’entreprise libérée,
  • Libération des PME : la petite taille facilite-t-elle les processus ? Quelles spécificités du processus de libération dans ce contexte ?
  • Au plan pratique, le processus d’adoption des concepts de l’entreprise suscite également un certain nombre de questions :
  • Qu’est-ce qui motive les dirigeants d’entreprises à adopter cette philosophie d’entreprise spécifique ?
  • Quels sont les traits caractéristiques de ces dirigeants ?
  • Comment impliquer les salariés et les managers dans le processus ?
  • Comment accompagner la libération ?

Malgré le caractère massif de l’adoption du concept d’entreprise libérée par les praticiens de l’entreprise,

ces processus d’adoption sont à l’origine de nombreux défis (Getz, 2012, 2017 ; Gilbert et al., 2017).

Quelques démarches de libération se sont, par exemple, arrêtées malgré des succès économiques et sociaux reconnus (Henry et al., 2017). Ces défis constituent également autant de thématiques qui pourront être abordées dans ce numéro spécial :

  • Quel travail sur soi, quel changement de posture, ont conduit, ou pas, les leaders à adopter les concepts d’organisation alternative fondés sur la confiance ?
  • Quel accompagnement ont-ils proposé, ou pas, à leurs managers ?
  • Quelle attitude ont-ils adopté vis-à-vis des managers et/ou des salariés qui n’ont pas souhaité participer au processus de l’adoption ?
  • Ont-ils procédé, ou pas, à l’élaboration et au partage d’une vision, du « pourquoi » de leur entreprise ?
  • Ont-ils travaillé, ou pas, avec les RH et les partenaires sociaux ?
  • Ont-ils impliqué ou pas leurs actionnaires ou organismes de tutelle ?
  • Comment mesurent-ils la réussite de leurs démarches ?
  • Quid des échecs dans les processus de libération ?

Des études de cas, ainsi que des avis d’experts (sous forme de papier court de 4500 signes maximum) seront également bienvenus.

 

Calendrier

  • Réception des propositions d’articles : 30 juin 2019
  • Retour des évaluations aux auteurs : 15 octobre 2019
  • Réception des versions révisées : 30 janvier 2020
  • Retour des 2ndes évaluations aux auteurs : 30 avril 2020
  • Envoi des versions finales : 30 juin 2020
  • Date de parution du numéro spécial : Automne 2020

 

Consignes aux auteurs

Les propositions devront être conformes à la politique éditoriale de la revue, ainsi qu’aux normes de présentation. Les consignes de mise en forme sont accessibles sur le site internet de la revue ou sur le lien suivant : http://www.larsg.fr/mise-en-page-des-articles/#.XAd8z-KNxPY

Les propositions à envoyer à : Pr. Annabelle JAOUEN, Montpellier Business School, a.jaouen@montpellier-bs.com

Les propositions feront l’objet d’une évaluation en double aveugle. Les rédacteurs en chef invités s’engagent à respecter un délai rapide d’évaluation.

 

Bibliographie

Aigouy C. & Granata J. (2017). L’implémentation de la simplification en tant qu’innovation organisationnelle et première étape d’un processus de libération : le cas de Volkswagen Groupe France, Revue Internationale de Psychologie et Comportements Organisationnels, vol. 23, n°56, p. 63-85.

Breu, K., Hemingway, C. J., Strathern, M., & Bridger, D. (2001). Workforce agility: The new employee strategy for the knowledge economy. Journal of Information Technology, vol.17, n°1, p. 21-31.

Dupuy, F. (2015). La faillite de la pensée managériale. Paris : Seuil.

Dyer, L., & Shafer, R. A. (1999). From human resource strategy to organizational effectiveness: Lessons from research on organizational agility. In M. A. Wright, L. Dyer, J. Boudreau & G. Milkovich, Strategic human resource management in the 21st century, Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, Supplement 4 (p. 145-174). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Getz, I., (2009), Liberating leadership: how the initiative-freeing radical organizational form has been successfully adopted. California Management Review, vol. 51, n° 4 (traduit dans Getz, I. (2017),

L’entreprise libérée : Comment devenir un leader libérateur et se désintoxiquer des vieux modèles, Fayard, p. 24-88).

Getz I. (2012), La liberté d’action des salariés : une simple théorie ou un inéluctable destin ?, Gérer et comprendre, n° 108, p. 27-38.

Getz I. (2017), L’entreprise libérée, Paris : Fayard.

Getz, I., Carney, B., (2012). Liberté & Cie : Quand la liberté des salariés fait le succès des entreprises. Paris :Fayard.

Gilbert, P., Teglborg, A. C., & Raulet-Croset, N. (2017). L’entreprise libérée, innovation radicale ou simple avatar du management participatif ? Gérer et comprendre, n° 1, p. 38-49.

Goldman, S. L., Nagel, R. N. (1993). Management, technology and agility: The emergence of a new era in manufacturing, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 8, n° 1-2, p. 18-38.

Halévy, M. (2013), Prospective 2015-2025, L’après-modernité, Paris : Éditions Dangles, Hamel G. (2008), La fin du management, Paris : Vuibert.

Henry, B., Godart, F., Berrada, M. (2017). Biscuits Poult SAS: Can Alternative Organizational Designs be Successful? INSEAD Case Study.

Holtz, T. (2016), Les pratiques managériales dans les entreprises libérées. Quelles singularités ? Quels impacts sur la qualité de vie au travail ? Le cahier des RPS, vol. 27, p. 27-38.

 

Special Issue – Entreprendre & Innover – L’ENTREPRENEURIAT DURABLE ET RESPONSABLE : quels enjeux pour les formations à l’entrepreneuriat?

Éditeur·trice·s : Valérie Ballereau, Matthias Pepin, Olivier Toutain, Maripier Tremblay

Appel à contribution N°43

 Thématique du numéro spécial

Les enjeux du développement durable sont aujourd’hui une réalité dans le quotidien des enseignant·e·s-chercheur·e·s en entrepreneuriat. En dépit d’une volonté de plus en plus largement partagée de tendre vers un entrepreneuriat dit responsable[1], c’est-à-dire s’inscrivant dans la perspective du développement durable (DD), les formateur·trice·s en entrepreneuriat se retrouvent souvent à bricoler des animations, insérant par-ci par-là une réflexion ou un exercice touchant aux enjeux du DD ou aux pratiques permettant d’y contribuer, sans réelle intégration au sein d’un programme de formation cohérent et structuré autour du cadre de la responsabilité. En effet, l’entrepreneuriat responsable demeure un sujet essentiellement émergent. Les référents théoriques, tout comme les outils pratiques pouvant être utilisés concrètement dans le cadre de formations à l’entrepreneuriat, restent de ce fait relativement peu nombreux[2], tandis que les programmes en entrepreneuriat directement axés sur la responsabilité sont encore peu répandus[3].

C’est le caractère émergent du sujet de l’entrepreneuriat responsable, et à plus forte raison la question contemporaine de son intégration aux formations à l’entrepreneuriat, qui fondent la pertinence de proposer un numéro spécial sur le sujet. En effet, au-delà d’une conscientisation relative au DD, ce sujet demeure encore souvent un objet de réflexion périphérique dans le quotidien des enseignant·e·s-chercheur·e·s, dans le sens où plusieurs souhaiteraient tendre vers cette orientation responsable de l’entrepreneuriat, sans savoir concrètement comment s’y prendre ou avoir le temps de s’informer sérieusement sur le sujet[4]. De ce fait, peu de chercheur(e)s orientent encore leurs recherches en ce sens. Les formateurs et formatrices en entrepreneuriat n’ont par ailleurs eux elles-mêmes qu’une formation limitée, sinon aucune formation, relative au DD. Dans cet esprit, on peut penser que la question de l’intégration de la responsabilité aux formations à l’entrepreneuriat appelle des collaborations multidisciplinaires permettant d’aborder en profondeur les enjeux relatifs au DD, objet touchant par définition de multiples dimensions (environnementale bien sûr, mais également sociale, économique, culturelle, et autres).

Dans la continuité de nos propres réflexions et questionnements sur le sujet[5], ce numéro spécial se donne pour triple objectif : 1) de mettre en débat le concept d’entrepreneuriat responsable dans un contexte de formation ; 2) de montrer, de manière pragmatique, comment les formateurs entrepreneuriat peuvent mobiliser cette dimension et 3) d’esquisser les enjeux relatifs à l’intégration de la responsabilité aux formations à l’entrepreneuriat.

En toile de fond, les propositions articuleront leurs questionnements à la formation à l’entrepreneuriat :

  • Comment intégrer le cadre de la responsabilité aux formations à l’entrepreneuriat ? Est-il pertinent de le faire ? Quels sont alors les enjeux ? Existe-t-il des pratiques gagnantes en la matière ? Quelles compétences particulières l’entrepreneur·e· responsable doit-il/elle développer et comment s’y prendre ? [6]

 

Les propositions, sous la forme d’un résumé étendu, traiteront, entre autres, des sujets suivants :

  1. Concernant l’organisation de la formation :
    • La formation dans le domaine de l’entrepreneuriat responsable nécessite-elle :
      1. Une/des approche(s) pédagogique(s) particulière(s) ?
      2. La prise en compte d’un écosystème éducatif élargi, impliquant une communauté d’acteur·trice·s dans et en dehors de la faculté ?
      3. Des interactions d’un nouvel ordre entre acteur·trice·s de la formation et les professionnel·le·s (dirigeant·e·s d’entreprise, financeurs, accompagnateur·trice·s, institutions, etc.) investi·e·s dans le champ de l’entrepreneuriat responsable ?
      4. Des profils d’enseignant·e·s particuliers ?
      5. Des modes d’évaluation d’un nouveau genre ?
  1. Concernant le contenu de la formation :
  • Comment définir l’entrepreneuriat responsable ? Les référents (théoriques, épistémologiques, axiologiques, etc.) de la durabilité et de la responsabilité convergent-ils ? En d’autres termes, « durable » et « responsable » sont-ils des synonymes ? [7]
  • Comment lier les réflexions et questionnements relatifs aux travaux conduits sur le développement durable, la RSE en PME et l’entrepreneuriat responsable ? En quoi le mouvement des Principles of Responsible Management Education (PMRE), de même que les Objectifs du développement durable (ODD) des Nations Unies peuvent-ils nourrir l’entrepreneuriat durable/responsable ? [8]
  • Quels sont les modèles d’affaires qui intègrent le cadre de la responsabilité ? En quoi ces modèles d’affaires responsables ont-ils un impact sur la vision stratégique et les décisions prises par les créateurs ·trice·s et dirigeant·e·s de PME en lien avec le DD ? [9]
  • L’entrepreneuriat responsable appelle-t-il une organisation différente des entreprises ? Quel(s) mode(s) de gouvernance devraient-ils être privilégié(s) ? [10]

 Deux types de contributions sont attendues :

  • Des contributions issues de travaux de recherche visant à discuter de la notion d’entrepreneuriat responsable et de son intégration aux formations à l’entrepreneuriat. Selon les orientations de la revue Entreprendre et Innover, il est alors attendu que ces contributions soient apporteuses de contributions utiles, pragmatiques et privilégient le dialogue entre chercheurs et praticiens ;
  • Des contributions de nature pratique liées à une formation en entrepreneuriat qui intègre les questions de responsabilité. Dans ce dernier cas, il est attendu que ces contributions soient accompagnées d’une réflexion critique permettant de tirer leçon des expériences rapportées.

 

Echéances :

–          Soumission des résumés étendus (2 à 3 pages, références incluses) : au plus tard le 30 juin 2019

–          Retour aux auteurs : 15 juillet 2019

–          Soumission des textes complets : 1er novembre 2019

–          Processus d’arbitrage et d’édition : décembre 2019 à mai 2020

–          Parution : Juin 2020

 

Ligne éditoriale

La revue Entreprendre et Innover est une revue de vulgarisation de haut niveau dans le domaine de l’entrepreneuriat et de l’innovation éditée par de Boeck Université. Son ambition est de mettre à la portée d’un lectorat de cadres, entrepreneurs, professionnels des réseaux de création d’entreprises et dirigeants d’entreprises, des articles originaux, solides sur le plan scientifique ou innovants sur le plan des idées exprimées, dans un format plus accessible que celui des publications académiques classiques. La revue est ouverte à TOUTES les disciplines et à TOUS les points de vue qui s’intéressent à l’entrepreneuriat et à l’innovation.

Dans la mesure où cette revue s’adresse en priorité à des praticiens, nous restons attentifs à ce que les contributions aient une préoccupation d’applications pratiques, d’implications entrepreneuriales et/ou de recommandations en matière politique. Dans cet esprit, les contributions devront :

  • avoir une section faisant explicitement référence à ces préoccupations : le lecteur doit toujours pouvoir se dire en fin de lecture : et alors ? en quoi cet article m’aide à agir ou à mieux réfléchir pour mon action future ?
  • adopter un langage plus concret et opérationnel qu’il n’est d’usage dans les revues académiques : la théorie ne doit pas être absente mais vulgarisée, c’est-à-dire traduite en termes simples. Les concepts abstraits doivent être explicités et/ou illustrés par des exemples pratiques.
  • ne pas accumuler les références scientifiques: le but est de choisir quelques auteurs de référence utiles pour comprendre le propos, non de montrer l’exhaustivité de la littérature académique sur le sujet. Les références scientifiques doivent être exclusivement citées grâce aux notes de bas de page.

Le détail des consignes aux auteurs est disponible sur le site de la revue : Consignes aux auteurs E&I . Il est impératif de les respecter lorsque vous envoyez votre soumission. Dans le cas contraire, celle-ci ne sera pas intégrée dans le processus d’évaluation.

Toute soumission d’article doit être accompagnée des deux documents suivants :

Merci d’envoyer votre soumission ainsi que la fiche correspondante à : Elisabeth GELAS (EMLYON) gelas@em-lyon.com

 

[1]  Vallaster, C., Kraus, S., Kailer, N., & Baldwin, B. (2018). Responsible entrepreneurship: outlining the contingencies. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research. Early Cite.

[2]  Lourenço, F., Jones, O., & Jayawarna, D. (2012). Promoting sustainable development: The role of entrepreneurship education. International Small Business Journal, 31(8), 841-865.

Obrecht, J.-J. (2016). Sustainable entrepreneurship education: A new field for research in step with the ‘effectual entrepreneur’. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 29(1), 83-102.

[3] Marzi, G., & Caputo, A. (2019). Responsible Entrepreneurship Education. Emerging Research and Opportunities. Hershey : IGI Global.

[4] Thomas, M. T. (2018). Developing a capstone course on ecological and social sustainability in business education. Business Horizons, 61(6), 949-958.

[5] Ballereau, V., & Reboud, S. (2016). Entrepreneuriat durable : qu’apprend-t-on du modèle d’affaire des PME de tourisme durable ? 13e CIFEPME, 26-28 octobre 2016, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières.

Pepin, M., Tremblay, M., & Audebrand, L.K. (2017). L’entrepreneuriat responsable : proposition d’un cadre conceptuel et implications pour la formation. Document de travail 2017-008. Université Laval, Québec : Faculté des sciences de l’administration.

[6] Biberhofer, P., Lintner, C., Bernhardt, J., & Rieckmann, M. (2018). Facilitating work performance of sustainability-driven entrepreneurs through higher education: The relevance of competencies, values, worldviews and opportunities. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation. Online First, February, 8, 2018.

Van Der Yeught, C. (2017). Les compétences de l’entrepreneur responsable : proposition d’un cadre conceptuel. Revue de l’organisation responsable, 12(1), 5-16.

[7] Hall, J. K., Daneke, G. A., & Lenox, M. J. (2010). Sustainable development and entrepreneurship: Past contributions and future directions. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), 439-448.

Patzelt, H., & Shepherd, D. A. (2011). Recognizing Opportunities for Sustainable Development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(4), 631-652.

[8] Haertle, J., Parkes, C., Murray, A., & Hayes, R. (2017). PRME: Building a global movement on responsible management education. International Journal of Management Education, 15(2), 66-72.

Storey, M., Killian, S., & O’Regan, P. (2017). Responsible management education: Mapping the field in the context of the SDGs. International Journal of Management Education, 15(2), 93-103.

Tiba, S., van Rijnsoever, F.J., & Hekkert, M.P. (2018). Firms with benefits: A systematic review of responsible entrepreneurship and corporate social responsibility literature. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. Early View.

[9] Bocken, N.M.P., Short, S.W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42-56.

Hoveskog, M., Halila, F., Mattsson, M., Upward, A., & Karlsson, N. (2018). Education for sustainable development: Business modelling for flourishing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 4383-4396.

Upward, A., & Jones, P. (2016). An ontology for strongly sustainable business models: Defining an enterprise framework compatible with natural and social science. Organization & Environment, 29(1), 97-123.

[10] Lupova-Henry, E., & Dotti, N. F. (2019). Governance of sustainable innovation: Moving beyond the hierarchy-market-network trichotomy? A systematic literature review using the ‘who-how-what’ framework. Journal of Cleaner Production210, 738-748.

Call for papers “Human Resource Management and innovation in SMEs”

Call for papers “Human Resource Management and innovation in SMEs” Employee Relations.
Guest Editors : P. Stokes (Leicester Castle Business School), C. Defélix (Université Grenoble Alpes), Virginie Gallego-Roquelaure (Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3), L. Adla (Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3).

http://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/products/journals/call_for_papers.htm?id=8532

The literature on HRM and innovation has developed only belatedly and has recently expanded through empirical studies (Seeck & Diehl, 2017). The work carried out so far is limited to highlighting HRM’s contributions to innovation in broad terms only, leaving many issues outstanding (Shipton et al., 2017). The research community has focused on highlighting HRM practices that promote innovation, emphasizing, in particular the importance of their complementary nature in such a context (Seeck & Diehl, 2017). However, to date, the empirical studies that have been conducted so far cannot conclusively establish HRM practices do drive innovation. Indeed, the combinations of mobilized HRM practices differ from one organisation to another, but this does not for all that prevent them from innovating. In this sense, the adoption of an approach focused solely on HRM practices seems questionable and reductive.
While the literature on innovation determinants tends to view innovation as a single-stage phenomenon, some factors are likely to operate differently from one phase of innovation to another. Though they have rarely been studied to date, the HRM practices implemented during the various phases of the innovation process deserve to attract more attention from researchers (Seeck & Diehl, 2017).
The importance of this subject seems all the more significant in SME context since human resources are one of the main hindrances to innovation (Strobel & Kratzer, 2017). As a result, managers are faced with this issue: how to organize their HRM when they wish to foster innovation within their organization? By deploying innovation-oriented practices, SME managers can turn their HRM into a real leverage tool (Curado, 2018).

Indicative list of topics

– How are HRM practices mobilized during the various phases of the innovation process in SMEs?
– How can the organizational context be conducive to the relationship between HRM and innovation in SMEs? What organizational design should be implemented?
– How might HRM hinder innovation in SMEs and vice versa?
– What theories are used to articulate HRM and innovation in SMEs?
– What is middle management’ role in the relationship between HRM and innovation in SMEs?
– Who are the new mediators in the relationship between HRM and innovation in SMEs?
– How to reconcile innovation and international human resources management in SMEs?
– What is the role of the cultural dimension?
– What kind of HRM should be put in place when developing open innovation?

Submission and deadlines:

All submissions to be made via the Employee Relations Scholar One manuscript submission system – https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/erel and please follow author guidelines here. The deadline for submissions is October 1st 2019.

References

Curado, C. (2018). Human resource management contribution to innovation in small and medium‐sized enterprises: A mixed methods approach. Creativity and Innovation Management, 27(1), 79-90.
Laursen, K., and Foss, N. J. (2014). Human resource management practices and innovation. Handbook of innovation management, 505-530.
Seeck, H., and Diehl, M. R. (2017). A literature review on HRM and innovation–taking stock and future directions. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(6), 913-944.
Shipton, H., Sparrow, P., Budhwar, P., and Brown, A. (2017). HRM and innovation: looking across levels. Human Resource Management Journal, 27(2), 246-263.
Strobel, N., and Kratzer, J. (2017). Obstacles to Innovation for SMEs: Evidence from Germany. International Journal of Innovation Management, 21(03), 1750030.

 Creativity and Innovation Management – Call for Papers SI – Digital Two-Sided Platforms – Unveiling Research and Business Opportunities

Call for Papers – Digital Two-Sided Platforms

Unveiling Research and Business Opportunities

Special Issue Guest Editors

Tommaso BUGANZA Laurent MUZELLEC Sébastien RONTEAU Daniel TRABUCCHI
Politecnico di Milano

School of Management

Milan, Italy

Trinity College Dublin

Trinity Business School

Dublin, Ireland

Audencia Business School

Nantes, France

Politecnico di Milano

School of Management

Milan, Italy

tommaso.buganza@polimi.itlaurent.muzellec@tcd.iesronteau@audencia.comdaniel.trabucchi@polimi.it

 

Purpose

This special issue calls for the submission of conceptual and empirical studies that tackle the specificities presented by digital platforms. We seek contributions that offer insights into process, organizational, individual, network or technological level on how platform-based digital businesses transform the theories, models and managerial practices.

Aim

“How can a major business segment be invaded and conquered in a matter of months by an upstart with none of the resources traditionally deemed essential for survival, let alone market dominance? And why is this happening today in one industry after another? The answer is the power of the platform—a new business model that uses technology to connect people, organizations, and resources in an interactive ecosystem in which amazing amounts of value can be created and exchanged.”

(Parker, Van Alstyne and Choudary, Platform Revolution, 2016)

This quote refers to companies such as Uber, AirBnb, BlaBlaCar that over the last years had a significant impact on the market. Those digital platforms are challenging established companies and approach a market with different business models, marketing philosophy, and supply chain configuration, all of which challenges decades of management research.

Yet, the business configuration behind these companies has a long history in the economic literature known as two-sided platforms. A two-sided platform (or formerly a two-sided market) is a business “in which one or several platforms enable interactions between end-users, and try to get the two (or multiple) sides ‘on board’ by appropriately charging each side” (Rochet and Tirole, 2006, p. 645). In other words, these businesses act as match-makers between two (or more) different but interconnected groups of customers: travelers and hosts for Airbnb or riders and drivers for Uber, creating indirect network effects (Katz and Shapiro, 1985).

The peculiarities of this market structure have been investigated over the last two decades in the economic literature. In particular, specific attention has been devoted to the pricing mechanisms and the role of the network externalities (Rochet and Tirole, 2006; Parker and Van Alstyne, 2005). The more recent literature highlights how the resource configuration behind these businesses is significantly different from the companies based on linear value chains (Amit and Zott, 2015) or how the development process can be particularly challenging (Perks et al., 2017). Furthermore, these companies need to design and manage complex business models based on a double value proposition (Muzellec et al., 2015), requiring to bring on board different kinds of customers at the same time to avoid the chicken-and-egg paradox (Strummer et al., 2018).

Two-sided platforms have also been used to describe a wide array of situations, being flexible to numerous configurations (Tauscher and Laudien, 2018) – for example having end users on both sides, or having consumers on one side and businesses on the other. The same structure has also been used to unveil the opportunities of digital services, opening new avenues to foster business model innovation (Trabucchi et al., 2017, 2018).

Innovation scholars leveraged this concept mainly to deal with users’ community and open innovation projects (e.g., Parmentier and Gandia, 2013; Wang et al., 2018) or dealing with the sharing economy phenomenon (Richter et al., 2017).

In particular, this call for papers aims to explore and exploit the opportunities related to multi-sided platforms, which are being boosted by digital technologies (such as mobile apps or the blockchain) and cultural trends (such as sharing or gig economy). Indeed, there is the need for rigorous and theoretically relevant research, being also practice based, in order to enhance the knowledge for all the players (scholars, practitioners, policy makers) involved in this innovative business models. Therefore, this call for papers aims to enlarge the discussion on the topic from a managerial perspective, embracing mainly an innovation perspective, to dig into the distinctiveness of multi-sided digital platforms.

Focus

In this special issue, we welcome both conceptual and empirical studies, using a wide variety of methods. Possible topics include, but are not limited to:

Process level

  • How to design and implement a platform-based digital business model?
  • How does the development of a platform-based digital business differ from a traditional product-based one?
  • What is the life-cycle perspective of two-sided digital businesses?
  • What are the key peculiarities of the different lifecycle phases (design, start-up, scale-up, mature stage etc.)?
  • How to manage ambidexterity and tensions between the multiple sides?

 

Organizational level

  • What are the challenges and opportunities of creating a multi-sided digital platform?
  • What are the challenges and opportunities of managing a multi-sided digital platform?
  • How to transform traditional business models in a digital ecosystem and platform-based perspective?
  • Which forms of leadership are needed to manage these complex ecosystems of relationships?
  • Which organizational forms are suitable to manage such businesses?

 

Individual level

  • What are the motivational drivers of either side for joining the platform?
  • How those motivational drivers differ between the two sides?
  • How do customers perceive the complementary (or contradictory?) value propositions proposed by the platform for each side?
  • How can we assess the value appropriation by users and customers, with regards to the value proposition?

 

Network level

  • How to collaborate across organizations with similar or different business models?
  • How those multi-sided digital platforms enhance the foundations of business ecosystems literature?
  • What is the role of coopetition dynamics in such digital environments?
  • What is the role of multi-sided platforms in the emergence of business ecosystems?

 

Technological level

  • What is the role of User Generated Big Data in such an environment?
  • How the mobile and App economy revise our understanding of multi-sided business models?
  • What may be the impact of emerging technologies (e.g., blockchain, deep-learning and IA) on these digital business configurations?

 

Submission Deadline and Review Process

The deadline for the submission of full papers is 31st August 2019.

All submissions should follow the author guidelines for CIM as published on the Journal website, see https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/14678691. For any further information, please visit the Journal website or contact the special issue guest editors.

References

Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2015). Crafting business architecture: The antecedents of business model design. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9(4), 331-350.

Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. (1985). Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. The American Economic Review, 75(3), 424-440.

Muzellec, L., Ronteau, S., & Lambkin, M. (2015). Two-sided internet platforms: A business model lifecycle perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 45, 139-150.

Parker, G. G., & Van Alstyne, M. W. (2005). Two-sided network effects: A theory of information product design. Management Science, 51(10), 1494-1504.

Parker, G. G., Alstyne, M. W., & Choudary, S. P. (2016). Platform revolution: How networked markets are transforming the economy and how to make them work for you. WW Norton.

Parmentier, G., & Gandia, R. (2013). Managing sustainable innovation with a user community toolkit: The case of the video game Trackmania. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22(2), 195-208.

Perks, H., Kowalkowski, C., Witell, L., & Gustafsson, A. (2017). Network orchestration for value platform development. Industrial Marketing Management, 67, 106-121.

Richter, C., Kraus, S., Brem, A., Durst, S., & Giselbrecht, C. (2017). Digital entrepreneurship: Innovative business models for the sharing economy. Creativity and Innovation Management, 26(3), 300-310.

Rochet, J. C., & Tirole, J. (2006). Two‐sided markets: a progress report. The RAND Journal of Economics, 37(3), 645-667.

Rysman, M. (2009). The economics of two-sided markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23(3), 125-43.

Stummer, C., Kundisch, D., & Decker, R. (2018). Platform launch strategies. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 60(2), 167-173.

Täuscher, K., & Laudien, S. M. (2018). Understanding platform business models: A mixed methods study of marketplaces. European Management Journal, 36(3), 319-329.

Trabucchi, D., Buganza, T., & Pellizzoni, E. (2017). Give away your digital services: Leveraging big data to capture value. Research-Technology Management, 60(2), 43-52.

Trabucchi, D., Buganza, T., Dell’Era, C., & Pellizzoni, E. (2018). Exploring the inbound and outbound strategies enabled by user generated big data: Evidence from leading smartphone applications. Creativity and Innovation Management, 27(1), 42-55.

Wang, K., Nickerson, J., & Sakamoto, Y. (2018). Crowdsourced idea generation: The effect of exposure to an original idea. Creativity and Innovation Management, 27(2), 196-208.

RSG – Numéro Spécial Parution : 2020 L’entreprise libérée aujourd’hui : enjeux et perspectives

Rédacteurs en chef invités
Pr. Annabelle JAOUEN
Montpellier Business School
a.jaouen@montpellier-bs.com

Pr. Sylvie SAMMUT
Université de Montpellier
sylvie.sammut@umontpellier.fr

Pr. Isaac GETZ
ESCP Europe Business School
getz@escp.fr

RSG appel à publi

L’entreprise libérée rencontre de plus en plus d’adeptes depuis quelques années. Ceux-ci voient en elle des innovations organisationnelles, managériales, voire sociales majeures (Getz, 2009 ; Getz & Carney, 2012 ; Jacquinot & Pellissier-Tanon, 2015 ; Vandermissen, 2015 ; Holtz, 2016). Cette démarche part du principe que d’autres formes d’organisation et de management sont nécessaires, notamment dans un contexte VUCA: l’un des postulats de ces approches, bien que différente, de l’entreprise libérée (p.ex. organisation agile, holacracy, organisation opale), est que le modèle classique d’entreprise a oublié l’homme. La Révolution Industrielle, qui a inauguré le modèle de la hiérarchie bureaucratique fondé sur la subordination et le contrôle, a été suivie de plusieurs évolutions, le taylorisme, le fordisme, la direction par objectifs ou encore la financiarisation de l’entreprise (Gomez, 2014). Toutes ont visé l’optimisation économique en traitant les salariés comme une ressource — la ressource humaine (Dupuis, 2015). Mesurée par l’augmentation du niveau de vie, cette optimisation a triomphé comme jamais encore aucune organisation de travail dans l’histoire (Maddison, 1991, 2004). Toutefois, au début du milieu des années 2000, l’adéquation du modèle classique au monde VUCA, aux attentes de jeunes générations ainsi que de la société en générale est mise en question (Halévy, 2013), tandis que les entreprises cherchent des approches organisationnelles et managériales différentes (Jaouen & Le Roy, 2013 ; Aigouy & Granata, 2017) et la société questionne les pratiques des entreprises qui laissent peu de place à l’homme et au sens (voir l’émergence des entreprises à mission, celles de « conscious capitalism », etc).

Une entreprise libérée est définie comme « une forme d’organisation dans laquelle les salariés sont totalement libres et responsables dans les actions qu’ils jugent bon d’entreprendre » (Getz, 2009, p. 35). Elle est donc un concept philosophique défini à partir de la fonction de l’entreprise (permettre la liberté et la responsabilité d’initiative) et non un modèle (ensemble de caractéristiques structurelles et organisationnelles) (Getz, ibid.). Le rôle d’un leader libérateur consiste justement à articuler la philosophie de l’entreprise libérée pour coconstruire avec les salariés le mode d’organisation libérée unique de leur établissement (Getz, 2012, 2017 ; Holtz, 2016). Ces entreprises font confiance à l’intelligence des salariés, reconnaissent la richesse et les dons de chacun et permettent que chacun puisse s’auto-diriger (Getz, 2009 ; Vanhée, 2013 ; Trouvé, 2014 ; Jacquinot & Pellissier-Tanon, 2015). Par conséquent–et non pas à cause d’un modèle quelconque imposé—ces entreprises possèdent moins de structures hiérarchiques et de pratiques de contrôle.

 

Dans le passé, un grand nombre d’approches organisationnelles alternatives au modèle classique ont été avancées sur le plan théorique (p.ex., sociocracy, empowerment, équipes semi-autonomes). Toutefois, la mise en place de ces approches ne se faisait que marginalement jusqu’au milieu des années 2000. La mise en place de l’entreprise libérée, bien que non-conceptualisée à l’époque, restait aussi marginale (Getz, 2009). C’est à partir du milieu des années 2000que la mise en place massive de l’entreprise libérée a vu le jour. L’entreprise libérée est aujourd’hui déployée à différents degrés dans des centaines d’entreprises et organisations, y compris de grandes institutions comme Airbus, Décathlon, Michelin ou la Sécurité Sociale, et surtout en France (Getz, 2017). En 2016, elle était jugée par un échantillon de 1600 managers français comme le sujet de management le plus important en France (Kalika et al., 2016). L’adoption de l’entreprise libérée exige une transformation majeure des pratiques traditionnelles de l’entreprise, celles-ci étant initiées et défendues par la direction (Holtz, 2016), la co-construction de l’organisation libérée se faisant avec les salariés (Breu, et al., 2001 ; Dyer & Shafer, 1999 ; Goldman & Nagel, 1993 ; Shafer, 1997 ; Shafer, et al., 2001 ; Van Oyen, Gel & Hopp, 2001), ainsi que le travail du dirigeant sur son lâcher prise et sa posture (Davids, Carney & Getz, 2018 ; Vanhee, 2013).

Ce numéro spécial vise à avancer l’état de l’art sur le sujet de la libération des entreprises. Il privilégiera les articles fondés sur une forte connaissance du terrain des entreprises libérées et/ou de leurs dirigeants (données primaires), mais n’écartera pas des articles susceptibles de mettre la philosophie de l’entreprise libérée dans une plus large perspective théorique. Au-delà de sa popularité, cette philosophie d’entreprise pose nombreuses questions. Plusieurs thématiques pourront être abordées :

  • Processus de libération et rôle du leader libérateur,
  • Conditions de faisabilité et prérequis organisationnels,
  • Motivation de dirigeants et de managers pour adopter ce process,
  • Conséquences humaines, organisationnelles et stratégiques de la libération de l’entreprise,
  • Place du salarié dans l’entreprise libérée,
  • Libération des PME : la petite taille facilite-t-elle les processus ? Quelles spécificités du processus de libération dans ce contexte ?

Au plan pratique, le processus d’adoption des concepts de l’entreprise suscite également un certain

nombre de questions :

  • Qu’est-ce qui motive les dirigeants d’entreprises à adopter cette philosophie d’entreprise
  • spécifique ?
  • Quels sont les traits caractéristiques de ces dirigeants ?
  • Comment impliquer les salariés et les managers dans le processus ?
  • Y’a-t-il des cas d’adoption initiés par les salariés ou partenaires sociaux sur le mode du corporate hacking ou autre ?
  • Comment accompagner la libération ?

 

Malgré le caractère massif de l’adoption du concept d’entreprise libérée par les praticiens de l’entreprise, ces processus d’adoption sont à l’origine de nombreux défis (Getz, 2012, 2017 ; Gilbert et al., 2017). Quelques démarches de libération se sont, par exemple, arrêtées malgré des succès économiques et sociaux reconnus (Henry et al., 2017). Ces défis constituent également autant de thématiques qui pourront être abordées dans ce numéro spécial :

  • Quel travail sur soi, quel changement de posture, ont conduit, ou pas, les leaders à adopter les concepts d’organisation alternative fondés sur la confiance ?
  • Quel accompagnement ont-ils proposé, ou pas, à leurs managers ?
  • Quelle attitude ont-ils adopté vis-à-vis des managers et/ou des salariés qui n’ont pas souhaité participer au processus de l’adoption ?
  • Ont-ils procédé, ou pas, à l’élaboration et au partage d’une vision, du « pourquoi » de leur
  • entreprise ?
  • Ont-ils travaillé, ou pas, avec les RH et les partenaires sociaux ?
  • Ont-ils impliqué ou pas leurs actionnaires ou organismes de tutelle ?
  • Comment mesurent-ils la réussite de leurs démarches ?

 

Calendrier

  • Réception des propositions d’articles : 30 juin 2019
  • Retour des évaluations aux auteurs : 15 octobre 2019
  • Réception des versions révisées : 30 janvier 2020
  • Retour des 2ndes évaluations aux auteurs : 30 avril 2020
  • Envoi des versions finales : 30 juin 2020
  • Date de parution du numéro spécial : Automne 2020

Consignes aux auteurs

Les propositions devront être conformes à la politique éditoriale de la revue, ainsi qu’aux normes de présentation. Les consignes de mise en forme sont accessibles sur le site internet de la revue ou sur le lien suivant : http://www.larsg.fr/mise-en-page-des-articles/#.XAd8z-KNxPY

Les propositions à envoyer à : Pr. Annabelle JAOUEN, Montpellier Business School, a.jaouen@montpellier-bs.com

Les propositions feront l’objet d’une évaluation en double aveugle. Les rédacteurs en chef invités s’engagent à respecter un délai rapide d’évaluation.

 

Bibliographie

Aigouy C. & Granata J. (2017). L’implémentation de la simplification en tant qu’innovation organisationnelle et première étape d’un processus de libération : le cas de Volkswagen Groupe France, Revue Internationale de Psychologie et Comportements Organisationnels, vol. 23, n°56, p. 63-85.

Breu, K., Hemingway, C. J., Strathern, M., & Bridger, D. (2001). Workforce agility: The new employee strategy for the knowledge economy. Journal of Information Technology, vol.17, n°1, p. 21-31. Dupuy, F. (2015). La faillite de la pensée managériale. Paris : Seuil.

Dyer, L., & Shafer, R. A. (1999). From human resource strategy to organizational effectiveness: Lessons from research on organizational agility. In M. A. Wright, L. Dyer, J. Boudreau & G. Milkovich Strategic human resource management in the 21st century, Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, Supplement 4 (p. 145-174). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Getz, I., (2009), Liberating leadership: how the initiative-freeing radical organizational form has been successfully adopted. California Management Review, vol. 51, n° 4 (traduit dans Getz, I. (2017), L’entreprise libérée : Comment devenir un leader libérateur et se désintoxiquer des vieux modèles, Fayard, p. 24-88).

Getz I. (2012), La liberté d’action des salariés : une simple théorie ou un inéluctable destin ?, Gérer et comprendre, n° 108, p. 27-38.

Getz I. (2017), L’entreprise libérée, Paris : Fayard.

Getz, I., Carney, B., (2012). Liberté & Cie : Quand la liberté des salariés fait le succès des entreprises. Paris :Fayard.

Gilbert, P., Teglborg, A. C., & Raulet-Croset, N. (2017). L’entreprise libérée, innovation radicale ou simple avatar du management participatif ? Gérer et comprendre, n° 1, p. 38-49.

Goldman, S. L., Nagel, R. N. (1993). Management, technology and agility: The emergence of a new era in manufacturing, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 8, n° 1-2, p. 18-38.

Halévy, M. (2013), Prospective 2015-2025, L’après-modernité, Paris : Éditions Dangles, Hamel G. (2008), La fin du management, Paris : Vuibert.

Henry, B., Godart, F., Berrada, M. (2017). Biscuits Poult SAS: Can Alternative Organizational Designs be Successful? INSEAD Case Study.  Holtz, T. (2016), Les pratiques managériales dans les entreprises libérées. Quelles singularités ? Quels impacts sur la qualité de vie au travail ? Le cahier des RPS, vol. 27, p. 27-38.

Jacquinot, P., Pellissier-Tanon A., (2015), L’autonomie de décision dans les entreprises libérées de l’emprise organisationnelle. Une analyse des cas de Google et de la Favi, Revue Internationale de Psychosociologie et de gestion des comportements organisationnels, vol 21, n°52, p. 365-384.

Jaouen, A., Le Roy, F. (Dirs.) (2013), L’innovation managériale, Paris : Dunod.

Kalika M., Liarte, S., Moscarola, J. (2016), Enquête FNEGE sur l’impact de la recherche en management, Paris : FNEGE.

Maddison, A. (1991), Dynamic forces in capitalist development, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Maddison, A (2004), Contours of the world economy and the art of macro-measurement 1500-2001, Ruggles Lecture, IARIW 28th General Conference, Cork, Irlande.

Shafer, R. A. (1997). Creating organizational agility: The human resource dimension. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.

Shafer, R. A., Dyer, L., Kilty, J., Amos, J., & Ericksen, J. (2001). Crafting a human resources strategy to foster organizational agility: A case study. Human Resource Management, Vol. 40, n° 3, p. 197- 211.

Trouvé, P. (2014), Observer les entreprises utopiques. Un exercice d’assouplissement mental ? Relief, vol 45, p. 67-87

Vandermissen, V., (2015). L’entreprise libérée : Un nouveau modèle de management pour l’économie sociale ?, Bruxelles : PLS.

Vanhée, L. (2013), Happy RH. Bruxelles : La Charte.

Van Oyen, M. P., Gel, E. G. S, Hopp, W. J (2001). Performance opportunity for workforce agility in collaborative and noncollaborative work system. IIE Transactions, Vol. 33, n° 9, p. 761-778.

Appel à Contributions – Entreprendre et Innover n° 42 “Entreprises familiales et familles en affaires: L’entrepreneuriat est-il une affaire de famille ?”

appel à com E&I n° 42 Entrepreneuriat Familial FINAL

Éditeurs : Miruna Radu-Lefebvre, Céline Barrédy, Alain Fayolle

Thématique du numéro spécial
Les entreprises familiales représentent la grande majorité des entreprises au niveau mondial que ce soit dans les pays développés ou émergents1. Selon Fanny Letier, directrice de l’activité PME à la banque publique Bpifrance2, 83% des entreprises françaises en font partie, toute taille et secteur confondus. Pourtant, ce n’est que depuis quelques décennies que le champ disciplinaire du « family business » a vu le jour et démarré son développement, en parallèle et souvent de manière étanche par rapport au champ disciplinaire connexe, celui de l’entrepreneuriat. Ces deux champs se sont structurés et développés séparément, avec leurs propres spécialistes et leurs propres terrains, leurs modèles théoriques, leurs journaux et leurs conférences dédiées. Pourtant, leur proximité est réelle3 et leur dialogue nécessaire en raison du rôle reconnu joué par la famille dans la genèse et la transmission de l’esprit entrepreneurial et des compétences entrepreneuriales, également de l’intention entrepreneuriale ou encore des comportements entrepreneuriaux4. C’est ce qui explique l’émergence, lors des dernières années, d’un nouveau champ de recherche, « l’entrepreneuriat familial », situé à l’intersection de l’entrepreneuriat, du family business, de la sociologie et de la psychologie de la famille.
Si le champ du family business s’intéresse aux entreprises familiales caractérisées comme des entreprises dont la propriété et/ou le contrôle reviennent majoritairement à une ou des famille(s) dont l’intention est de transmettre l’entreprise de génération en génération5, l’entrepreneuriat familial englobe ce champ tout en le dépassant. Il pose comme objet d’étude central le phénomène entrepreneurial au sein des familles en affaires et des entreprises familiales. Le focus de l’entrepreneuriat familial relève ainsi de l’étude des pratiques et des comportements entrepreneuriaux des individus, des familles, et des entreprises6. Pourquoi s’intéresser au phénomène entrepreneurial dans ce cadre précis de la famille et des entreprises familiales ? En effet, il a été montré que la pérennité et la croissance des entreprises familiales multigénérationnelles dépendent étroitement de la présence et de l’importance des pratiques et des comportements entrepreneuriaux chez les membres de la famille, comme chez les employés et les managers externes7.
L’environnement sociodémographique, légal, économique et culturel des familles en affaires évolue rapidement au travers du monde. Ces évolutions influencent à la fois le comportement des membres des familles en affaires mais également celui des entreprises familiales elles-mêmes. Des enjeux de définition de la famille, des questions liées au genre et aux nouvelles ambitions et revendications des femmes, l’intérêt croissant à la fois de la sphère économique et de la sphère politique pour les impacts sociaux et environnementaux des entreprises transforment en profondeur le paysage dans lequel les entreprises familiales opèrent aujourd’hui. Les contours légaux de la famille au premier rang desquels les familles recomposées, l’adoption ainsi que leurs évolutions récentes comme le mariage homosexuel ou encore la procréation médicalement assistée pour toutes les femmes, interrogent les dynamiques entrepreneuriales et leur évolutions consécutives dans le cadre de l’entreprise familiale. Pour bien comprendre les dynasties familiales, il faut prendre en compte le droit de la famille88. Les dispositifs institutionnels de soutien de l’entrepreneuriat et du repreneuriat, ainsi que le cadre institutionnel relatif à la transmission intergénérationnelle de la propriété de l’entreprise familiale affectent les choix relatifs à la création et à la transmission de ces entreprises dans le cadre de la famille ou à un tiers9.
Les propositions traiteront, entre autres, des sujets suivants :

  • Comment se transmet l’esprit entrepreneurial au sein des familles en affaires ? Quels rôles jouent l’histoire familiale, les interactions avec le dirigeant, les apprentissages formels et informels dans cette transmission ?
  • Quelles pratiques entrepreneuriales peut-on observer au sein des familles en affaires et comment peut-on les étudier et les appréhender, à travers quels choix méthodologiques et quelles approches théoriques ?
  • Quel est l’impact des comportements entrepreneuriaux (ou intrapreneuriaux) du dirigeant, du successeur, ou des managers externes sur la performance des entreprises familiales ?
  • Comment les membres des familles en affaires gèrent-ils la superposition de rôles sociaux appartenant à des univers distincts (famille, entreprise, actionnariat) lorsqu’ils lancent de nouvelles activités au sein de l’entreprise ou souhaitent introduire des innovations, changer d’orientation stratégique ou revisiter l’identité organisationnelle ?
  • Quels outils formels et informels la famille mobilise-t-elle pour transmettre et / ou générer l’esprit d’entreprendre au sein des nouvelles générations ?
  • Les doctrines institutionnelles conduisent-elles à des comportements entrepreneuriaux distincts au sein des familles ?

Échéancier :

  • Soumission des textes : Au plus tard le 30 avril 2019
  • Parution : Mars 2020

Ligne éditoriale
La revue Entreprendre et Innover est une revue de vulgarisation de haut niveau dans le domaine de l’entrepreneuriat et de l’innovation édité par DeBoeck Université. Son ambition est de mettre à la portée d’un lectorat de cadres, entrepreneurs, professionnels des réseaux de création d’entreprises et dirigeants d’entreprises, des articles originaux, solides sur le plan scientifique ou innovants sur le plan des idées exprimées, sans s’accaparer des oripeaux des publications académiques. La revue est ouverte à TOUTES les disciplines et à TOUS les points de vue qui s’intéressent à l’entrepreneuriat et à l’innovation.
Dans la mesure où cette revue s’adresse en priorité à des praticiens, nous restons attentifs à ce que les contributions aient une préoccupation d’applications pratiques, d’implications entrepreneuriales et/ou de recommandations en matière politique. Dans cet esprit, les contributions devront :

  • avoir une section faisant explicitement référence à ces préoccupations : le lecteur doit toujours pouvoir se dire en fin de lecture : et alors ? en quoi cet article m’aide à agir ou à mieux réfléchir pour mon action future ?
  • adopter un langage plus concret et opérationnel qu’il n’est d’usage dans les revues académiques : la théorie ne doit pas être absente mais vulgarisée, c’est-à-dire traduite en termes simples. Les concepts abstraits doivent être explicités et/ou illustrés par des exemples pratiques.
  • ne pas accumuler les références scientifiques : le but est de choisir quelques auteurs de référence utiles pour comprendre le propos, non de montrer l’exhaustivité de la littérature académique sur le sujet. Les références scientifiques doivent être exclusivement citées grâce aux notes de bas de page.

Le détail des consignes aux auteurs est disponible sur le site de la revue : Consignes aux auteurs E&I – janvier 2014. Il est impératif de les respecter lorsque vous envoyez votre soumission.

Toute soumission d’article doit être accompagnée des deux documents suivants:

  • La fiche descriptive disponible ici: Fiche soumission d’article E&I – janvier 2014.
  • La déclaration d’honneur anti-plagiat disponible ici: Déclaration anti-plagiat 2014-0824

Merci d’envoyer votre soumission ainsi que la fiche correspondante à : Elisabeth GELAS (EMLYON) gelas@em-lyon.com

 

1 Gedajlovic, E., Carney, M., Chrisman, J. J., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2012). The adolescence of family firm research taking stock and planning for the future. Journal of Management, 38 (4): 1010–1037.
2 Arriver, D., & Jacquot, B. (2016). Les entreprises familiales toujours au coeur de l’économie, Le Figaro, 14 décembre.
3 Sharma, P., Hoy, F., Astrachan, J. H., & Koiranen, M. (2007). The practice-driven evolution of family business education. Journal of Business Research, 60(10), 1012-1021
4 Aldrich, H. E., & Cliff, J. E. (2003). The pervasive effects of family on entrepreneurship: Toward a family embeddedness perspective. Journal of business venturing, 18(5), 573-596.
Fayolle, A., & Bégin, L. (2009). Entrepreneuriat familial: croisement de deux champs ou nouveau champ issu d’un double croisement?. Management international, 14(1), 11-23
5 Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., & Sharma, P. (1999). Defining the family business by behavior. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 23(4), 19-39.
6 Bégin, L., Chabaud, D., & Richomme-Huet, K. (2010). Vers une approche contingente des entreprises familiales. Revue française de gestion, (1), 79-86.
Bettinelli, C., Sciascia, S., Randerson, K., & Fayolle, A. (2017). Researching Entrepreneurship in Family Firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 55(4), 506-529.
Chabaud, D. (2013). Les entreprises familiales au coeur de l’entrepreneuriat?. Le grand livre de l’entrepreneuriat. Paris, Dunod,157-172.
Chabaud, D., & Sammut, S. (2014). Entrepreneuriat et entreprises familiales, de la proximité à un champ de recherche spécifique. Revue de l’entrepreneuriat, 13(3), 7-10.
Radu-Lefebvre, M.., & Lefebvre, V. (2016). Anticipating intergenerational management transfer of family firms: A typology of next generation’s future leadership projections. Futures, 75, 66-82.
7 Randerson, K., Bettinelli, C., Fayolle, A., & Anderson, A. (2015). Family entrepreneurship as a field of research: Exploring its contours and contents. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 6(3), 143-154.
Randerson, K., Dossena, G., & Fayolle, A. (2016). The futures of family business: family entrepreneurship. Futures, (75), 36-43.
8 Marcus, G. E. (1991). Law in the development of dynastic families among American business elites: The domestication of capital and the capitalization of family. Family Business Review, 4(1), 75-111.
9 Barrédy, C. (2016). In search of future alternatives for family business: Family law contributions through Civil and Common Law comparison. Futures, 75, 44-53.
Jaskiewicz, P., Combs, J. G., & Rau, S. B. (2015). Entrepreneurial legacy: Toward a theory of how some family firms nurture transgenerational entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(1), 29-49.

Call for papers – Special Issue of the International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing – “Concepts and Facets of Entrepreneurial Diversity”

CALL FOR PAPERS_IJEV_FINAL

Guest Editors: Kerstin Ettl, University of Siegen, Germany Siegrun Brink, Institut für Mittelstandsforschung Bonn, Germany Silke Tegtmeier, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark Monder Ram, Aston University, UK

If you think about entrepreneurship, which picture comes to your mind? Whom would you call an entrepreneur? What characterizes that person? What characterizes the company? The variety of answers on that might be as multifaceted as the number of people wondering about it. Why? More than 30 years ago, Gartner (1985: 696) spotted that “differences among entrepreneurs and among their ventures are as great as the variation between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs and between new firms and established firms.” This statement is still true: It is impossible to universalize entrepreneurship – entrepreneurship is about variation and it varies in different dimensions (Welter et al., 2016).

Not only in relation to entrepreneurship, but also in relation to various other societal and political contexts, the buzzword ‘diversity’ is in the spotlight. Interestingly, in scholarly as well as political discussion, one question often remains unanswered: what exactly is meant when we talk about ‘diversity’? The roots of the term ‘diversity’, as it is used in current political and societal discussions, are in sociological research. Here the term diversity is not just a synonym for heterogeneity, variety or multiplicity. Within the framing of ‘diversity’, sociological researchers analyse and value the heterogeneity of individuals in relation to specific characteristics – so-called diversity categories or diversity dimensions. They address largely stable demographic dimensions such as gender, age, migration and physical ability; external, changeable dimensions such as income, work experience and personal habits; and organisational dimensions such as work location, management status and seniority (Gardenswartz and Rowe 2002). Based on these and other diversity categories, researchers investigate teams, companies, institutions and all kinds of other groups.

Following Bögenhold and Fachinger (2011), entrepreneurial diversity addresses different facets of the social and occupational variety. Many of these facets, especially demographic dimensions, have been investigated in recent research, for instance gender (Frigotto and Della Nives, 2018; Kanze et al., 2018; Marlow and Martinez Dy, 2018; Spiegler and Halberstadt, 2018; Tegtmeier and Kurczewska, 2017) and migration (Etemad, 2018; Ram et al., 2017) and disability (Antshel, 2018; Wiklund et al., 2018). Surprisingly, entrepreneurship research has not yet tried to explore facets of entrepreneurial diversity in a holistic conceptual way. Existing sociological diversity concepts have not (yet) been adapted to the entrepreneurship research context, and diversity-related levels of analysis are not (yet) defined clearly in this regard. In order to capture the uniqueness of each entrepreneurial situation, we agree with Welter et al. (2017), who emphasised entrepreneurial diversity and claimed that future research must try to indicate the variety in the phenomenon of entrepreneurship more adequately.

Against this background, this special issue will address the aforementioned research gap, and aims to look at conceptual framings as well as different facets of entrepreneurial diversity. In doing so, it aims to serve as a basis of discussion for future research into entrepreneurial diversity. Furthermore, it will help in making research concerning entrepreneurial diversity relevant to other scientific, political and societal diversity discussions.

We welcome high-quality manuscripts looking at entrepreneurial diversity from different perspectives – either globally or in different facets of diversity. Manuscripts can be international in scope or can look at domestic issues with global relevance. Conceptual and empirical papers, from different analytical and methodological perspectives can be submitted. We welcome theoretical, qualitative, quantitative and mixed-method papers. Together, the papers should build a body of high-quality, cumulative research that recapitulates and extends our current knowledge concerning entrepreneurial diversity.

Suitable topics include, but are not limited, to the following:

Conceptual framings of entrepreneurial diversity: What is meant when we talk about entrepreneurial diversity? What aspects do we need to consider when we talk about entrepreneurial diversity? How does conceptualising entrepreneurial diversity bring our research field forward? How can we better connect entrepreneurship research to current societal and political debates about diversity? Are there frameworks within other disciplines (for example human resource management) we can build on? Does, and if so how, does taking sociological diversity concepts into account help to understand and explain entrepreneurial diversity? How can we adequately investigate and measure entrepreneurial diversity?

Facets of entrepreneurial diversity: What do we know about single diversity categories such as (but not limited to) age, race, gender, sexual orientation, physical ability, income, work experiences, personal habits, work location, management status and seniority? How are single categories positioned within the framing of diversity? How is research about entrepreneurial diversity influenced through the internationality of our research community? How does the relevance of different diversity categories differ between contexts?

Intersectionality of diversity dimensions: How do different dimensions relevant to drawing a picture of entrepreneurial diversity intersect? How does research about intersectionality feed into entrepreneurship research?

Tensions related to entrepreneurial diversity in different contexts: Which tensions does diversity create in different contexts? How can an acceptance of difference be reached in different diversity categories? Which role does the specific context play?

 

Notes for Prospective Authors

 Submitted papers should not have been previously published nor be currently under consideration for publication elsewhere. (N.B. Conference papers may only be submitted if the paper has been completely re-written and if appropriate written permissions have been obtained from any copyright holders of the original paper).

  • All papers are refereed through a peer review process.
  • All papers must be submitted online. To submit a paper, please read our Submitting articles page.
  • If you have any queries concerning this special issue, please email Kerstin Ettl at kerstin.ettl@uni-siegen.de Siegrun Brink at brink@ifm-bonn.org Silke Tegtmeier at tegtmeier@mci.sdu.dk Monder Ram at m.ram1@aston.ac.uk

 

Voluntary submission to the RENT Conference 2019

  • There will be a special track on “Concepts and Facets of Entrepreneurial Diversity” at the RENT Conference 2019 with the chance to meet the editors of this special issue. There will be the option to choose this track when submitting a RENT abstract and paper.
  • Papers submitted and accepted for this special track will be given developmental feedback for finalising the papers for submission to the special issue. Nevertheless, submission and acceptance for the RENT Conference is not necessary for submission to the special issue, and every paper submitted to the conference has to undergo the regular double-blind review process for the journal after the conference.
  • The deadline for submission of abstracts for the special track via the conference’s submission system is 15 May, 2019.
  • The deadline for submission of full papers to the conference after notification of acceptance is 1 October, 2019.

 

Important Dates

  • Manuscripts due by: 1 November – 31 December, 2019
  • Notification to authors (1st round): 28 February, 2020
  • First revised manuscript due by: 30 April, 2019
  • Notification to authors (2nd round): 28 February, 2020
  • Final versions due by: 31 August, 2020

References

Antshel KM (2018) Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Perspectives 32(2): 243–265.

Bögenhold D and Fachinger U (2011) Entrepreneurial Diversity: Theoretische und empirische Beleuchtungen der Heterogenität beruflicher Selbständigkeit in Deutschland. Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship 59(4): 251–272.

Etemad H (2018) Advances and challenges in the evolving field of international entrepreneurship: The case of migrant and diaspora entrepreneurs. Journal of International Entrepreneurship 16(2): 109–118.

Frigotto ML and Della Nives V (2018) Gender and the structuring of the entrepreneurial venture: an effectuation approach. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing 10(4): 412–434.

Gartner WB (1985) A Conceptual Framework for Describing the Phenomenon of New Venture Creation. Academy of Management Review 10(4): 696–706.

Kanze D, Huang L, Conley MA, et al. (2018) We Ask Men to Win and Women Not to Lose: Closing the Gender Gap in Startup Funding. Academy of Management Journal 61(2): 586–614.

Marlow S and Martinez Dy A (2018) Annual review article: Is it time to rethink the gender agenda in entrepreneurship research? International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 36(1): 3–22.

Ram M, Jones T and Villares-Varela M (2017) Migrant entrepreneurship: Reflections on research and practice. International Small Business Journal 35(1): 3–18.

Spiegler AB and Halberstadt J (2018) SHEstainability: how relationship networks influence the idea generation in opportunity recognition process by female social entrepreneurs. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing 10(2): 202–235.

Tegtmeier S and Kurczewska A (2017) Business entry and window of opportunity – empirical results for women entrepreneurs with graduate degree. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing 9(1): 41–59.

Welter F, Baker T, Audretsch DB, et al. (2017) Everyday Entrepreneurship—A Call for Entrepreneurship Research to Embrace Entrepreneurial Diversity. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice 41(3): 305–468.

Welter F, Gartner WB and Wright M (2016) The context of contextualising contexts. In: Welter F and Gartner WB (eds) A Research Agenda for Entrepreneurship and Context: Cheltenham, UK, Nothampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, pp. 1–15.

Wiklund J, Hatak I, Patzelt H, et al. (2018) Mental Disorders in the Entrepreneurship Context: When Being Different Can Be An Advantage. Academy of Management Perspectives 32(2): 182–206.

 

Link to the Call on IJEV Webpage: https://www.inderscience.com/mobile/inauthors/cfp.php?id=4481

ISSN Print: 1742-5360

Indexed in Scopus and the Emerging Sources Citation Index

Listed in Chartered Association of Business Schools (CABS) Academic Journal Guide

VHB-JOURQUAL 3 Ranking: B

Special Issue Journal of Organizational Change Management – Psycho-sociology, Gerontology and Aging: towards an economic and social revolution for society

Psycho-sociology, Gerontology and Aging: towards an economic and social revolution for society

Guest Editors:

Adnane Maalaoui (IPAG Business School, France)

Mustafa Ozbilgin (Brunel University, UK)

Tania Saba (University of Montreal, Canada)

Erhan Aydin (Usak University, Turkey)

This SI aims at better understand the elderly through the theory of aging and by considering different areas of research, such as gerontology, economic, entrepreneurship, HRM and psycho-sociology.
The aging process and how people experienced it, is one of the main topics of medical science, as it can have a direct effect on people’s life expectancy. The importance of aging process in maintaining life satisfaction and well-being during the lifespan made it a subject of interest for individuals and different actors such as companies and public services. According to Austad (1997), the aging process refers to “the different developments and changes in the body’s functions over time, the losses, the gains, and the perceptions resulting from these changes”. The mentioned process differs from one individual to another and is associated with both objective (physical degradation, the decline in perceptual and memory performance) and subjective (a person perception of his own aging) factors (Fontaine, 1999). Hence, in the senior segmentation, considering objective variables such as age or income is as important as considering subjective variables such as the perceived aging experience (Guiot, 2006).

Changes and their consequences on behaviors

As individuals become older, they face social, physical and cognitive difficulties that may affect their attitudes and behaviors (Greco, 1987, Schewe, 1989, Ostroff, 1989). Social changes in the elderly, like becoming grandparents, losing some social roles and trying to find the new ones, are particularly important as older individuals have to adapt them (Tamaro-Hans, 1999). Especially, retirement stands as one of the most significant events in one’s life and is mainly associated with the loss of social roles that individuals have to cope with.

Physical disorders which include the loss of sensorial abilities (Vanhamme, 2001) are also some other consequences of becoming old. Cognitive disorders cause decreasing intellectual capabilities (Mishara and Riedel, 1985; De Ladoucette, 1997), concentration or attention problems (Van der Linden, 1994; Boujon, 1995) as well as memorizing and retrieval information problems (Mishara and Riedel, 1985). These changes may have a great impact on information processing, such as the way the older individuals process any environmental stimulus (Moschis, 1994).
One of the major concerns caused by an aging population is the question of whether the working population will be productive enough to maintain economic growth as well as the serious impacts on workplaces. While striving to maintain a skilled and productive workforce, organizations and governments must face the challenges posed by an ageing generation, find diversified and innovative solutions (Wisse et al., 2015). Developing an active ageing strategy requires considering employers’ attitudes regarding older people, individuals’ perceptions of their end of career (Rabl & del Carmen Triana, 2014) and efforts made by governments in favour of active ageing (Saba, 2014).  The end-of-career trajectories of both men and women remain unpredictable, often uncertain and deserve attention.

Entrepreneurship literature suggests that the more aged people are, the less motivated they are in setting up a new business. Seniors have less appetite to engage in entrepreneurial activities (Curran and Blackburn, 2001; Hart et al., 2004; Levesque and Minniti, 2006) since the cost of the time factor increases with age and thus discourage seniors’ venture for entrepreneurship (Kautonen, Tornikoski and Kibler, 2011).
Moreover, whether consciously or unconsciously, aging is mainly associated with the perspective of death (Routledge and Arndt, 2005). As the people grow older, the time is shrinking for them and is perceived as being limited. This aspect of the aging experience may lead to different motivations and behaviors which the older individuals imply in the rest of their life.
Aging theories and topics of interest
Several theories have been developed by the psychology and gerontology to explain the motivations and behaviors of elderly. The “psychosocial development” theory suggests how death consciousness in the older individuals is associated with the acceptance of one’s destiny (Erikson, 1963). The “socio-emotional selectivity” (TSS) theory suggests time perception influences goals and motivations (Carstensen, Fung and Charles, 2003). The “Selection, optimization, compensation” (SOC) theory introduces three regulation strategies which contribute in successful aging (Baltes and Freund, 2003).
Some other discussed theories are the “theory of disengagement”, the “theory of activity”, the “theory of socialization” (Smith and Moschis, 1984) as well as “the theory of continuity” (Atchley, 1989). As it is suggested by these theories, the older individuals stand as an interesting target for the researcher as they use specific resources and strategies that enable them to maintain well-being and meaning in one’s life. In this perspective, entrepreneurship can be seen as a means to overcome social, cognitive and physical changes.
This SI aims at better understand the elderly through the theory of aging by considering different areas of research, such as entrepreneurship, gerontology and psycho-sociology…etc.
The topics of interests for this special issue include, but are not limited to:
•    Cognitive aging and decision making
•    Aging and resistance to change
•    Successful aging
•    Aging and employment
•    Aging and health
•    Aging and its effect on consumption behavior
•    The intergenerational relationships and their role in successful aging
•    The role of innovations and new technologies in subjective aging
•    The perspective of death and its effect on the elderly motivations
•    Creating or maintaining social acceptance for the eldery
•    Entrepreneurship as an opportunity for successful aging
We aim to propose with this SI a meaningful value to researchers on aging, practitioners and policy-makers.

References

Atchley, R. C. (1989). A Continuity Theory of Normal Aging, Gerontologist,  29 (2), 183-190.
Atchley R.C. (1996), Continuity Theory and the Evolution of Activity in Later Adulthood, Activity and Aging, ed. J.R. Kelly, Newbury Park, Sage Publications, 1-16.
Austad S.N. (1997) Wye We Age: What Science is Discovering About the Body’s Jourrney Through Life, New York, John Wiley & Sons.
Baltes P. B, & Freund, A. M. (2003). Human strengths as the orchestration of wisdom and selective optimization with compensation. In L. G. Aspinwall & U. M. Staudinger (Eds.), A psychology of human strengths: Perspectives on an emerging field (pp. 23–35). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Carstensen, L. L., Fung, H. H., & Charles, S. T. (2003). Socioemotional selectivity theory and the regulation of emotion in the second half of life. Motivation and emotion, 27(2), 103-123.
Curran, J., & Blackburn, R. A. (2001). Older people and the enterprise society: Age and self-employment propensities. Work, Employment & Society, 15(04), 889-902.
Erikson E.H. (1968), Identity: Youth and Crisis, New York, Norton
Erickson, E. H. (1982). The life cycle completed: A review. New York: W. W Norton.
Greco A.J. (1987), Linking Dimensions of Elderly Market Planning, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 4, p. 47-55.
Greco A.J. et Swayne L.E. (1992), Sales Response of elderly consumers to point-of-purchase advertising, Journal of Advertising Research, 32, 5 43-53.
Hart J., Shaver P.R. & Goldenberg J.L. (2005), Attachment, self-esteem, worldviews, and terror management: Evidence for a tripartite security system, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 999-1013.
Kautonen, T., Tornikoski, E. T., & Kibler, E. (2011). Entrepreneurial intentions in the third age: the impact of perceived age norms. Small business economics, 37(2), 219-234.
Kim, S., & Feldman, D. C. (2000). Working in retirement: The antecedents of bridge employment and its consequences for quality of life in retirement. Academy of management Journal, 43(6), 1195-1210.
Levesque, M., & Minniti, M. (2006). The effect of aging on entrepreneurial behavior. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(2), 177-194.
Maâlaoui, A., Castellano, S., Safraou, I., & Bourguiba, M. (2013). An exploratory study of seniorpreneurs: a new model of entrepreneurial intentions in the French context. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 20(2), 148-164.
McAdams D.P. & Aubin E.S. (1992), « A Theory of Generativity and its Assessment Through Self-Report, Behavioral Acts, and Narrative Themes in Autobiography », Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, No. 62, p. 1003-1015.
Moschis G.P. (1994), Consumer behavior in later life: multidisciplinary contributions and implications for research, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22, 3, 195-204.
Moschis G.P. (1996), Life stages of the mature market, American demographics, 18, 9, 44.
Ostroff J. (1989), Successful Marketing to the 50+ Consumer: How to Capture One of the Biggest and Fastest Growing Markets in America, Ed. Prentice Hall, p. 371.
Rabl, T., & del Carmen Triana, M. (2014). Organizational value for age diversity and potential applicants’ organizational attraction: Individual attitudes matter. Journal of Business Ethics, 121(3), 403-417.
Routledge and Arndt (2005), Time and Terror: Managing temporal consciousness and the awareness of mortality. In A. Strathman & J. Joireman (Eds.), Understanding behavior in the context of time: Theory, research and applicaions (pp. 59-84). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Saba, T. (2014), «Promoting Active Aging : The Canadian Experience of Bridge Employment», dans Alcover, C. M., Topa Cantisano, G., Depolo, M., Fraccaroli, F. et Parry, E. (éds), Research Handbook in Bridge Employment, chapitre 11, Londres : Routledge.
Schewe C. (1989), « Effective Communication with our Aging Population », Business Horizons, 32, 1, 19-25.
Smith, R. B., & Moschis, G. P. (1984). Consumer Soclalization of the Elderly: an Exploratory Study. NA-Advances in Consumer Research Volume 11.
Vanhamme, J. (2001). The Decline of the Senses: The Impact on Consumers (Age When Designing Products, Services and Stores, Proceedings of the European Marketing Academy, Bergen
Wisse, B., van Eijbergen, R., Rietzschel, E. F., & Scheibe, S. (2015). Catering to the Needs of an Aging Workforce: The Role of Employee Age in the Relationship Between Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-14.

Deadlines

Deadline for submissions is October 1st, 2019. For more information, please feel free to contact: Adnane Maalaoui (a.maalaoui@ipag.fr). Manuscripts must be submitted through the JOCM ScholarOne page https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jocm

and author guidelines must be followed, see here.

 CALL FOR PAPERS Journal of Family Business Management Special Issue on “Responsible Ownershipin Family Firms: a focus on the Family”

SI_JFBM_Responsible Ownership_Final

Guest Editors:

Luis Díaz-Matajira (luidiaz@uniandes.edu.co), Universidad de los Andes, Colombia

Kathleen Randerson (kranderson@audencia.com), Audencia Business School, France

Joshua J. Daspit (josh.daspit@txstate.edu), Texas State University, USA

Cristina Aragón-Amonarriz (cristina.aragon@deusto.es), Deusto Business School, Spain

Manuscript Submission Deadline: OCTOBER 1, 2019

The family’s involvement in firm governance is noted as a core driver that creates heterogeneity among family firms (Daspit, Chrisman, Sharma, Pearson, & Mahto, 2018). This form of governance allows the family to exert decision-making influence and control in the firm, while also pursuing actions that are for the good of the family (Carney, 2005). Although this governance form allows the family to exert control over the firm, the goals of the family and firm are not always aligned, and, in fact, can be quite divergent. Thus, for both the business and the family to succeed, responsible decision-making and responsible actions are paramount.

Responsible ownership is defined as the “active and long-term commitment to the family, the business, and the community, and [the ability to balance]these commitments with each other” (Lambrecht & Uhlaner, 2005). A responsible owner engages in behavior that serves the collective good of both the owners and the firm (Uhlaner, Flӧren, & Geerlings, 2007). When the family is in a governance role, responsible family ownership manifests when the family, as a group, is committed to balancing the rights and privileges of ownership with a long-term commitment to family and other (nonfamily) stakeholders of the firm (Aragón-Amonarriz, Arredondo, & Iturrioz-Landart, 2017).

Although studies are beginning to examine the effect of responsible ownership on family firm assets and outcomes (e.g., Berent-Braun & Uhlaner, 2012), even less is known about how family firms develop and sustain responsible ownership across generations. For example, Aragón-Amonarriz et al. (2017) suggest that family social capital preserves responsible family ownership across generations, yet Bergamaschi and Randerson (2016) note that differing types of family firms yield varied preferences for engaging in socially responsible actions. Further, while researchers are beginning to examine the various pathways used by families to instill responsible ownership in the future generation, these processes, intentions, and norms vary greatly across geographical and cultural contexts (e.g., González Couture & Díaz Matajira, 2015).

In all, given the nascent nature of insights and the growing importance of responsible governance, a special issue on responsible ownership promises to offers a substantial advancement to the field of family business. The objective of this special issue is to publish theoretical and empirical work that highlights notable progress and furthers understanding of responsible ownership in the family firm. A non-exhaustive list of possible topics includes:

  • How do family members become responsible owners? How do family firms strategicallyprepare current and next generation owners?
  • What is the role played by family values and/or different types of reciprocity in developingresponsible ownership that is sustainable in the family firm?
  • What theories from family science offer advanced understanding of how responsible familyownership is developed and leveraged in the family firm?
  • What are the effects of cultural, economic, institutional, and other contextual influences onresponsible ownership and the family?
  • How do family owners balance the responsibility of serving multiple stakeholders with oftendivergent interests?
  • How does responsible family ownership (simultaneously) affect family and firm financial,nonfinancial internal, and nonfinancial external outcomes?

 

Submission Guidelines: All submissions are subject to a standard double-blind review process. Manuscripts must be original, unpublished works not concurrently under review for publication at another outlet and are expected to follow the standard formatting guidelines for Journal of Family Business Management. Final manuscripts are to be submitted via the journal’s submission system (https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jfbm) no later than October 1, 2019. Authors should indicate “Special Issue” as the manuscript type and must clearly specify that the submission is for the special issue on “Responsible Ownership in Family Firms” in the cover letter. Publication of this Special Issue is expected for 2021. Workshop: Authors interested in further developing an idea for this special issue are encouraged (but not required) to submit an abstract to the European Institute for Advanced Studies in Management (EIASM) meeting that will be held at Audencia Business School in Nantes, France, May 23-25, 2019. The deadline for submitting conference abstracts is January 21, 2019. All conference submissions are to be made via the EIASM submission system (http://www.eiasm.org/frontoffice/event_announcement.asp?event_id=1381). Please note that acceptance to the workshop does not guarantee nor is it required for acceptance to the special issue. REFERENCES

Aragón-Amonarriz, C., Arredondo, A. M., & Iturrioz-Landart, C. (2017). How can responsible family ownership be sustained across generations? A family social capital approach. Journal of Business Ethics. DOI 10.1007/s10551-017-3728-7

Bergamaschi, M., & Randerson, K. (2016). The futures of family businesses and the development of corporate social responsibility. Futures, 75, 54-65.

Carney, M. (2005). Corporate governance and competitive advantage in family-controlled firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(3), 249–265

Berent-Braun, M. M., & Uhlaner, L. M. (2012). Family governance practices and teambuilding: Paradox of the enterprising family. Small Business Economics, 38(1), 103-119.

Daspit, J. J., Chrisman, J. J., Sharma, P., Pearson, A. W., & Mahto, R. V. (2018). Governance as a source of family firm heterogeneity. Journal of Business Research, 84, 293-300.

González Couture, G., & Díaz Matajira, L. (2015). The next generation: Pathways for preparing and involving new owners in Colombian family businesses. In P. Sharma, N. Auletta, R.-L. DeWitt, M. J. Parada, & M. Yusof (Eds.), Developing Next Generation Leaders for Transgenerational Entrepreneurial Family Enterprises (p. 49-75). Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Lambrecht, J. & Uhlaner, L.M. (2005). Responsible ownership of the family business: State-of-the-art, position paper prepared for FBN-

IFERA World Academic Research forum, EHSAL, Brussels, September. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228379201_RESPONSIBLE_OWNERSHIP_OF_THE_FAMILY_BUSINESS_STATE-OF-THE-ART

Uhlaner, L.M., Flören, R. & Geerlings, J.R. (2007). Ownership commitment, family ownership and performance in the privately-held firm, Small Business Economics Journal, 29(3), 275-293.

Deadline Extension EAP4 Conference abstract deadline+ Call for Papers Special Issue Organization Studies

Good news! The Entrepreneurship as Practice Conference Organizing Committee has decided to extend the deadline of abstract submission to the 4th EAP Conference, which will take place from 3-5 April 2019. The new deadline is now on 15 December 2018.

In addition we are happy to announce that we shall be selecting 12 of the best papers submitted during the Conference to participate in the Organization Studies Special Issue (“Organizational and Institutional Entrepreneuring: Processes and Practices of Creating in an Organized World”) Paper Development Workshop scheduled on the 6th of April 2019.

Participants will also be offered to submit their paper to the “Research Handbook on Entrepreneurship as Practice”, Research Handbooks  in Business and Management series, Edward Elgar Publishing.

Please find attached the revised Call for Papers for the Conference with the new deadlines, as well as the Call for Papers for the Organization Studies Special Issue and for the Research handbook on EaP.

Call for Entrepreneurship as Practice Conference EAP4

Call for Special Issue – Organization Studies – Entrepreneuring

Call for papers – research handbook – Entrepreneurship as Practice

Entreprendre & Innover Numéro Spécial :“Entreprise familiales et familles en affaires : L’entrepreneuriat est-il une affaire de famille ? ”

Appel à contribution numéro spécial

Site internet de la revue :  https://entreprendreetinnover.com/

“Entreprise familiales et familles en affaires : L’entrepreneuriat est-il une affaire de famille ? ”

Rédacteurs :

Miruna Radu-Lefebvre (Audencia Business School) – mradu@audencia.com

Céline Barrédy (Université de Lorraine) – celine.barredy@univ-lorraine.fr

Alain Fayolle (EM-Lyon Business School) – fayolle@em-lyon.com

Numéro Spécial Entrepreneuriat familial – EI

Description du Numéro Spécial

Les entreprises familiales représentent la grande majorité des entreprises au niveau mondial que ce soit dans les pays développés ou émergents1. Selon Fanny Letier, directrice de l’activité PME à la banque publique Bpifrance2, 83% des entreprises françaises en font partie, toute taille et secteur confondus. Pourtant, ce n’est que depuis quelques décennies que le champ disciplinaire du « family business » a vu le jour et démarré son développement, en parallèle et souvent de manière étanche par rapport au champ disciplinaire connexe, celui de l’entrepreneuriat. Ces deux champs se sont structurés et développés séparément, avec leurs propres spécialistes et leurs propres terrains, leurs modèles théoriques, leurs journaux et leurs conférences dédiées. Pourtant, leur proximité est réelle3 et leur dialogue nécessaire en raison du rôle reconnu joué par la famille dans la genèse et la transmission de l’esprit entrepreneurial et des compétences entrepreneuriales, également de l’intention entrepreneuriale ou encore des comportements entrepreneuriaux4. C’est ce qui explique l’émergence, lors des dernières années, d’un nouveau champ de recherche, « l’entrepreneuriat familial », situé à l’intersection de l’entrepreneuriat, du family business, de la sociologie et de la psychologie de la famille.

Si le champ du family business s’intéresse aux entreprises familiales caractérisées comme des entreprises dont la propriété et/ou le contrôle reviennent majoritairement à une ou des famille(s) dont l’intention est de transmettre l’entreprise de génération en génération5, l’entrepreneuriat familial englobe ce champ tout en le dépassant. Il pose comme objet d’étude central le phénomène entrepreneurial au sein des familles en affaires et des entreprises familiales. Le focus de l’entrepreneuriat familial relève ainsi de l’étude des pratiques et des comportements entrepreneuriaux des individus, des familles, et des entreprises6.

Pourquoi s’intéresser au phénomène entrepreneurial dans ce cadre précis de la famille et des entreprises familiales ? En effet, il a été montré que la pérennité et la croissance des entreprises familiales multigénérationnelles dépendent étroitement de la présence et de l’importance des pratiques et des comportements entrepreneuriaux chez les membres de la famille, comme chez les employés et les managers externes7.

L’environnement sociodémographique, légal, économique et culturel des familles en affaires évolue rapidement au travers du monde. Ces évolutions influencent à la fois le comportement des membres des familles en affaires mais également celui des entreprises familiales elles-mêmes. Des enjeux de définition de la famille, des questions liées au genre et aux nouvelles ambitions et revendications des femmes, l’intérêt croissant à la fois de la sphère économique et de la sphère politique pour les impacts sociaux et environnementaux des entreprises transforment en profondeur le paysage dans lequel les entreprises familiales opèrent aujourd’hui. Les contours légaux de la famille au premier rangs desquels les familles recomposées, l’adoption ainsi que leurs évolutions récentes comme le mariage homosexuel ou encore la procréation médicalement assistée pour toutes les femmes, interrogent les dynamiques entrepreneuriales et leur évolutions consécutives dans le cadre de l’entreprise familiale. Pour bien comprendre les dynasties familiales, il faut prendre en compte le droit de la famille8. les dispositifs institutionnels de soutien de l’entrepreneuriat et du repreneuriat, ainsi que le cadre institutionnel relatif à la transmission intergénérationnelle de la propriété de l’entreprise familiale affectent les choix relatifs à la création et à la transmission de ces entreprises dans le cadre de la famille ou à un tiers9.

Les propositions traiteront, entre autres, des sujets suivants :

  • Comment se transmet l’esprit entrepreneurial au sein des familles en affaires ? Quels rôles jouent l’histoire familiale, les interactions avec le dirigeant, les apprentissages formels et informels dans cette transmission ?
  • Quelles pratiques entrepreneuriales peut-on observer au sein des familles en affaires et comment peut-on les étudier et les appréhender, à travers quels choix méthodologiques et quelles approches théoriques ?
  • Quel est l’impact des comportements entrepreneuriaux (ou intrapreneuriaux) du dirigeant, du successeur, ou des managers externes sur la performance des entreprises familiales ?
  • Comment les membres des familles en affaires gèrent-ils la superposition de rôles sociaux appartenant à des univers distincts (famille, entreprise, actionnariat) lorsqu’ils lancent de nouvelles activités au sein de l’entreprise ou souhaitent introduire des innovations, changer d’orientation stratégique ou revisiter l’identité organisationnelle ?
  • Quels outils formels et informels la famille mobilise-t-elle pour transmettre et / ou générer l’esprit d’entreprendre au sein des nouvelles générations ?
  • Les doctrines institutionnelles conduisent-elles à des comportements entrepreneuriaux distincts au sein des familles ?

 

Consignes aux auteurs

Vous trouverez l’intégralité des consignes sur le site de la revue :

https://revueentreprendreinnover.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/consignes-aux-auteurs-ei-janvier-2014.pdf

 

Ligne éditoriale

La revue Entreprendre et Innover est une revue de vulgarisation de haut niveau dans le domaine de l’entrepreneuriat et de l’innovation édité par DeBoeck Université. Son ambition est de mettre à la portée d’un lectorat de cadres, entrepreneurs, professionnels des réseaux de création d’entreprises et dirigeants d’entreprises, des articles originaux, solides sur le plan scientifique ou innovants sur le plan des idées exprimées, sans s’accaparer des oripeaux des publications académiques. La revue est ouverte à TOUTES les disciplines et à TOUS les points de vue qui s’intéressent à l’entrepreneuriat et à l’innovation.

Dans la mesure où cette revue s’adresse en priorité à des praticiens, nous restons attentifs à ce que les contributions aient une préoccupation d’applications pratiques, d’implications entrepreneuriales et/ou de recommandations en matière politique.

Dans cet esprit, les contributions devront :

  • Avoir une section faisant explicitement référence à ces préoccupations : le lecteur doit toujours pouvoir se dire en fin de lecture : et alors ? en quoi cet article m’aide à agir ou à mieux réfléchir pour mon action future ?
  • Adopter un langage plus concret et opérationnel qu’il n’est d’usage dans les revues académiques : la théorie ne doit pas être absente mais vulgarisée, c’est-à-dire traduite en termes simples. Les concepts abstraits doivent être explicités et/ou illustrés par des exemples pratiques.
  • Ne pas accumuler les références scientifiques : le but est de choisir quelques auteurs de référence utiles pour comprendre le propos, non de montrer l’exhaustivité de la littérature académique sur le sujet. Les références scientifiques doivent être exclusivement citées grâce aux notes de bas de page.

 

Échéancier

Les principales dates à retenir sont les suivantes : Soumission des textes originaux31 Mars 2019
Retour vers les auteurs30 Juillet 2019
Date limite d’envoi des textes révisés30 Octobre 2019
Publication du numéroDécembre 2019

 

 

1 Gedajlovic, E., Carney, M., Chrisman, J. J., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2012). The adolescence of family firm research taking stock and planning for the future. Journal of Management, 38 (4): 1010–1037.

2 Arriver, D., & Jacquot, B. (2016). Les entreprises familiales toujours au coeur de l’économie, Le Figaro, 14 décembre.

3 Sharma, P., Hoy, F., Astrachan, J. H., & Koiranen, M. (2007). The practice-driven evolution of family business education. Journal of Business Research, 60(10), 1012-1021.

4 Aldrich, H. E., & Cliff, J. E. (2003). The pervasive effects of family on entrepreneurship: Toward a family embeddedness perspective. Journal of business venturing, 18(5), 573-596.

Fayolle, A., & Bégin, L. (2009). Entrepreneuriat familial: croisement de deux champs ou nouveau champ issu d’un double croisement?. Management international, 14(1), 11-23.

5 Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., & Sharma, P. (1999). Defining the family business by behavior. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 23(4), 19-39.

6 Bégin, L., Chabaud, D., & Richomme-Huet, K. (2010). Vers une approche contingente des entreprises familiales. Revue française de gestion, (1), 79-86.

Bettinelli, C., Sciascia, S., Randerson, K., & Fayolle, A. (2017). Researching Entrepreneurship in Family Firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 55(4), 506-529.

Chabaud, D. (2013). Les entreprises familiales au coeur de l’entrepreneuriat?. Le grand livre de l’entrepreneuriat. Paris, Dunod, 157-172.

Chabaud, D., & Sammut, S. (2014). Entrepreneuriat et entreprises familiales, de la proximité à un champ de recherche spécifique. Revue de l’entrepreneuriat, 13(3), 7-10.

Radu-Lefebvre, M.., & Lefebvre, V. (2016). Anticipating intergenerational management transfer of family firms: A typology of next generation’s future leadership projections. Futures, 75, 66-82.

7 Randerson, K., Bettinelli, C., Fayolle, A., & Anderson, A. (2015). Family entrepreneurship as a field of research: Exploring its contours and contents. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 6(3), 143-154.

Randerson, K., Dossena, G., & Fayolle, A. (2016). The futures of family business: family entrepreneurship. Futures, (75), 36-43.

8 Marcus, G. E. (1991). Law in the development of dynastic families among American business elites: The domestication of capital and the capitalization of family. Family Business Review, 4(1), 75-111.

9 Barrédy, C. (2016). In search of future alternatives for family business: Family law contributions through Civil and Common Law comparison. Futures, 75, 44-53.

Jaskiewicz, P., Combs, J. G., & Rau, S. B. (2015). Entrepreneurial legacy: Toward a theory of how some family firms nurture transgenerational entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(1), 29-49.

 

CfP Special Issue – Entreprendre & Innover – L’éducation entrepreneuriale

Editeurs du dossier :

Caroline VERZAT, ESCP Europe,

Saulo DUBARD BARBOSA, emlyon business school,

Stéphane FOLIARD, Université Jean Monnet, St-Etienne,

Mohsen TAVAKOLI, emlyon business school & Université Grenoble Alpes (CERAG).

Appel à com EI n 40 – éducation Entrepreneuriale

Depuis plusieurs années, l’entrepreneuriat est proposé comme une solution pour la crise économique et socio-environnementale qui touche les sociétés modernes. Les acteurs et décideurs de tous les niveaux ont saisi cette prise de conscience collective et ont fortement misé sur le développement de l’entrepreneuriat et l’entrepreneuriat social. Aujourd’hui, après 70 ans du premier cours en entrepreneuriat enseigné à Harvard Business School, l’enseignement de l’entrepreneuriat est présent aux quatre coins du monde et se fait à tous les niveaux au sein de ifférents cadres institutionnels et disciplinaires.

Au niveau européen, l’enseignement de l’entrepreneuriat a trouvé une place prépondérante au sein des stratégies de l’Union Européenne (i.e. Europe 2020) notamment par l’agenda d’Oslo de 2006 et le plan d’action « Entrepreneurship 2020 »3. Les objectifs visés par ses mesures étaient de non seulement sensibiliser les apprentis, mais aussi de leur permettre d’apprendre l’entrepreneuriat par la pratique. Sur le plan national, le socle commun de connaissances, de compétences et de la culture prévoit qu’à la fin de sa scolarité obligatoire « L’élève sait prendre des initiatives, entreprendre et mettre en oeuvre des projets… » (“Socle commun de connaissances, de compétences et de culture,” n.d.). La loi du 4 août 2008 de modernisation de l’économie a instauré un nouveau statut pour les entrepreneurs individuels : autoentrepreneur,

L’éducation entrepreneuriale

pour faire face à la crise croissante de l’emploi. Après avoir organisé des assises de l’entrepreneuriat en 2013, le gouvernement français a décidé de donner encore plus d’élan à l’entrepreneuriat. La loi de refondation de l’école de la république de 2013 stipule l’intégration des nouvelles mesures destinées à sensibiliser les élèves de la 6ème à la terminale à l’entrepreneuriat4. En outre, l’introduction du statut étudiant-entrepreneur et les Pépites ainsi que le programme « French Tech » à la même époque ont démontré, encore une fois, la volonté des acteurs politiques de promouvoir le développement de l’entrepreneuriat en France.

Emblématique, le terme « startup nation » est de plus en plus présent dans les discours. En même temps, de nombreuses initiatives émanant du secteur privé et associatif visent à soutenir les futurs entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs’ Organisation, Endeavor, Young Entrepreneurs Alliance, Ashoka, Enactus, Fondation Edward Lowe et fondation Kauffman en sont des exemples importants à l’international. En France, Entreprendre pour Apprendre, le Réseau et la fondation Entreprendre, Les entrepreneuriales, font partie des structures visant à inciter et soutenir l’entrepreneuriat auprès de divers segments de la population.

Face à cette profusion de politiques et d’initiatives visant à diffuser et à enseigner l’entrepreneuriat, et compte tenu de l’importance des ressources mobilisées, l’éducation entrepreneuriale devient un sujet de plus en plus pertinent. Or, si les recherches scientifiques ont répondu à la question « peut-on enseigner l’entrepreneuriat ? »5, elles laissent beaucoup de questions ouvertes sur pourquoi et comment l’enseigner, comment suivre et mesurer l’apprentissage, quels objectifs pédagogiques privilégier, quelle place pour la théorie et pour la pratique, entre autres.

Afin de prolonger le débat sur ces questions, nous proposons à la revue Entreprendre et Innover de publier un numéro spécial consacré à l’éducation entrepreneuriale. Ce numéro est l’occasion de connecter chercheurs, praticiens et éducateurs en entrepreneuriat, afin d’établir un panorama des pratiques pédagogiques innovantes, une revue de recherches récentes à destination des éducateurs, ainsi que revue(s) de lecture, entretien(s), et une tribune ouverte aux éducateurs, étudiants, entrepreneurs et chercheurs. Nous sommes particulièrement ouverts à des contributions portant sur les débats suivants :

  • Les pratiques de l’éducation entrepreneuriale (EE) :
    • L’EE a été modélisée par des chercheurs6 mais nous savons peu sur la façon dont ces modèles sont appliqués dans chaque contexte éducatif. Quels objectifs (création d’entreprise, acquisition de connaissances, de compétences, d’esprit d’entreprendre au sens large…) sont priorisés pour quels niveaux et quels profils d’apprenants ? Quels sont les principes pédagogiques poursuivis, les philosophies éducatives sous-jacentes, les activités proposées ?
    • Peut-on parler de méthodes éducatives entrepreneuriales spécifiques pour enseigner notamment la construction des opportunités et l’affrontement de l’incertitude ? Dans quelle mesure l’EE fait elle évoluer la forme scolaire traditionnelle ?
    • Les outils numériques ont-ils un rôle spécifique à jouer dans l’EE ? Quelles sont les conséquences (positives ou négatives) de leur intégration aux programmes d’EE ?
    • Quels acteurs défendent et pratiquent l’EE : quels enseignants ? quels partenaires extérieurs ? quelles directions d’établissement ? L’EE fait elle évoluer les postures des enseignants, leur sentiment d’efficacité, leur professionnalité perçue et reconnue ?
  • L’évaluation et la mesure d’impact de l’EE :
    • Qu’est-ce que l’efficacité et l’impact d’un dispositif d’EE ? Comment les mesurer : quels indicateurs, quel processus d’évaluation formative et certificative, à quelle(s) temporalité(s) ?
    • L’EE donne-t-elle un statut spécifique à l’essai, l’erreur et à l’échec dans le processus d’apprentissage et dans l’évaluation ?
    • A quelles conditions (d’objectifs poursuivis, de postures des enseignants, de publics, d’insertion dans le curriculum, de gouvernance institutionnelle…) l’enseignement de l’entrepreneuriat permet-il de (re)motiver les apprenants ? de les (ré)engager dans le processus d’apprentissage ? L’EE répond-elle de manière satisfaisante aux attentes des politiques publiques en matière d’insertion sociale et professionnelle des jeunes, de réduction du chômage, de contribution au développement économique et local…
  • Les questionnements critiques vis-à-vis de l’EE :
    • Les croyances, valeurs et paradigmes sous-jacents aux dispositifs éducatifs sont-elles claires pour tous les acteurs ? Quelles finalités affichées ou implicites font sens pour les différents acteurs impliqués ?
    • Dans quelle mesure l’EE peut-elle être considérée comme un véhicule idéologique d’un certain type de politique éducative ?
    • L’EE permet-elle d’augmenter effectivement le pouvoir d’agir de tous ou metelle insidieusement en place un processus de sélection sociale donnant l’illusion que chacun peut devenir autonome ?
  • La place du chercheur et de la recherche en EE :
    • Comment les études scientifiques peuvent venir en aide à l’éducateur en entrepreneuriat ? Comment pouvons-nous renforcer le lien entre le chercheur et l’éducateur ?
    • Quelles approches méthodologiques utiliser pour étudier la réalité des pratiques éducatives en entrepreneuriat ?

Les dates principales à retenir sont :

  • 01/10/2018 : Soumission des textes originaux
  • 01/01/2019 : Retour vers les auteurs
  • 10/03/2019 : Date limite d’envoi des textes révisés
  • 01/07/2019 : Publication du numéro

Soumissions (également accessible à : https://entreprendreetinnover.com/soumettre/ )

Les consignes aux auteurs sont accessibles ici: Consignes aux auteurs E&I – janvier 2014. Il est impératif de les respecter lorsque vous envoyez votre soumission. Les articles doivent être envoyés exclusivement en format Word à Elisabeth GELAS à l’adresse gelas@em‐lyon.com en mentionnant le titre de l’appel en objet et le N° corespondant.

Il est expressément demandé aux auteurs de joindre à leur soumission d’article les documents suivants (disponibles sur le site de la revue) dûment remplis:

  • La fiche descriptive disponible ici: Fiche soumission d’article E&I – janvier 2014.
  • La déclaration d’honneur anti‐plagiat disponible ici: Déclaration anti‐plagiat 2014‐0824

Veuillez prendre note que sans ces documents, l’article ne pourra pas être examiné par la rédaction.

Fayolle, A., Verzat, C., & Wapshott, R. (2016). In quest of legitimacy: The theoretical and methodological foundations of entrepreneurship education research. International Small Business Journal, 34(7), 895–904.

Valerio, A., Parton, B., & Robb, A. (2014). Entrepreneurship Education and Training Programs around the World : Dimensions for Success. The World Bank. Retrieved from https://ideas.repec.org/b/wbk/wbpubs/18031.html

European Commission, 2013a. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – Entrepreneurship 2020 Action Plan. Reigniting the entrepreneurial spirit in Europe. COM(2012) 795 final. [pdf]Available at: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0795:FIN:EN:PDF [Consulté le 15 Décembre 2017)

https://www.economie.gouv.fr/favoriser-lentrepreneuriat

Voir l’article de Fayolle et al de 2016 (note n°1) et Fayolle, A. (2012). Entrepreneuriat-2e ed.: Apprendre à entreprendre. Dunod. Paris

Voir par exemple :Béchard, J.-P., & Grégoire, D. (2005). Entrepreneurship Education Research Revisited: The Case of Higher Education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 22–43.

Neck, H. M., & Greene, P. G. (2011). Entrepreneurship Education: Known Worlds and New Frontiers. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 55–70.

Neck, H.M., Greene, P.G. & Brush, C.G (2014) Teaching Entrepreneurship, A Practice-Based Approach, Edward Elgar Publishing : Cheltenham UK, Northampton, MA

Verzat, C., Trindade-Chadeau, A. & Toutain, O. (2017). Introduction: Promesses et réalités de l’entrepreneuriat des jeunes. Agora débats/jeunesses, 75,(1), 57-72. doi:10.3917/agora.075.0057.

CfP – Journal of Management Inquiry Developmental Conference – Enhancing Entrepreneurship Education research and practice

Enhancing entrepreneurship education research and practice: Challenging taken-for granted assumptions and dominant perspectives

Journal of Management Inquiry Developmental Conference and Dialogue Call For Papers.

Convenors and Guest editors

Alain Fayolle – fayolle@em-lyon.com – EMLYON Business School

Michela Loi – michela.loi@unica.it – Department of Economic and Business Sciences – University of Cagliari

 Dialogue JMI pmdeh AF 09072018

Convenor and JMI supervising Editor

Pablo Martin de Holan – pmdeh@mbsc.edu.sa – MBS College of Business & Entrepreneurship, Saudi Arabia

2

Financial Times: Do you have any advice to young would-be Entrepreneurs who want to emulate your success?

Gerald Cavendish Grosvenor (Duke of Grosvenor, Chairman of Great Portland Estates, Owner of Grosvenor group): Make sure they have an ancestor who was a very close friend of William the Conqueror.

Background and objectives of the Dialogue

Entrepreneurship has been taught for over 50 years in business schools, engineering schools and universities worldwide (Katz, 2003; Solomon 2007; Vesper & Gartner, 1997), and is becoming a core pillar of several Business Schools around the world. Over the years, the teaching of entrepreneurship has developed into a branch of research, namely, entrepreneurship education (EE), the interest of which is to understand what, how and to whom entrepreneurship should be taught (e.g. Fiet, 2001; Honig, 2004; Neck & Green, 2011) and what results should be expected from these kinds of programmes (Peterman & Kennedy, 2003; Pittaway & Cope, 2007). Several contributions have focused on the nature of EE as a research field, questioning its maturity and legitimacy (Katz, 2003; Kuratko, 2005) or its standards (Katz, Hanke, Maidment, Weaver, & Alpi, 2016).

EE research is currently facing a particular challenge; not only it lacks academic legitimacy but it is also striving to achieve relevance in practice (Fayolle, Verzat, & Wapshott, 2016). Consequently, and as Fayolle (2013) states, EE needs more robust theoretical and philosophical foundations that draw on both entrepreneurship and education fields to support the development of effective courses and programmes, and to distinguish between those that are, and those that are not.

For instance, the literature in EE often describes the structure and content of entrepreneurship courses and programmes but fails to appropriately question their philosophical and methodological foundations, which might be important if we were to better understand the essence of entrepreneurship (Johannisson, 2016). Another important concern is the vagueness of EE goals (Hoppe, 2016), and, in some cases, its disconnect with larger social forces, such as inequality. Some studies, for example, affirm that EE is becoming increasingly complex as its contexts of application (with respect to the heterogeneity of both the locales where entrepreneurship is taught, but also the type of people who receive EE and the specificities of their backgrounds) are diverse and each of them might be highly peculiar (Lindh & Thorgren, 2016) with boundary conditions that may make generalizations problematic.

This concern concurs with the inherent difficulty of developing effective EE programmes along with the assessment of its results. The impact of EE is, indeed, a relevant issue for several studies in this field (Nabi, Liñán, Fayolle, Krueger, & Walmsley, 2017). Empirical observations reveal contrasting findings in that respect (Walter & Block, 2016), suggesting that multiple truths might coexist regarding the effects of EE on people and territories. This could kindle scholars’ interest in different questions that shift the emphasis from ‘whether’ to ‘when’ or ‘for whom’ EE is effective or ineffective (e.g., Lyons & Zhang, 2018) so as to help determine to what extent entrepreneurship can be taught, what dimensions of it can and should be taught, and with what methodologies. Consequently, we wish to ask a broad question: how should the field develop to tackle these drawbacks and to increase its relevance and impact from a theoretical and practical perspective?

Here, we invite scholars to highlight the taken-for-granted assumptions that beset the field of EE, and to reflect on how to break away from them and move this field forward.

The principal aim of this reflection is to offer new propositions and perspectives that challenge the previous ones, and bring more texture and nuance to the field of EE. In this vein, we would like to open a debate around the major shortcomings of EE and open the space for new questions, new solutions and new research paths to be developed. To this end, we call for papers that embrace a critical approach in discussing their perspectives. By following previous critical approaches in entrepreneurship (e.g., Fayolle, Landström, Gartner, & Berglund, 2016; Frank & Landström, 2016), we consider perspectives that offer alternative ways of knowing and understanding in the field of EE to be critical.

Without limiting the creative insights of those authors who wish to participate in this debate, we highlight three areas that bring together possible ideas to guide scholars to identify and address the assumptions that have been taken for granted in EE: Newness, Diversity and Ethics.1

New ideas have an important role in scientific progress (Kuhn, 1970); they might challenge previous positions and open paths for new questions. In this call for papers, Newness is intended as the fact of not having existed before and includes questions that reflect on what represents innovation for EE. The questions are intended to highlight issues that require a deeper consideration in this field. Examples of these questions are as follows:

  • What is really ‘New’ in EE and why might this newness be of interest to EE? Is “new” systematically better?
  • Is there something that we have forgotten to study?

We claim that Diversity, intended as a range of many people or things that are very different from each other, is a peculiarity of EE. The field stems from and merges together two different scientific domains, namely, education and entrepreneurship. EE is applied in very different contexts (universities vs professional associations); is oriented towards different targets (students, nascent entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs) and has different goals (Bae, Qian, Miao, & Fiet, 2014; Liñán, 2004). While this variety might be a source of richness for new ideas to arise, it might also prevent the process of defining EE objectives and impacts. In this call for papers, Diversity is meant to cover questions that try to address the complexity of EE, to recompose the fragmented puzzle and to make its multiple dimensions more understandable:

  • What is the role, as well as impact, of theoretical and practical diversity in EE?
  • How does diversity in geographical contexts, educational settings, institutions, people, audiences, teachers and programmes influence EE?

Ethics, intended as moral principles or rules of behaviour, becomes a central issue in EE. This is due to its centrality in policymakers’ discourse that emphasises the quality of being entrepreneurial as a resource for the social and economic progress of society. The potential impact of these policies should call scholars to reflect on the influence of their research that is thought to enlighten the political agenda. In this call for papers, Ethics embraces all those questions that reflect on the implications and consequences of EE programmes in relation to their pedagogical approaches, evaluation methods, goals and so on. Possible questions are as follows:

  • Do we think about moral principles and rules when we address the teaching of entrepreneurship? Under what conditions or circumstance EE leads to immoral or amoral behaviours?
  • What does it mean to be ethical when students are taught or educated regarding entrepreneurship? How to educate Ethical Entrepreneurs? How does EE affect ethical intentions and behaviours among students?
  • How do EE teachers and researchers deal with their assumptions that they have taken for granted?

Authors are requested to try to connect these three areas to present an original contribution to the field of EE. Both theoretical and empirical contributions are welcomed.

Process

This call for papers is divided into two parts: an earlier one for a developmental conference, and a second one for the Dialogue itself. Initially, we are inviting scholars to submit manuscripts that are finalized or relatively advanced. Each contribution will be evaluated through a double-blind review process but using a developmental lens: the objective of this initial review is to facilitate the Academic conversation around the theme, and help authors develop their manuscripts.

Accepted contributions and their authors will be invited to be presented and discussed at a mini-conference that will be held in February/March 2019 at the EMLYON Business School (Lyon-France). This conference is developmental in nature, and seeks to ensure that a robust, high-quality academic dialogue emerges among participants around a common conversation. Authors will be invited to present their manuscript and will receive feedback for development. After the conference, the best contributions (a maximum of six) will be invited for inclusion in the Dialogue Section of the Journal of Management Inquiry.

The papers presented for consideration in order to be included at the EMLYON Developmental Conference should adhere to the guidelines of the Journal of Management Inquiry, requiring that manuscripts to conform to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th edition) (Guidelines for authors can be found here: https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/journal/journal-management-inquiry#submissionguidelines).

The papers invited for publication will follow the standard format of JMI´s “Dialogue” section. Please find here additional information about the Journal of Management Inquiry: http://journals.sagepub.com/home/jmi; and a sample of the “Dialogue” section: http://journals.sagepub.com/toc/jmia/27/1#sage_toc_section_Dialog

Submission process

  • Paper submission: 31 December 2018
  • Round 1 review: 30 January 2019
  • Mini-conference: February/March 2019
  • Submission of the revised papers: 02 June 2019
  • Selection of the papers: 30 September 2019
  • Publication date: 2020

For any further information, please contact the editors at the email addresses provided above.

References

Bae, T. J., Qian, S., Miao, C., & Fiet, J. O. (2014). The relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions: A meta‐analytic review. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(2), 217-254.

Fayolle, A. (2013). Personal views on the future of entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 25(7-8), 692-701.

Fayolle, A., Landstrom, H., Gartner, W. B., & Berglund, K. (2016). The institutionalization of entrepreneurship: Questioning the status quo and re-gaining hope for entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 28(7-8), 477-486.

Fayolle, A., Verzat, C., & Wapshott, R. (2016). In quest of legitimacy: The theoretical and methodological foundations of entrepreneurship education research. International Small Business Journal, 34(7), 895-904.

Fiet, J. O. (2001). The pedagogical side of entrepreneurship theory. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(2), 101-117.

Frank, H., & Landström, H. (2016). What makes entrepreneurship research interesting? Reflections on strategies to overcome the rigour–relevance gap. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 28(1-2), 51-75.

Honig, B. (2004). Entrepreneurship education: Toward a model of contingency-based business planning. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(3), 258-273.

Hoppe, M. (2016). Policy and entrepreneurship education. Small Business Economics, 46(1), 13-29.

Johannisson, B. (2016). Limits to and prospects of entrepreneurship education in the academic context. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 28(5-6), 403-423.

Katz, J. A. (2003). The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education: 1876–1999. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 283-300.

Katz, J. A. (2008). Fully mature but not fully legitimate: A different perspective on the state of entrepreneurship education. Journal of Small Business Management, 46(4), 550-566.

Katz, J. A., Hanke, R., Maidment, F., Weaver, K. M., & Alpi, S. (2016). Proposal for two model undergraduate curricula in entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(2), 487-506.

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (Second Edition). Chicago: University Press of Chicago.

Kuratko, D. F. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends, and challenges. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 577-598.

Lindh, I., & Thorgren, S. (2016). Entrepreneurship education: The role of local business. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 28(5-6), 313-336.

Liñán, F. (2004). Intention–based models of entrepreneurship education. Piccola Impresa/Small Business, 3, 11–35.

Lyons, E., & Zhang, L. (2018). Who does (not) benefit from entrepreneurship programmes?. Strategic Management Journal, 39(1), 85-112.

Nabi, G., Liñán, F., Fayolle, A., Krueger, N., & Walmsley, A. (2017). The impact of entrepreneurship education in higher education: A systematic review and research agenda. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(2), 277-299.

Neck, H. M., & Greene, P. G. (2011). Entrepreneurship education: known worlds and new frontiers. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 55-70.

Peterman, N. E., & Kennedy, J. (2003). Enterprise education: Influencing students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(2), 129-144.

Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007). Entrepreneurship education: a systematic review of the evidence. International Small Business Journal, 25(5), 479-510.

Solomon, G. (2007). An examination of entrepreneurship education in the United States. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 14(2), 168-182.

Vesper, K. H., & Gartner, W. B. (1997). Measuring progress in entrepreneurship education. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(5), 403-421.

Walter, S. G., & Block, J. H. (2016). Outcomes of entrepreneurship education: An institutional perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(2), 216-233.

« Entrepreneurship Education, rethinking connections: Opportunities and Challenges » Roanne, March the 7 and 8 2019

« Entrepreneurship Education, rethinking connections: Opportunities and Challenges »
Roanne,
March the 7 and 8 2019
& Call For Paper Entreprendre & Innover

Entrepreneurship Education rethinking connexions Roanne 2019

(Valerio, Parton and Robb, 2014. Yet, it still faces problems of disciplinary legitimacy (Katz, 2008) ,of teacher’s legitimacy (Foliard, Le Pontois and Fayolle, 2018) or of difficulties in finding its place within the University (Gibb, 2011).

– Even more problematic, the gap between schools or universities and practitioners, entrepreneurs, remains largely open with real difficulties to include EE in an entrepreneurial ecosystem that does not expect advances and development of new behaviors, nor of tools and knowledge. The stakes are high and the connections must be increased and improved to enrich the lessons taken from practice. Research must also be used as an improvement lever through stronger theoretical and methodological bases (Fayolle, Verzat and Wapshott, 2016) to develop critical analysis.

While each of these actors is confronted with its own problems, interconnections can be the basis of contemporary, authentic, and effective teaching programs. However, these interconnections are rare and the literature weakly addresses the links between the members of this triad. Research can play a role in bringing these actors together by showing good practices and by providing analysis and reflexivity. EE remains a hot topic for 2018, particularly for its practical scope and managerial implications (Kuckertz and Prochotta, 2018). The development of initiatives from the private sector and associations to support future entrepreneurs is symptomatic of the situation and it questions the functioning of our organizations. Recent initiatives, such as Ecole 42 and Matrice, support student autonomy by offering non-course and teacher-free programs based on peer learning and coaching.

Our environment is changing very quickly and many initiatives are being launched. Connections between policy makers, EE and practitioners need to be consolidated. The purpose of this call for papers is to prolong the debates around the following main themes:

Practices of entrepreneurship education (EE):

  • EE has been modeled by researchers (eg Béchard & Grégoire 2005, Neck & Greene 2011, Neck, Green and Brush 2014), but little is known about how these models are applied in each educative context. Which objectives (business creation, acquisition of knowledge, skills, entrepreneurial spirit in the broad sense …) are prioritized for which levels and which profiles of learners? What are the pedagogical principles pursued, the underlying educational philosophies and the proposed activities?
  • Can we talk about specific entrepreneurial educational methods to teach, including the construction of opportunities and the confrontation of uncertainty? To what extent does EE make the traditional school form evolve?
  • Do digital tools have a specific role to play in EE? What are the consequences (positive or negative) of their integration into EE activities?
  • Which actors defend and practice EE: which teachers? which external partners? Which directions of establishment? Does the EE make the postures of the teachers evolve, as well as their sense of effectiveness, and their professionalism perceived and recognized?

Assessment and impact measurement of EE:

  • What is the effectiveness and impact of an EE device? How to measure them: which indicators, which process of formative and certificated evaluation, to which temporality (ies)?
  • Does the EE give a specific status to the test, error and failure in the learning process and in the assessment?
  • Under what conditions (objectives pursued, teacher postures, public, insertion into the curriculum, institutional governance …) does the teaching of entrepreneurship make it possible to (re) motivate learners? to (re) engage them in the learning process?
  • Does the EE meet the expectations of public policies in terms of social and professional integration of young people, reduction of unemployment, contribution to economic and local development etc.?

Critical questions about EE:

  • Are the beliefs, values and paradigms underlying educational devices clear to all actors? Which stated or implicit goals make sense for the different actors involved?
  • To what extent can EE be considered as an ideological vehicle for a certain type of educational policy (Verzat, Trindade-Chadeau, and Toutain 2017)?
  • Does EE effectively increase everyone’s power of action or does it insidiously set up a process of social selection that gives the illusion that everyone can become autonomous?
  • How far to consider testing, error and failure in the learning process and in the evaluation system?

The role of researchers and of research in EE:

  • How can scientific studies help entrepreneurship educators? How can we strengthen the link between researchers and educators?
  • What methodological approaches can be used to study the reality of educational practices in entrepreneurship?

This call for papers is an opportunity to connect researchers, practitioners, entrepreneurs, policy makers and entrepreneurship educators, in order to establish a broad overview of innovative pedagogical practices and their impact. It allows a review of recent research for educators, as well as review (s) and interview (s) through an open forum directed to educators, students, entrepreneurs and researchers.

The scientific committee will examine the epistemological, theoretical, empirical and methodological approaches with interest to continue thinking about entrepreneurship education in today’s fast and complex world. Alongside academic papers, more professional-type communications (practices, testimonials, stories, etc.) as well as case studies are also eligible and will be examined with the utmost attention.

SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE – EDITORIAL COMMITTEE Entreprendre & Innover

Alain FAYOLLE, emlyon business school, France
Bernard SURLEMONT, HEC-Ecole de Gestion de l’Université de Liège, Belgique
Caroline VERZAT, ESCP Europe, France
Dominique-Anne MICHEL, Secrétaire générale de la rédaction
Elisabeth GELAS, emlyon business school, secrétaire de rédaction
Franck BARÈS, HEC Montréal, Canada
Fabienne BORNARD, INSEEC Lyon, France
Nathalie CARRÉ, CCI France – CCI Entreprendre en France
Didier CHABAUD, IAE Paris Sorbonne
Jacques-Henri COSTE, université de la Sorbonne, France
Dominique FRUGIER, président d’Alicelab’, secrétaire général de l’Académie de l’Entrepreneuriat et de l’Innovation
Chrystelle GAUJARD, Groupe Yncréa, Lille, France
Amélie JACQUEMIN, Louvain School of Management, UCL, Belgique
Wadid LAMINE, Toulouse Buisness School, France
Benoît RAUCENT, Université Catholique de Louvain la Neuve, Belgique
Olivier TOUTAIN, ESC Dijon Bourgogne
Olivier WITMEUR, Solvay Brussels School of Economics and Management, Belgique

CREE and ENGAGE

Dag Håkon Haneberg NTNU
Fabienne BORNARD INSEEC U
Gunn-Berit Sæter NTNU
Imran QURESHI emlyon business school
Janice BYRNE IESEG School of Management
Joseph TIXIER emlyon business school
Julie FABBRI emlyon business school
Karolina LESNIAK NTNU
Lise Aaboen NTNU
Martine HLADY RISPAL University of Limoges
Michela LOI University of Cagliari
Miruna RADU LEFEBVRE Audencia Business School
Mohsen TAVAKOLI, EM-Lyon Business
School & Université Grenoble Alpes (CERAG).
Muhammad Imran emlyon business school
Noreen O’SHEA ESCP Europe
Olivier TOUTAIN Burgundy School of Business
Øystein Widding NTNU
Roger SØRHEIM NTNU
Sandrine LE PONTOIS IUT de Roanne
Saulo DUBARD BARBOSA, EM-Lyon Business School
Stéphane FOLIARD IUT de Roanne
Torgeir Aadland NTNU

GUEST SPEAKERS:

Dr Andrea-Rosalinde HOFER Policy Analyst – Entrepreneurship Policy and Analysis – OECD

Peter BAUR – DG Education and Culture – European Commission

COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES

Extended abstracts will be between 1,000 and 3,000 words in French or English. They will specify the problem and the interest of the research, the theoretical framework(s), the methodology, the envisaged results, the potential contribution. They are to be sent exclusively in PDF and anonymous format to: stephane.foliard@univ-st-etienne.fr

SAVE THE DATE

Sending extended summaries October the 31 2018
Response of the Scientific Committee December the 15 2018
Sending complete communications February the 10 2019
Deadline for registration

Special issue publication
March the 1st 2019
Summer 2019

OPPORTUNITY OF PUBLICATION
The best original texts responding to the main theme allowing a dialogue between practitioners and researchers (be careful to respect the instructions to the authors of this review that will be transmitted to the participants) and retained by the Scientific Committee will be proposed to the journal Entreprendre & Innover (classified category 4 FNEGE) for a special issue devoted to EE (Editors: Caroline VERZAT, ESCP Europe Business School Paris, Saulo DUBARD BARBOSA, EM-Lyon Business School, Stéphane FOLIARD, Jean Monnet University, St-Etienne , Mohsen TAVAKOLI, EM-Lyon Business School & University Grenoble Alpes (CERAG)). They will be peer reviewed according to the rules of double blind procedures.

VALORISATION OPPORTUNITY
In order to promote and spread the work as widely as possible, we are organizing a TEDx University on Friday, on March 8th 2019 in the afternoon. Speakers will present and disseminate their ideas. The principle of TEDx is to popularize to spread the worth ideas widely. The subject will have to be simplified and the presentations should last for 18 minutes maximum. The number of speakers will be between 6 and 10.

PRACTICAL INFORMATIONS
Registration fee: 160 Euros (including material, coffee breaks, meals), 80 Euros for PhD students.
City informations of Roanne:
http://leroannais.com/

CONTACTS
stephane.foliard@univ-st-etienne.fr 0033 6 08 73 51 16
and sandrine.lepontois@univ-st-etienne.fr

QUOTED REFERENCES
Béchard, J. P., & Grégoire, D. (2005). Entrepreneurship education research revisited: The case of higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 22-43.
Blenker, P., Frederiksen, S. H., Korsgaard, S., Müller, S., Neergaard, H., & Thrane, C. (2012). Entrepreneurship as everyday practice: towards a personalized pedagogy of enterprise education. Industry and Higher Education, 26(6), 417-430.
Carrier C. (2009). « L’enseignement de l’entrepreneuriat: au-delà des cours magistraux, des études de cas et du plan d’affaires ». Revue de l’Entrepreneuriat, vol. 8, no 2, p. 17-33.
Commission Européenne (2013). Plan d’action « Entrepreneuriat 2020 » Raviver l’esprit d’entreprise en Europe, Bruxelles.
Eynon R. (2013) “The rise of Big Data: what does it mean for education, technology, and media research?”. Learning, Media and Technology, 38:3, 237-240
Fayolle A., Verzat C. et Wapshott R. (2016). “In quest of legitimacy: The theoretical and methodological foundations of entrepreneurship education research”. International Small Business Journal, 34(7), 895-904.
Fayolle A. (2013). Personal views on the future of entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 25(7-8), 692-701.
Foliard, S., Le Pontois, S., Fayolle, A. (2018). “The Legitimacy of Teachers in Entrepreneurship Education: What we Can Learn From a Literature Review” in “Creating Entrepreneurial Space: Talking through Multi voices, reflections on emerging debates” edited by David Higgins, Paul Jones and Pauric McGowan. To be published
Günzel-Jensen, F., & Robinson, S. (2017). Effectuation in the undergraduate classroom: Three barriers to entrepreneurial learning. Education+ Training, 59(7/8), 780-796.
Katz J. A. (2008). “Fully mature but not fully legitimate: A different perspective on the state of entrepreneurship education”. Journal of Small Business Management, 46(4), 550-566.
Kuckertz A. et Prochotta A. (2018). « What’s Hot in Entrepreneurship Research 2018?” Hohenheim Entrepreneurship Research Brief No. 4 – February
Kuratko, D. F. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends, and challenges. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 29(5), 577-598.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge university press.
Neck, H. M., & Greene, P. G. (2011). Entrepreneurship education: known worlds and new frontiers. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 55-70.
Neck, H.M., Greene, P.G. & Brush, C.G (2014) Teaching Entrepreneurship, A Practice-Based Approach, Edward Elgar Publishing : Cheltenham UK, Northampton, MA
Paul, M. (2002). L’accompagnement: une nébuleuse. Éducation permanente, 153(4), 43-56.
Rideout E. C. et Gray D. O. (2013). “Does entrepreneurship education really work? A review and methodological critique of the empirical literature on the effects of university‐based entrepreneurship education”. Journal of Small Business Management, vol. 51, no 3, p. 329- 351.
Sarasvathy, S. D., & Venkataraman, S. (2011). Entrepreneurship as method: Open questions for an entrepreneurial future. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 35(1), 113-135.
Valerio, A., Parton, B., & Robb, A. (2014). Entrepreneurship education and training programs around the world: dimensions for success. World Bank Publications.
Verzat, C., Trindade-Chadeau, A. & Toutain, O. (2017). Introduction: Promesses et réalités de l’entrepreneuriat des jeunes. Agora débats/jeunesses, 75,(1), 57-72. doi:10.3917/agora.075.0057.

CfP Special Issue – Entreprendre & Innover – Entreprises Familiales et Famille en Affaires : l’entrepreneuriat est-il une affaire de famille ?

Éditeurs du dossier :

  • Miruna Radu-Lefebvre, Audencia
  • Céline Barrédy, Université Paris Nanterre
  • Alain Fayolle, emlyon business school

Thématique du numéro spécial

appel à com EI n 41 Entrepreneuriat Familial

Les entreprises familiales représentent la grande majorité des entreprises au niveau mondial que ce soit dans les pays développés ou émergents1. Selon Fanny Letier, directrice de l’activité PME à la banque publique Bpifrance2, 83% des entreprises françaises en font partie, toute taille et secteur confondus. Pourtant, ce n’est que depuis quelques décennies que le champ disciplinaire du « family business » a vu le jour et démarré son développement, en parallèle et souvent de manière étanche par rapport au champ disciplinaire connexe, celui de l’entrepreneuriat. Ces deux champs se sont structurés et développés séparément, avec leurs propres spécialistes et leurs propres terrains, leurs modèles théoriques, leurs journaux et leurs conférences dédiées. Pourtant, leur proximité est réelle3 et leur dialogue nécessaire en raison du rôle reconnu joué par la famille dans la genèse et la transmission de l’esprit entrepreneurial et des compétences entrepreneuriales, également de l’intention entrepreneuriale ou encore des comportements entrepreneuriaux4. C’est ce qui explique l’émergence, lors des dernières années, d’un nouveau champ de recherche, « l’entrepreneuriat familial », situé à l’intersection de l’entrepreneuriat, du family business, de la sociologie et de la psychologie de la famille.

Si le champ du family business s’intéresse aux entreprises familiales caractérisées comme des entreprises dont la propriété et/ou le contrôle reviennent majoritairement à une ou des famille(s) dont l’intention est de transmettre l’entreprise de génération en génération5, l’entrepreneuriat familial englobe ce champ tout en le dépassant. Il pose comme objet d’étude central le phénomène entrepreneurial au sein des familles en affaires et des entreprises familiales. Le focus de l’entrepreneuriat familial relève ainsi de l’étude des pratiques et des comportements entrepreneuriaux des individus, des familles, et des entreprises6. Pourquoi s’intéresser au phénomène entrepreneurial dans ce cadre précis de la famille et des entreprises familiales ? En effet, il a été montré que la pérennité et la croissance des entreprises familiales multigénérationnelles dépendent étroitement de la présence et de l’importance des pratiques et des comportements entrepreneuriaux chez les membres de la famille, comme chez les employés et les managers externes7.

L’environnement sociodémographique, légal, économique et culturel des familles en affaires évolue rapidement au travers du monde. Ces évolutions influencent à la fois le comportement des membres des familles en affaires mais également celui des entreprises familiales elles-mêmes. Des enjeux de définition de la famille, des questions liées au genre et aux nouvelles ambitions et revendications des femmes, l’intérêt croissant à la fois de la sphère économique et de la sphère politique pour les impacts sociaux et environnementaux des entreprises transforment en profondeur le paysage dans lequel les entreprises familiales opèrent aujourd’hui. Les contours légaux de la famille au premier rang desquels les familles recomposées, l’adoption ainsi que leurs évolutions récentes comme le mariage homosexuel ou encore la procréation médicalement assistée pour toutes les femmes, interrogent les dynamiques entrepreneuriales et leur évolutions consécutives dans le cadre de l’entreprise familiale. Pour bien comprendre les dynasties familiales, il faut prendre en compte le droit de la famille88. Les dispositifs institutionnels de soutien de l’entrepreneuriat et du repreneuriat, ainsi que le cadre institutionnel relatif à la transmission intergénérationnelle de la propriété de l’entreprise familiale affectent les choix relatifs à la création et à la transmission de ces entreprises dans le cadre de la famille ou à un tiers9.

Les propositions traiteront, entre autres, des sujets suivants :

  • Comment se transmet l’esprit entrepreneurial au sein des familles en affaires ? Quels rôles jouent l’histoire familiale, les interactions avec le dirigeant, les apprentissages formels et informels dans cette transmission ? Quelles pratiques entrepreneuriales peut-on observer au sein des familles en affaires et comment peut-on les étudier et les appréhender, à travers quels choix méthodologiques et quelles approches théoriques ?
  • Quel est l’impact des comportements entrepreneuriaux (ou intrapreneuriaux) du dirigeant, du successeur, ou des managers externes sur la performance des entreprises familiales ?
  • Comment les membres des familles en affaires gèrent-ils la superposition de rôles sociaux appartenant à des univers distincts (famille, entreprise, actionnariat) lorsqu’ils lancent de nouvelles activités au sein de l’entreprise ou souhaitent introduire des innovations, changer d’orientation stratégique ou revisiter l’identité organisationnelle ?
  • Quels outils formels et informels la famille mobilise-t-elle pour transmettre et / ou générer l’esprit d’entreprendre au sein des nouvelles générations ?
  • Les doctrines institutionnelles conduisent-elles à des comportements entrepreneuriaux distincts au sein des familles ?

Les dates principales à retenir sont:

Soumission des textes

Au plus tard le 30 avril 2019

Parution Septembre 2019

Soumissions (également accessible à : https://entreprendreetinnover.com/soumettre/ )

Les consignes aux auteurs sont accessibles ici: Consignes aux auteurs E&I – janvier 2014. Il est imperatif de les respecter lorsque vous envoyez votre soumission.

Les articles doivent etre envoyes exclusivement en format Word a Elisabeth GELAS a l’adresse gelas@em‐lyon.com en mentionnant le titre de l’appel en objet et le N° correspondant.

Il est expressement demande aux auteurs de joindre a leur soumission d’article les documents suivants (disponibles sur le site de la revue) dument remplis:

  • La fiche descriptive disponible ici: Fiche soumission d’article E&I – janvier 2014.
  • La declaration d’honneur anti‐plagiat disponible ici: Declaration anti‐plagiat 2014‐0824

Veuillez prendre note que sans ces documents, l’article ne pourra pas etre examine par la redaction.

1 Gedajlovic, E., Carney, M., Chrisman, J. J., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2012). The adolescence of family firm research taking stock and planning for the future. Journal of Management, 38 (4): 1010–1037.

2 Arriver, D., & Jacquot, B. (2016). Les entreprises familiales toujours au coeur de l’économie, Le Figaro, 14 décembre.

3 Sharma, P., Hoy, F., Astrachan, J. H., & Koiranen, M. (2007). The practice-driven evolution of family business education. Journal of Business Research, 60(10), 1012-1021

4 Aldrich, H. E., & Cliff, J. E. (2003). The pervasive effects of family on entrepreneurship: Toward a family embeddedness perspective. Journal of business venturing, 18(5), 573-596.

Fayolle, A., & Bégin, L. (2009). Entrepreneuriat familial: croisement de deux champs ou nouveau champ issu d’un double croisement?. Management international, 14(1), 11-23

5 Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., & Sharma, P. (1999). Defining the family business by behavior. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 23(4), 19-39.

6 Bégin, L., Chabaud, D., & Richomme-Huet, K. (2010). Vers une approche contingente des entreprises familiales. Revue française de gestion, (1), 79-86.

Bettinelli, C., Sciascia, S., Randerson, K., & Fayolle, A. (2017). Researching Entrepreneurship in Family Firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 55(4), 506-529.

Chabaud, D. (2013). Les entreprises familiales au coeur de l’entrepreneuriat?. Le grand livre de l’entrepreneuriat. Paris, Dunod,157-172.

Chabaud, D., & Sammut, S. (2014). Entrepreneuriat et entreprises familiales, de la proximité à un champ de recherche spécifique. Revue de l’entrepreneuriat, 13(3), 7-10.

Radu-Lefebvre, M.., & Lefebvre, V. (2016). Anticipating intergenerational management transfer of family firms: A typology of next generation’s future leadership projections. Futures, 75, 66-82.

7 Randerson, K., Bettinelli, C., Fayolle, A., & Anderson, A. (2015). Family entrepreneurship as a field of research: Exploring its contours and contents. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 6(3), 143-154.

Randerson, K., Dossena, G., & Fayolle, A. (2016). The futures of family business: family entrepreneurship. Futures, (75), 36-43.

8 Marcus, G. E. (1991). Law in the development of dynastic families among American business elites: The domestication of capital and the capitalization of family. Family Business Review, 4(1), 75-111.

9 Barrédy, C. (2016). In search of future alternatives for family business: Family law contributions through Civil and Common Law comparison. Futures, 75, 44-53.

Jaskiewicz, P., Combs, J. G., & Rau, S. B. (2015). Entrepreneurial legacy: Toward a theory of how some family firms nurture transgenerational entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(1), 29-49

« Entrepreneurship Education, rethinking connections: Opportunities and Challenges » Roanne, March the 7 and 8 2019

« Entrepreneurship Education, rethinking connections: Opportunities and Challenges »
Roanne,
March the 7 and 8 2019
& Call For Paper Entreprendre & Innover

Entrepreneurship Education rethinking connexions Roanne 2019

(Valerio, Parton and Robb, 2014. Yet, it still faces problems of disciplinary legitimacy (Katz, 2008) ,of teacher’s legitimacy (Foliard, Le Pontois and Fayolle, 2018) or of difficulties in finding its place within the University (Gibb, 2011).

– Even more problematic, the gap between schools or universities and practitioners, entrepreneurs, remains largely open with real difficulties to include EE in an entrepreneurial ecosystem that does not expect advances and development of new behaviors, nor of tools and knowledge. The stakes are high and the connections must be increased and improved to enrich the lessons taken from practice. Research must also be used as an improvement lever through stronger theoretical and methodological bases (Fayolle, Verzat and Wapshott, 2016) to develop critical analysis.

While each of these actors is confronted with its own problems, interconnections can be the basis of contemporary, authentic, and effective teaching programs. However, these interconnections are rare and the literature weakly addresses the links between the members of this triad. Research can play a role in bringing these actors together by showing good practices and by providing analysis and reflexivity. EE remains a hot topic for 2018, particularly for its practical scope and managerial implications (Kuckertz and Prochotta, 2018). The development of initiatives from the private sector and associations to support future entrepreneurs is symptomatic of the situation and it questions the functioning of our organizations. Recent initiatives, such as Ecole 42 and Matrice, support student autonomy by offering non-course and teacher-free programs based on peer learning and coaching.

Our environment is changing very quickly and many initiatives are being launched. Connections between policy makers, EE and practitioners need to be consolidated. The purpose of this call for papers is to prolong the debates around the following main themes:

Practices of entrepreneurship education (EE):

  • EE has been modeled by researchers (eg Béchard & Grégoire 2005, Neck & Greene 2011, Neck, Green and Brush 2014), but little is known about how these models are applied in each educative context. Which objectives (business creation, acquisition of knowledge, skills, entrepreneurial spirit in the broad sense …) are prioritized for which levels and which profiles of learners? What are the pedagogical principles pursued, the underlying educational philosophies and the proposed activities?
  • Can we talk about specific entrepreneurial educational methods to teach, including the construction of opportunities and the confrontation of uncertainty? To what extent does EE make the traditional school form evolve?
  • Do digital tools have a specific role to play in EE? What are the consequences (positive or negative) of their integration into EE activities?
  • Which actors defend and practice EE: which teachers? which external partners? Which directions of establishment? Does the EE make the postures of the teachers evolve, as well as their sense of effectiveness, and their professionalism perceived and recognized?

Assessment and impact measurement of EE:

  • What is the effectiveness and impact of an EE device? How to measure them: which indicators, which process of formative and certificated evaluation, to which temporality (ies)?
  • Does the EE give a specific status to the test, error and failure in the learning process and in the assessment?
  • Under what conditions (objectives pursued, teacher postures, public, insertion into the curriculum, institutional governance …) does the teaching of entrepreneurship make it possible to (re) motivate learners? to (re) engage them in the learning process?
  • Does the EE meet the expectations of public policies in terms of social and professional integration of young people, reduction of unemployment, contribution to economic and local development etc.?

 

Critical questions about EE:

  • Are the beliefs, values and paradigms underlying educational devices clear to all actors? Which stated or implicit goals make sense for the different actors involved?
  • To what extent can EE be considered as an ideological vehicle for a certain type of educational policy (Verzat, Trindade-Chadeau, and Toutain 2017)?
  • Does EE effectively increase everyone’s power of action or does it insidiously set up a process of social selection that gives the illusion that everyone can become autonomous?
  • How far to consider testing, error and failure in the learning process and in the evaluation system?

 

The role of researchers and of research in EE:

  • How can scientific studies help entrepreneurship educators? How can we strengthen the link between researchers and educators?
  • What methodological approaches can be used to study the reality of educational practices in entrepreneurship?

 

This call for papers is an opportunity to connect researchers, practitioners, entrepreneurs, policy makers and entrepreneurship educators, in order to establish a broad overview of innovative pedagogical practices and their impact. It allows a review of recent research for educators, as well as review (s) and interview (s) through an open forum directed to educators, students, entrepreneurs and researchers.

The scientific committee will examine the epistemological, theoretical, empirical and methodological approaches with interest to continue thinking about entrepreneurship education in today’s fast and complex world. Alongside academic papers, more professional-type communications (practices, testimonials, stories, etc.) as well as case studies are also eligible and will be examined with the utmost attention.

 

SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE – EDITORIAL COMMITTEE Entreprendre & Innover

Alain FAYOLLE, emlyon business school, France
Bernard SURLEMONT, HEC-Ecole de Gestion de l’Université de Liège, Belgique
Caroline VERZAT, ESCP Europe, France
Dominique-Anne MICHEL, Secrétaire générale de la rédaction
Elisabeth GELAS, emlyon business school, secrétaire de rédaction
Franck BARÈS, HEC Montréal, Canada
Fabienne BORNARD, INSEEC Lyon, France
Nathalie CARRÉ, CCI France – CCI Entreprendre en France
Didier CHABAUD, IAE Paris Sorbonne
Jacques-Henri COSTE, université de la Sorbonne, France
Dominique FRUGIER, président d’Alicelab’, secrétaire général de l’Académie de l’Entrepreneuriat et de l’Innovation
Chrystelle GAUJARD, Groupe Yncréa, Lille, France
Amélie JACQUEMIN, Louvain School of Management, UCL, Belgique
Wadid LAMINE, Toulouse Buisness School, France
Benoît RAUCENT, Université Catholique de Louvain la Neuve, Belgique
Olivier TOUTAIN, ESC Dijon Bourgogne
Olivier WITMEUR, Solvay Brussels School of Economics and Management, Belgique

 

CREE and ENGAGE

Dag Håkon Haneberg NTNU
Fabienne BORNARD INSEEC U
Gunn-Berit Sæter NTNU
Imran QURESHI emlyon business school
Janice BYRNE IESEG School of Management
Joseph TIXIER emlyon business school
Julie FABBRI emlyon business school
Karolina LESNIAK NTNU
Lise Aaboen NTNU
Martine HLADY RISPAL University of Limoges
Michela LOI University of Cagliari
Miruna RADU LEFEBVRE Audencia Business School
Mohsen TAVAKOLI, EM-Lyon Business
School & Université Grenoble Alpes (CERAG).
Muhammad Imran emlyon business school
Noreen O’SHEA ESCP Europe
Olivier TOUTAIN Burgundy School of Business
Øystein Widding NTNU
Roger SØRHEIM NTNU
Sandrine LE PONTOIS IUT de Roanne
Saulo DUBARD BARBOSA, EM-Lyon Business School
Stéphane FOLIARD IUT de Roanne
Torgeir Aadland NTNU

GUEST SPEAKERS:

Dr Andrea-Rosalinde HOFER Policy Analyst – Entrepreneurship Policy and Analysis – OECD

Peter BAUR – DG Education and Culture – European Commission

COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES

Extended abstracts will be between 1,000 and 3,000 words in French or English. They will specify the problem and the interest of the research, the theoretical framework(s), the methodology, the envisaged results, the potential contribution. They are to be sent exclusively in PDF and anonymous format to: stephane.foliard@univ-st-etienne.fr

SAVE THE DATE

Sending extended summaries October the 31 2018
Response of the Scientific Committee December the 15 2018
Sending complete communications February the 10 2019
Deadline for registration

Special issue publication
March the 1st 2019
Summer 2019

OPPORTUNITY OF PUBLICATION
The best original texts responding to the main theme allowing a dialogue between practitioners and researchers (be careful to respect the instructions to the authors of this review that will be transmitted to the participants) and retained by the Scientific Committee will be proposed to the journal Entreprendre & Innover (classified category 4 FNEGE) for a special issue devoted to EE (Editors: Caroline VERZAT, ESCP Europe Business School Paris, Saulo DUBARD BARBOSA, EM-Lyon Business School, Stéphane FOLIARD, Jean Monnet University, St-Etienne , Mohsen TAVAKOLI, EM-Lyon Business School & University Grenoble Alpes (CERAG)). They will be peer reviewed according to the rules of double blind procedures.

VALORISATION OPPORTUNITY
In order to promote and spread the work as widely as possible, we are organizing a TEDx University on Friday, on March 8th 2019 in the afternoon. Speakers will present and disseminate their ideas. The principle of TEDx is to popularize to spread the worth ideas widely. The subject will have to be simplified and the presentations should last for 18 minutes maximum. The number of speakers will be between 6 and 10.

PRACTICAL INFORMATIONS
Registration fee: 160 Euros (including material, coffee breaks, meals), 80 Euros for PhD students.
City informations of Roanne:
http://leroannais.com/

CONTACTS
stephane.foliard@univ-st-etienne.fr 0033 6 08 73 51 16
and sandrine.lepontois@univ-st-etienne.fr

QUOTED REFERENCES
Béchard, J. P., & Grégoire, D. (2005). Entrepreneurship education research revisited: The case of higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 22-43.
Blenker, P., Frederiksen, S. H., Korsgaard, S., Müller, S., Neergaard, H., & Thrane, C. (2012). Entrepreneurship as everyday practice: towards a personalized pedagogy of enterprise education. Industry and Higher Education, 26(6), 417-430.
Carrier C. (2009). « L’enseignement de l’entrepreneuriat: au-delà des cours magistraux, des études de cas et du plan d’affaires ». Revue de l’Entrepreneuriat, vol. 8, no 2, p. 17-33.
Commission Européenne (2013). Plan d’action « Entrepreneuriat 2020 » Raviver l’esprit d’entreprise en Europe, Bruxelles.
Eynon R. (2013) “The rise of Big Data: what does it mean for education, technology, and media research?”. Learning, Media and Technology, 38:3, 237-240
Fayolle A., Verzat C. et Wapshott R. (2016). “In quest of legitimacy: The theoretical and methodological foundations of entrepreneurship education research”. International Small Business Journal, 34(7), 895-904.
Fayolle A. (2013). Personal views on the future of entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 25(7-8), 692-701.
Foliard, S., Le Pontois, S., Fayolle, A. (2018). “The Legitimacy of Teachers in Entrepreneurship Education: What we Can Learn From a Literature Review” in “Creating Entrepreneurial Space: Talking through Multi voices, reflections on emerging debates” edited by David Higgins, Paul Jones and Pauric McGowan. To be published
Günzel-Jensen, F., & Robinson, S. (2017). Effectuation in the undergraduate classroom: Three barriers to entrepreneurial learning. Education+ Training, 59(7/8), 780-796.
Katz J. A. (2008). “Fully mature but not fully legitimate: A different perspective on the state of entrepreneurship education”. Journal of Small Business Management, 46(4), 550-566.
Kuckertz A. et Prochotta A. (2018). « What’s Hot in Entrepreneurship Research 2018?” Hohenheim Entrepreneurship Research Brief No. 4 – February
Kuratko, D. F. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends, and challenges. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 29(5), 577-598.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge university press.
Neck, H. M., & Greene, P. G. (2011). Entrepreneurship education: known worlds and new frontiers. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 55-70.
Neck, H.M., Greene, P.G. & Brush, C.G (2014) Teaching Entrepreneurship, A Practice-Based Approach, Edward Elgar Publishing : Cheltenham UK, Northampton, MA
Paul, M. (2002). L’accompagnement: une nébuleuse. Éducation permanente, 153(4), 43-56.
Rideout E. C. et Gray D. O. (2013). “Does entrepreneurship education really work? A review and methodological critique of the empirical literature on the effects of university‐based entrepreneurship education”. Journal of Small Business Management, vol. 51, no 3, p. 329- 351.
Sarasvathy, S. D., & Venkataraman, S. (2011). Entrepreneurship as method: Open questions for an entrepreneurial future. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 35(1), 113-135.
Valerio, A., Parton, B., & Robb, A. (2014). Entrepreneurship education and training programs around the world: dimensions for success. World Bank Publications.
Verzat, C., Trindade-Chadeau, A. & Toutain, O. (2017). Introduction: Promesses et réalités de l’entrepreneuriat des jeunes. Agora débats/jeunesses, 75,(1), 57-72. doi:10.3917/agora.075.0057.

CfP Special Issue – Entreprendre & Innover – L’éducation entrepreneuriale

 Editeurs du dossier :

Caroline VERZAT, ESCP Europe,

Saulo DUBARD BARBOSA, emlyon business school,

Stéphane FOLIARD, Université Jean Monnet, St-Etienne,

Mohsen TAVAKOLI, emlyon business school & Université Grenoble Alpes (CERAG).

Appel à com EI n 40 – éducation Entrepreneuriale

Depuis plusieurs années, l’entrepreneuriat est proposé comme une solution pour la crise économique et socio-environnementale qui touche les sociétés modernes. Les acteurs et décideurs de tous les niveaux ont saisi cette prise de conscience collective et ont fortement misé sur le développement de l’entrepreneuriat et l’entrepreneuriat social. Aujourd’hui, après 70 ans du premier cours en entrepreneuriat enseigné à Harvard Business School, l’enseignement de l’entrepreneuriat est présent aux quatre coins du monde et se fait à tous les niveaux au sein de ifférents cadres institutionnels et disciplinaires.

Au niveau européen, l’enseignement de l’entrepreneuriat a trouvé une place prépondérante au sein des stratégies de l’Union Européenne (i.e. Europe 2020) notamment par l’agenda d’Oslo de 2006 et le plan d’action « Entrepreneurship 2020 »3. Les objectifs visés par ses mesures étaient de non seulement sensibiliser les apprentis, mais aussi de leur permettre d’apprendre l’entrepreneuriat par la pratique. Sur le plan national, le socle commun de connaissances, de compétences et de la culture prévoit qu’à la fin de sa scolarité obligatoire « L’élève sait prendre des initiatives, entreprendre et mettre en oeuvre des projets… » (“Socle commun de connaissances, de compétences et de culture,” n.d.). La loi du 4 août 2008 de modernisation de l’économie a instauré un nouveau statut pour les entrepreneurs individuels : autoentrepreneur,

 

 

L’éducation entrepreneuriale

 

pour faire face à la crise croissante de l’emploi. Après avoir organisé des assises de l’entrepreneuriat en 2013, le gouvernement français a décidé de donner encore plus d’élan à l’entrepreneuriat. La loi de refondation de l’école de la république de 2013 stipule l’intégration des nouvelles mesures destinées à sensibiliser les élèves de la 6ème à la terminale à l’entrepreneuriat4. En outre, l’introduction du statut étudiant-entrepreneur et les Pépites ainsi que le programme « French Tech » à la même époque ont démontré, encore une fois, la volonté des acteurs politiques de promouvoir le développement de l’entrepreneuriat en France.

Emblématique, le terme « startup nation » est de plus en plus présent dans les discours. En même temps, de nombreuses initiatives émanant du secteur privé et associatif visent à soutenir les futurs entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs’ Organisation, Endeavor, Young Entrepreneurs Alliance, Ashoka, Enactus, Fondation Edward Lowe et fondation Kauffman en sont des exemples importants à l’international. En France, Entreprendre pour Apprendre, le Réseau et la fondation Entreprendre, Les entrepreneuriales, font partie des structures visant à inciter et soutenir l’entrepreneuriat auprès de divers segments de la population.

Face à cette profusion de politiques et d’initiatives visant à diffuser et à enseigner l’entrepreneuriat, et compte tenu de l’importance des ressources mobilisées, l’éducation entrepreneuriale devient un sujet de plus en plus pertinent. Or, si les recherches scientifiques ont répondu à la question « peut-on enseigner l’entrepreneuriat ? »5, elles laissent beaucoup de questions ouvertes sur pourquoi et comment l’enseigner, comment suivre et mesurer l’apprentissage, quels objectifs pédagogiques privilégier, quelle place pour la théorie et pour la pratique, entre autres.

Afin de prolonger le débat sur ces questions, nous proposons à la revue Entreprendre et Innover de publier un numéro spécial consacré à l’éducation entrepreneuriale. Ce numéro est l’occasion de connecter chercheurs, praticiens et éducateurs en entrepreneuriat, afin d’établir un panorama des pratiques pédagogiques innovantes, une revue de recherches récentes à destination des éducateurs, ainsi que revue(s) de lecture, entretien(s), et une tribune ouverte aux éducateurs, étudiants, entrepreneurs et chercheurs. Nous sommes particulièrement ouverts à des contributions portant sur les débats suivants :

 

  • Les pratiques de l’éducation entrepreneuriale (EE) :
    • L’EE a été modélisée par des chercheurs6 mais nous savons peu sur la façon dont ces modèles sont appliqués dans chaque contexte éducatif. Quels objectifs (création d’entreprise, acquisition de connaissances, de compétences, d’esprit d’entreprendre au sens large…) sont priorisés pour quels niveaux et quels profils d’apprenants ? Quels sont les principes pédagogiques poursuivis, les philosophies éducatives sous-jacentes, les activités proposées ?
    • Peut-on parler de méthodes éducatives entrepreneuriales spécifiques pour enseigner notamment la construction des opportunités et l’affrontement de l’incertitude ? Dans quelle mesure l’EE fait elle évoluer la forme scolaire traditionnelle ?
    • Les outils numériques ont-ils un rôle spécifique à jouer dans l’EE ? Quelles sont les conséquences (positives ou négatives) de leur intégration aux programmes d’EE ?
    • Quels acteurs défendent et pratiquent l’EE : quels enseignants ? quels partenaires extérieurs ? quelles directions d’établissement ? L’EE fait elle évoluer les postures des enseignants, leur sentiment d’efficacité, leur professionnalité perçue et reconnue ?
  • L’évaluation et la mesure d’impact de l’EE :
    • Qu’est-ce que l’efficacité et l’impact d’un dispositif d’EE ? Comment les mesurer : quels indicateurs, quel processus d’évaluation formative et certificative, à quelle(s) temporalité(s) ?
    • L’EE donne-t-elle un statut spécifique à l’essai, l’erreur et à l’échec dans le processus d’apprentissage et dans l’évaluation ?
    • A quelles conditions (d’objectifs poursuivis, de postures des enseignants, de publics, d’insertion dans le curriculum, de gouvernance institutionnelle…) l’enseignement de l’entrepreneuriat permet-il de (re)motiver les apprenants ? de les (ré)engager dans le processus d’apprentissage ? L’EE répond-elle de manière satisfaisante aux attentes des politiques publiques en matière d’insertion sociale et professionnelle des jeunes, de réduction du chômage, de contribution au développement économique et local…
  • Les questionnements critiques vis-à-vis de l’EE :
    • Les croyances, valeurs et paradigmes sous-jacents aux dispositifs éducatifs sont-elles claires pour tous les acteurs ? Quelles finalités affichées ou implicites font sens pour les différents acteurs impliqués ?
    • Dans quelle mesure l’EE peut-elle être considérée comme un véhicule idéologique d’un certain type de politique éducative ?
    • L’EE permet-elle d’augmenter effectivement le pouvoir d’agir de tous ou metelle insidieusement en place un processus de sélection sociale donnant l’illusion que chacun peut devenir autonome ?
  • La place du chercheur et de la recherche en EE :
    • Comment les études scientifiques peuvent venir en aide à l’éducateur en entrepreneuriat ? Comment pouvons-nous renforcer le lien entre le chercheur et l’éducateur ?
    • Quelles approches méthodologiques utiliser pour étudier la réalité des pratiques éducatives en entrepreneuriat ?

 

Les dates principales à retenir sont :

  • 01/10/2018 : Soumission des textes originaux
  • 01/01/2019 : Retour vers les auteurs
  • 10/03/2019 : Date limite d’envoi des textes révisés
  • 01/07/2019 : Publication du numéro

Soumissions (également accessible à : https://entreprendreetinnover.com/soumettre/ )

Les consignes aux auteurs sont accessibles ici: Consignes aux auteurs E&I – janvier 2014. Il est impératif de les respecter lorsque vous envoyez votre soumission. Les articles doivent être envoyés exclusivement en format Word à Elisabeth GELAS à l’adresse gelas@em‐lyon.com en mentionnant le titre de l’appel en objet et le N° corespondant.

Il est expressément demandé aux auteurs de joindre à leur soumission d’article les documents suivants (disponibles sur le site de la revue) dûment remplis:

  • La fiche descriptive disponible ici: Fiche soumission d’article E&I – janvier 2014.
  • La déclaration d’honneur anti‐plagiat disponible ici: Déclaration anti‐plagiat 2014‐0824

Veuillez prendre note que sans ces documents, l’article ne pourra pas être examiné par la rédaction.

 

 

Fayolle, A., Verzat, C., & Wapshott, R. (2016). In quest of legitimacy: The theoretical and methodological foundations of entrepreneurship education research. International Small Business Journal, 34(7), 895–904.

Valerio, A., Parton, B., & Robb, A. (2014). Entrepreneurship Education and Training Programs around the World : Dimensions for Success. The World Bank. Retrieved from https://ideas.repec.org/b/wbk/wbpubs/18031.html

European Commission, 2013a. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – Entrepreneurship 2020 Action Plan. Reigniting the entrepreneurial spirit in Europe. COM(2012) 795 final. [pdf]Available at: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0795:FIN:EN:PDF [Consulté le 15 Décembre 2017)

https://www.economie.gouv.fr/favoriser-lentrepreneuriat

Voir l’article de Fayolle et al de 2016 (note n°1) et Fayolle, A. (2012). Entrepreneuriat-2e ed.: Apprendre à entreprendre. Dunod. Paris

Voir par exemple :Béchard, J.-P., & Grégoire, D. (2005). Entrepreneurship Education Research Revisited: The Case of Higher Education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 22–43.

Neck, H. M., & Greene, P. G. (2011). Entrepreneurship Education: Known Worlds and New Frontiers. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 55–70.

Neck, H.M., Greene, P.G. & Brush, C.G (2014) Teaching Entrepreneurship, A Practice-Based Approach, Edward Elgar Publishing : Cheltenham UK, Northampton, MA

Verzat, C., Trindade-Chadeau, A. & Toutain, O. (2017). Introduction: Promesses et réalités de l’entrepreneuriat des jeunes. Agora débats/jeunesses, 75,(1), 57-72. doi:10.3917/agora.075.0057.

CfP – Journal of Management Inquiry Developmental Conference – Enhancing Entrepreneurship Education research and practice

Enhancing entrepreneurship education research and practice: Challenging taken-for granted assumptions and dominant perspectives

Journal of Management Inquiry Developmental Conference and Dialogue Call For Papers.

Convenors and Guest editors

Alain Fayolle – fayolle@em-lyon.com – EMLYON Business School

Michela Loi – michela.loi@unica.it – Department of Economic and Business Sciences – University of Cagliari

 Dialogue JMI pmdeh AF 09072018

Convenor and JMI supervising Editor

Pablo Martin de Holan – pmdeh@mbsc.edu.sa – MBS College of Business & Entrepreneurship, Saudi Arabia

2

Financial Times: Do you have any advice to young would-be Entrepreneurs who want to emulate your success?

Gerald Cavendish Grosvenor (Duke of Grosvenor, Chairman of Great Portland Estates, Owner of Grosvenor group): Make sure they have an ancestor who was a very close friend of William the Conqueror.

 

Background and objectives of the Dialogue

Entrepreneurship has been taught for over 50 years in business schools, engineering schools and universities worldwide (Katz, 2003; Solomon 2007; Vesper & Gartner, 1997), and is becoming a core pillar of several Business Schools around the world. Over the years, the teaching of entrepreneurship has developed into a branch of research, namely, entrepreneurship education (EE), the interest of which is to understand what, how and to whom entrepreneurship should be taught (e.g. Fiet, 2001; Honig, 2004; Neck & Green, 2011) and what results should be expected from these kinds of programmes (Peterman & Kennedy, 2003; Pittaway & Cope, 2007). Several contributions have focused on the nature of EE as a research field, questioning its maturity and legitimacy (Katz, 2003; Kuratko, 2005) or its standards (Katz, Hanke, Maidment, Weaver, & Alpi, 2016).

EE research is currently facing a particular challenge; not only it lacks academic legitimacy but it is also striving to achieve relevance in practice (Fayolle, Verzat, & Wapshott, 2016). Consequently, and as Fayolle (2013) states, EE needs more robust theoretical and philosophical foundations that draw on both entrepreneurship and education fields to support the development of effective courses and programmes, and to distinguish between those that are, and those that are not.

For instance, the literature in EE often describes the structure and content of entrepreneurship courses and programmes but fails to appropriately question their philosophical and methodological foundations, which might be important if we were to better understand the essence of entrepreneurship (Johannisson, 2016). Another important concern is the vagueness of EE goals (Hoppe, 2016), and, in some cases, its disconnect with larger social forces, such as inequality. Some studies, for example, affirm that EE is becoming increasingly complex as its contexts of application (with respect to the heterogeneity of both the locales where entrepreneurship is taught, but also the type of people who receive EE and the specificities of their backgrounds) are diverse and each of them might be highly peculiar (Lindh & Thorgren, 2016) with boundary conditions that may make generalizations problematic.

This concern concurs with the inherent difficulty of developing effective EE programmes along with the assessment of its results. The impact of EE is, indeed, a relevant issue for several studies in this field (Nabi, Liñán, Fayolle, Krueger, & Walmsley, 2017). Empirical observations reveal contrasting findings in that respect (Walter & Block, 2016), suggesting that multiple truths might coexist regarding the effects of EE on people and territories. This could kindle scholars’ interest in different questions that shift the emphasis from ‘whether’ to ‘when’ or ‘for whom’ EE is effective or ineffective (e.g., Lyons & Zhang, 2018) so as to help determine to what extent entrepreneurship can be taught, what dimensions of it can and should be taught, and with what methodologies. Consequently, we wish to ask a broad question: how should the field develop to tackle these drawbacks and to increase its relevance and impact from a theoretical and practical perspective?

Here, we invite scholars to highlight the taken-for-granted assumptions that beset the field of EE, and to reflect on how to break away from them and move this field forward.

The principal aim of this reflection is to offer new propositions and perspectives that challenge the previous ones, and bring more texture and nuance to the field of EE. In this vein, we would like to open a debate around the major shortcomings of EE and open the space for new questions, new solutions and new research paths to be developed. To this end, we call for papers that embrace a critical approach in discussing their perspectives. By following previous critical approaches in entrepreneurship (e.g., Fayolle, Landström, Gartner, & Berglund, 2016; Frank & Landström, 2016), we consider perspectives that offer alternative ways of knowing and understanding in the field of EE to be critical.

Without limiting the creative insights of those authors who wish to participate in this debate, we highlight three areas that bring together possible ideas to guide scholars to identify and address the assumptions that have been taken for granted in EE: Newness, Diversity and Ethics.1

New ideas have an important role in scientific progress (Kuhn, 1970); they might challenge previous positions and open paths for new questions. In this call for papers, Newness is intended as the fact of not having existed before and includes questions that reflect on what represents innovation for EE. The questions are intended to highlight issues that require a deeper consideration in this field. Examples of these questions are as follows:

  • What is really ‘New’ in EE and why might this newness be of interest to EE? Is “new” systematically better?
  • Is there something that we have forgotten to study?

 

We claim that Diversity, intended as a range of many people or things that are very different from each other, is a peculiarity of EE. The field stems from and merges together two different scientific domains, namely, education and entrepreneurship. EE is applied in very different contexts (universities vs professional associations); is oriented towards different targets (students, nascent entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs) and has different goals (Bae, Qian, Miao, & Fiet, 2014; Liñán, 2004). While this variety might be a source of richness for new ideas to arise, it might also prevent the process of defining EE objectives and impacts. In this call for papers, Diversity is meant to cover questions that try to address the complexity of EE, to recompose the fragmented puzzle and to make its multiple dimensions more understandable:

  • What is the role, as well as impact, of theoretical and practical diversity in EE?
  • How does diversity in geographical contexts, educational settings, institutions, people, audiences, teachers and programmes influence EE?

 

Ethics, intended as moral principles or rules of behaviour, becomes a central issue in EE. This is due to its centrality in policymakers’ discourse that emphasises the quality of being entrepreneurial as a resource for the social and economic progress of society. The potential impact of these policies should call scholars to reflect on the influence of their research that is thought to enlighten the political agenda. In this call for papers, Ethics embraces all those questions that reflect on the implications and consequences of EE programmes in relation to their pedagogical approaches, evaluation methods, goals and so on. Possible questions are as follows:

  • Do we think about moral principles and rules when we address the teaching of entrepreneurship? Under what conditions or circumstance EE leads to immoral or amoral behaviours?
  • What does it mean to be ethical when students are taught or educated regarding entrepreneurship? How to educate Ethical Entrepreneurs? How does EE affect ethical intentions and behaviours among students?
  • How do EE teachers and researchers deal with their assumptions that they have taken for granted?

Authors are requested to try to connect these three areas to present an original contribution to the field of EE. Both theoretical and empirical contributions are welcomed.

 

Process

This call for papers is divided into two parts: an earlier one for a developmental conference, and a second one for the Dialogue itself. Initially, we are inviting scholars to submit manuscripts that are finalized or relatively advanced. Each contribution will be evaluated through a double-blind review process but using a developmental lens: the objective of this initial review is to facilitate the Academic conversation around the theme, and help authors develop their manuscripts.

Accepted contributions and their authors will be invited to be presented and discussed at a mini-conference that will be held in February/March 2019 at the EMLYON Business School (Lyon-France). This conference is developmental in nature, and seeks to ensure that a robust, high-quality academic dialogue emerges among participants around a common conversation. Authors will be invited to present their manuscript and will receive feedback for development. After the conference, the best contributions (a maximum of six) will be invited for inclusion in the Dialogue Section of the Journal of Management Inquiry.

The papers presented for consideration in order to be included at the EMLYON Developmental Conference should adhere to the guidelines of the Journal of Management Inquiry, requiring that manuscripts to conform to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th edition) (Guidelines for authors can be found here: https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/journal/journal-management-inquiry#submissionguidelines).

The papers invited for publication will follow the standard format of JMI´s “Dialogue” section. Please find here additional information about the Journal of Management Inquiry: http://journals.sagepub.com/home/jmi; and a sample of the “Dialogue” section: http://journals.sagepub.com/toc/jmia/27/1#sage_toc_section_Dialog

 

Submission process

  • Paper submission: 31 December 2018
  • Round 1 review: 30 January 2019
  • Mini-conference: February/March 2019
  • Submission of the revised papers: 02 June 2019
  • Selection of the papers: 30 September 2019
  • Publication date: 2020

For any further information, please contact the editors at the email addresses provided above.

 

 

References

Bae, T. J., Qian, S., Miao, C., & Fiet, J. O. (2014). The relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions: A meta‐analytic review. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(2), 217-254.

Fayolle, A. (2013). Personal views on the future of entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 25(7-8), 692-701.

Fayolle, A., Landstrom, H., Gartner, W. B., & Berglund, K. (2016). The institutionalization of entrepreneurship: Questioning the status quo and re-gaining hope for entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 28(7-8), 477-486.

Fayolle, A., Verzat, C., & Wapshott, R. (2016). In quest of legitimacy: The theoretical and methodological foundations of entrepreneurship education research. International Small Business Journal, 34(7), 895-904.

Fiet, J. O. (2001). The pedagogical side of entrepreneurship theory. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(2), 101-117.

Frank, H., & Landström, H. (2016). What makes entrepreneurship research interesting? Reflections on strategies to overcome the rigour–relevance gap. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 28(1-2), 51-75.

Honig, B. (2004). Entrepreneurship education: Toward a model of contingency-based business planning. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(3), 258-273.

Hoppe, M. (2016). Policy and entrepreneurship education. Small Business Economics, 46(1), 13-29.

Johannisson, B. (2016). Limits to and prospects of entrepreneurship education in the academic context. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 28(5-6), 403-423.

Katz, J. A. (2003). The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education: 1876–1999. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 283-300.

Katz, J. A. (2008). Fully mature but not fully legitimate: A different perspective on the state of entrepreneurship education. Journal of Small Business Management, 46(4), 550-566.

Katz, J. A., Hanke, R., Maidment, F., Weaver, K. M., & Alpi, S. (2016). Proposal for two model undergraduate curricula in entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(2), 487-506.

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (Second Edition). Chicago: University Press of Chicago.

Kuratko, D. F. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends, and challenges. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 577-598.

Lindh, I., & Thorgren, S. (2016). Entrepreneurship education: The role of local business. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 28(5-6), 313-336.

Liñán, F. (2004). Intention–based models of entrepreneurship education. Piccola Impresa/Small Business, 3, 11–35.

Lyons, E., & Zhang, L. (2018). Who does (not) benefit from entrepreneurship programmes?. Strategic Management Journal, 39(1), 85-112.

Nabi, G., Liñán, F., Fayolle, A., Krueger, N., & Walmsley, A. (2017). The impact of entrepreneurship education in higher education: A systematic review and research agenda. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(2), 277-299.

Neck, H. M., & Greene, P. G. (2011). Entrepreneurship education: known worlds and new frontiers. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 55-70.

Peterman, N. E., & Kennedy, J. (2003). Enterprise education: Influencing students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(2), 129-144.

Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007). Entrepreneurship education: a systematic review of the evidence. International Small Business Journal, 25(5), 479-510.

Solomon, G. (2007). An examination of entrepreneurship education in the United States. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 14(2), 168-182.

Vesper, K. H., & Gartner, W. B. (1997). Measuring progress in entrepreneurship education. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(5), 403-421.

Walter, S. G., & Block, J. H. (2016). Outcomes of entrepreneurship education: An institutional perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(2), 216-233.

Appel à Contributions Territoire inclusif – Rimhe – Chaire Entrepreneuriat Territoire & Innovation

RIMHE en partenariat avec la Chaire ETI invite les contributeurs à présenter des résultats de travaux théoriques et empiriques récents permettant d’orienter les pratiques de management en favorisant l’émergence de territoires inclusifs.

Le développement de partenariats sur un territoire fait l’objet de nombreuses études. Appréhendé comme une zone d’activités ou un écosystème entrepreneurial, le territoire représente alors un espace dédié au développement économique. Les répercussions en matière de création d’emplois sont bien identifiées et définissent bien souvent la seule dimension sociale des initiatives locales.

Dans cet appel à contributions, nous souhaitons renverser le rapport entre l’économique et le social pour aborder le territoire comme porteur d’un projet de société inclusive dont il s’agit de définir les modes de développement économique.

  • L’inclusion est souvent définie comme le négatif de l’exclusion et ramenée à l’insertion des demandeurs d’emploi ou des groupes discriminés. Quelles sont les approches novatrices ?
  • La notion de territoire suppose l’existence de frontières ou de délimitations. Le territoire inclusif est-il un territoire ouvert ? Comment se différencie-t-il d’un territoire porteur d’exclusion ?
  • Comment développer le caractère inclusif des territoires ? Quels sont les marges et les leviers d’action des managers et des entrepreneurs ? ceux de l’Etat, des collectivités territoriales et autres formes d’organisations ?

Ces orientations ne sont pas limitatives des soumissions attendues. Le comité de rédaction constitué pour cet appel à contributions accueillera avec grand intérêt toutes les pistes de réflexion sur cette thématique en privilégiant la présentation de résultats d’études empiriques permettant de développer de nouveaux modèles de management ou de nouvelles pratiques.

La RIMHE, la Revue Interdisciplinaire, Management, Homme & Entreprise (Management & Human Enterprise) est une revue scientifique dont l’objectif est de publier sous forme numérique et imprimée des articles de recherche sur le management des entreprises dans tous les domaines de gestion et suivant une conception plaçant les êtres humains au coeur de ses préoccupations.

Une priorité est accordée aux travaux menés par des équipes pluridisciplinaires sur les problématiques propres aux sciences de gestion.

En complément des contributions sélectionnées après évaluation en double aveugle par deux à trois membres de notre comité scientifique et plusieurs tours de relecture, trois autres rubriques peuvent être ouvertes dans chaque numéro publié pour : – des chercheurs d’autres disciplines ou des experts reconnus sollicités en “auteurs invités” ; – une “note de lecture” sur un nouvel ouvrage de référence ; – un “retour d’expérience” rédigé par des professionnels.

Quatre numéros sont publiés par an avec une parution datée par saison : hiver, printemps, été, automne.

__________________________________

Rédacteur invité pour cet appel :

Didier Chabaud

Date limite d’envoi des articles :

15 octobre 2018

Adresse mail d’envoi des textes complets :

contact@rimhe.com

Normes de publication : Le format de la RIMHE est à respecter dès la 1ère soumission.

Un workshop sera organisé à l’IAE de Paris le 29 novembre pour les auteurs dont l’article aura été inscrit dans le processus d’évaluation de la RIMHE après soumission de leur proposition.

Appel à contributions Revue Management & Avenir « Nouveaux espaces et territoires de l’accompagnement entrepreneurial »

Appel à contributions

 Revue Management & Avenir

 « Nouveaux espaces et territoires de l’accompagnement entrepreneurial »

 Rédacteurs invités

Isabelle Bories-Azeau Institut Montpellier Management, Université de Montpellier

Karim Messeghem Institut Montpellier Management, Université de Montpellier

Sylvie Sammut Institut Montpellier Management, Université de Montpellier

Date limite de soumission : 1er décembre 2018   

 

Appel à contributions RMA Bories-Azeau Messeghem Sammut

Le développement de la société entrepreneuriale (Audretsch, 2007) induit de nouveaux comportements entrepreneuriaux (Chabaud et Sammut, 2016) qui contribuent à faire tomber les frontières dans et hors de l’entreprise dans une logique d’open innovation. L’apparition de nouveaux lieux, voire tiers-lieux, fait exploser le nombre de structures d’accompagnement dans le monde (Baraldi et Ingemansson Havenvid, 2016 ; Mian et al., 2016 ; Pauwels et al., 2016) et témoigne d’une activité entrepreneuriale dans toutes les strates de la société. De façon concomitante, de nouveaux acteurs émergent pour répondre aux nouveaux besoins des entrepreneurs. La digitalisation incite également à repenser les relations entre entrepreneurs et accompagnants. Ces différentes évolutions conduisent à créer de nouveaux espaces et territoires propices à de nouvelles formes d’accompagnement entrepreneurial (Maus et Sammut, 2018).

 

A l’initiative d’acteurs privés, des espaces nouveaux sont proposés aux entrepreneurs. Station F est un exemple ambitieux qui se revendique comme « le seul campus de start-up qui réunit tout un écosystème entrepreneurial sous un seul et même toit ». Ce concept n’est pas totalement nouveau ; il a été en effet développé aux États-Unis, notamment dans le cadre de structures privées d’accompagnement comme Y Combinator, créé en 2005 et présenté comme l’un des premiers accélérateurs (Pauwels et al., 2016). Les accélérateurs apparaissent comme de nouveaux lieux dédiés à l’accompagnement. Dans quelle mesure contribuent-ils à révolutionner les modèles d’incubation ? Plus largement, les modèles d’accompagnement connaissent depuis une dizaine d’années des transformations (Bruneel et al., 2012 ; Mian, 2014 ; Messeghem et Sammut, 2014) qui peuvent être mises en perspective avec le développement de nouveaux espaces et territoires.

 

La conception de l’entrepreneuriat a évolué d’une activité liée à un projet individuel vers une approche plus collective (Verstraete et Fayolle, 2005), qui met l’accent sur le réseau (Chabaud et Ngijol, 2005, 2010), l’intersubjectivité (Venkataraman et al., 2012) ou encore l’équipe (Shepherd et Krueger, 2002). Le processus entrepreneurial peut alors être envisagé comme un processus collectif, qui suppose une multiplication des espaces dédiés à l’accompagnement, à l’instar des incubateurs d’entreprises, des espaces de coworking, des Fab Labs (Garrett et al., 2017). Ces espaces, qui peuvent favoriser la poursuite collective d’opportunités, invitent à repenser l’accompagnement en privilégiant une perspective collective.

 

Ce processus collectif s’étend également à l’échelle du territoire, afin de développer une dynamique entrepreneuriale territoriale ; cet élan suppose l’implication des différentes parties prenantes à ce processus et la mobilisation de leurs compétences. Aujourd’hui, l’entrepreneuriat se positionne en effet comme l’un des axes majeurs du développement local territorialisé (Huggins et al., 2015), aussi bien dans des territoires dynamiques que dans des territoires en difficulté. Le territoire constitue ainsi une échelle d’observation pertinente de l’écosystème entrepreneurial (Surlemont et al., 2014). Il s’agit donc d’envisager l’accompagnement entrepreneurial au-delà de la relation dyadique accompagnant/accompagné pour intégrer les acteurs territoriaux de différents champs organisationnels, amenés à coopérer, et qui sont autant de parties prenantes de cet accompagnement. Comment s’opère alors le partage et/ou la complémentarité de ressources entre ces parties prenantes ? Quelles modalités de coopération sont privilégiées dans cet accompagnement entrepreneurial « étendu » ?

 

Le développement de l’entrepreneuriat à l’échelle territoriale suppose en effet des interactions entre les champs de compétences des accompagnants largo sensu, soit autant de ressources pour les entrepreneurs. Mais il implique également de prendre en considération le positionnement de nouveaux acteurs et de nouveaux espaces au sein de l’écosystème entrepreneurial, comme par exemple, l’Université (Bories-Azeau et al., 2016), via l’enseignement et l’accompagnement (PEPITE) ou la banque, via le financement et l’accompagnement. Il est par conséquent légitime de s’interroger sur le processus de construction des compétences territoriales en matière d’accompagnement entrepreneurial : quels acteurs sont sollicités dans ce processus et en quoi peut-il favoriser une dynamique entrepreneuriale territoriale ? Comment se construisent ces compétences à l’échelle du territoire ? En quoi ce processus favorise-t-il l’émergence d’un écosystème de l’accompagnement entrepreneurial durable (Theodoraki et Messeghem, 2015 ; Theodoraki, Messeghem et Rice, 2017) ?

 

L’objectif de ce dossier spécial est de questionner l’évolution des dispositifs d’accompagnement entrepreneurial en lien avec les nouveaux espaces et territoires. Les articles pourront retenir une perspective conceptuelle ou empirique. Ils pourront privilégier sous l’angle de l’accompagnement entrepreneurial l’une des thématiques suivantes :

– Espaces de coworking

– Incubateurs d’entreprise

– Incubateurs virtuels

– Écosystème entrepreneurial

– Entrepreneuriat des territoires (entrepreneuriat des quartiers, entrepreneuriat rural, etc.)

– Politique publique d’accompagnement entrepreneurial

– Accompagnement territorial collectif

– Accompagnement et tiers lieux

– Types d’accompagnement et territoires

– Jeux d’acteurs de l’accompagnement entrepreneurial et territorialisation

– Accompagnement durable et territoires

 

Ces thématiques seront abordées dans le cadre de la 4ème Rencontre entre acteurs des réseaux d’accompagnement et chercheurs qui se tiendra mardi 10 juillet 2018 à l’Institut Montpellier Management. Il est conseillé aux auteurs de participer à cet événement afin de profiter d’un regard croisé sur leur contribution.

 

Bibliographie indicative

 

Audretsch D. B. (2007), The Entrepreneurial Society, Oxford University Press, New York.

Baraldi E., Ingemansson H. (2016), « Identifying new dimensions of business incubationv: a multi-level analysis of Karolinska Institute’s Incubation System », Technovation, Vol. 50–51, p. 53–68.

Bories-Azeau I., Fort F., Noguera F., Peyroux C. (2016) , « The role of consulting and support for entrepreneurship in universities: a French experience », 76th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management 2016Management Consulting Division.

Bruneel J., Ratinho T., Clarysse B., Groen A. (2012), « The evolution of business incubators: comparing demand and supply of business incubation services across different incubator generations », Technovation, Vol. 32, p. 110–121.

Chabaud D., Ngijol J. (2005), « La contribution de la théorie des réseaux sociaux à la reconnaissance des opportunités de marché », Revue internationale PME, Vol. 18, N°1, p. 29-46.

Chabaud D., Sammut S. (2016), « L’entrepreneuriat : nouveaux champs d’analyse, nouvelles perspectives », Revue de l’Entrepreneuriat, Vol. 15, N°2, p. 7-14.

Garrett L., Spreitzer G., Bacevice P. (2017), « Co-constructing a sense of community at work: the emergence of community in coworking spaces », Organization Studies, Vol. 38, N°6, p. 821– 842.

Maus A., Sammut S. (2018), « Evolution in incubators’ Business Model, the contribution of individual and collective sensing of opportunities and dynamic capabilities », Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson Publication.

Messeghem K., Sammut S. (2014), « Special issue on thirty years of research in entrepreneurial support », International Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 23, N°4, p. 405-418.

Mian S. (2014), « Business incubation mechanisms and new venture support: emerging structures of US science parks and incubators », International Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 23, N°4, p. 419 – 435.

Mian S., Lamine W., Fayolle A. (2016), « Technology business incubation: an overview of the state of knowledge », Technovation, Vol. 50–51, p. 1–12.

Shepherd D.A., Krueger N.F. (2002), « An intentions-based model of entrepreneurial teams’ social cognition », Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol 27, N°2, p. 167–185.

Pauwels C., Clarysse B., Wright M., Van Hove J. (2016), « Understanding a new generation incubation model: the accelerator », Technovation, Vol. 50–51, p. 13–24.

Surlemont B., Olivier Toutain O., Barès F., Ribeiro A. (2014), « Un espace d’observation et d’exploration de l’intelligence collective », Entreprendre & Innover, Vol. 23, N°4, p. 5-9.

Theodoraki C., Messeghem K. (2015), « Ecosystème de l’accompagnement entrepreneurial : une approche en termes de coopétition », Entreprendre & Innover, Vol. 27, N° 4, 2015, p. 102-111.

Theodoraki C., Messeghem K., Rice M. (2017), « A social capital approach to the development of sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems: an explorative study », Small Business Economics, p. 1-18.

Venkataraman S., Sarasvathy S. D., Dew N., Forster W. R. (2012), « Reflections on the 2010 AMR decade award: Whither the promise? Moving forward with entrepreneurship as a science of the artificial », Academy of Management Review, Vo. 37, N°1, p. 21–33.

Verstraete T., Fayolle A. (2005), « Paradigmes et Entrepreneuriat », Revue de l’Entrepreneuriat, Vol. 4, N° 1, p. 33-52.

 

Modalité de soumission

Les propositions d’articles doivent être envoyées par courrier électronique avant le 1er décembre 2018 à isabelle.bories-azeau@umontpellier.fr, karim.messeghem@umontpellier.fr et sylvie.sammut@umontpellier.fr

Ces propositions devront respecter les normes de la politique rédactionnelle de la Revue Management & Avenir disponibles sur http://managementetavenir.net/

Tous les manuscrits soumis dans le cadre de cet appel à contributions feront l’objet d’une évaluation en double aveugle.

 

Calendrier indicatif

Envoi des textes : 1er décembre 2018

Retour de la première évaluation : 31 janvier 2019

Envoi de la seconde version des textes : 1er avril 2019

Retour de la seconde évaluation : 1er juin 2019

Envoi de la version finale : 1er septembre 2019

Publication : novembre 2019

Numéro spécial Revue de l’Entrepreneuriat – Regards croisés sur l’échec entrepreneurial

Appel à contributions – Numéro spécial de la Revue de l’Entrepreneuriat

Regards croisés sur l’échec entrepreneurial

Téléchargez l’appel à contribution : Dossier Revue de l’Entrepreneuriat Echec entrepreneurial

Éditeurs associés :

  • Smita Singh (Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand)
  • Nabil Khelil (Université de Caen, CREM CNRS)
  • Xavier Brédart (Université de Mons, HumanOrg)
  • Nadine Levratto (Université Nanterre, CNRS, EconomiX)

Deadline des soumissions : 15 septembre 2018

Les coûts psychologiques, sociaux et économiques de l’échec (Byrne et Shepherd, 2015; Cope, 2011; Singh et al., 2007-2015; Ucbasaran et al., 2013), font de ce phénomène un sujet sensible à aborder (Bruno et Leidecker, 1988; Cacciotti et al., 2016) et un événement indésirable et inattendu à éviter (Aaltonen et al., 2010; Politilis et Gabrielsson, 2009). C’est dans ce cadre que s’inscrivent les premiers travaux sur la défaillance des entreprises, reconnue dans la littérature anglo-saxonne sous le terme “business failure“. Bien que ce phénomène ait été étudié par plusieurs disciplines (Walsh et Cunningham, 2016, p. 164), telles que le droit (Peng et al., 2010), la finance (Beaver, 1966), la sociologie (Freeman et al., 1983), l’économie (Dunne et al., 1989), le management (Moulton et al., 1996), la stratégie (Sheppard et Chowdhury, 2005) et les sciences des organisations (Mellahi et Wilkinson, 2004), ces travaux partagent le même objectif : mettre en évidence les causes qui sont à l’origine de l’échec de nombreuses entreprises et, éventuellement, réfléchir à des stratégies d’actions préventives, curatives ou encore palliatives.

C’est à partir de l’introduction de la notion de l’échec dans le champ de l’entrepreneuriat que le concept « échec entrepreneurial » a pris de l’ascendant. Si les premiers travaux sur l’échec entrepreneurial se focalisent sur les causes, les travaux menés au cours de la dernière décennie se concentrent plutôt sur les expériences d’échec vécues par les entrepreneurs. L’échec n’est plus perçu comme étant un sujet sensible qui demeure peu étudié en entrepreneuriat (Aaltonen et al., 2010; Politilis and Gabrielsson, 2009), mais comme une étape indispensable à la réussite d’un processus entrepreneurial, qui mérite d’être étudiée en profondeur (Jenkins et Mckelvie, 2016). C’est dans ce cadre que s’inscrivent les travaux fondateurs sur l’apprentissage de l’échec (McGrath, 1999; Minniti et Bygrave, 2001; Shepherd, 2003) qui suscitent aujourd’hui un intérêt croissant dans la littérature tant anglo-saxonne (Dias et Teixeira, 2017; Shepherd et al., 2016; Walsh et Cunningham, 2017) que francophone (Crutzen et Van Caillie, 2009 ; Cusin et Maymo, 2016 ; De Hoe et Janssen 2016 ; Khelil et al., 2012 ; Krauss, 2009 ; Philippart, 2017). L’attention ne porte plus aujourd’hui uniquement sur les causes d’échec à éviter mais plutôt sur les leçons à tirer des échecs afin de les capitaliser.

L’augmentation du nombre de publications scientifiques, l’existence de plusieurs revues prestigieuses (spécialisées ou non) publiant sur le sujet, l’apparition d’ouvrages collectifs (Shepherd, 2013; Shepherd et al., 2016) et de numéros spéciaux (Detienne et Wennberg, 2016; Levratto et Brédart, 2018), l’existence d’une logique de capitalisation des connaissances (voir les revues de littérature conduites par Jenkins et Mckelvie, 2016 ; Ucbasaran et al., 2013 et Walsh et Cunningham, 2016), nous amène à la conclusion suivante : l’échec commence à occuper une place grandissante et fondamentale dans la littérature académique sur l’entrepreneuriat. Ce phénomène est aujourd’hui considéré comme un vrai objet d’étude qui suscite l’intérêt des chercheurs (Corner et al., 2017; Eberhart et al., 2017; Jenkins et McKelvie, 2017 ; Shepherd et Patzelt, 2017; Walsh et Cunningham, 2017). 2

Quelle que soit l’approche théorique (déterministe versus volontariste) ou méthodologique (qualitative versus quantitative) mobilisée ou, encore, le niveau d’analyse étudié (entrepreneur, entreprise, environnement), les chercheurs sont toujours confrontés à la réalité complexe et protéiforme de l’échec entrepreneurial (Khelil, 2016). La diversité et l’interdépendance des éléments objectifs et subjectifs, qualitatifs et quantitatifs, économiques et psychologiques inhérents à la fois à l’entrepreneur et l’entreprise qu’il créée, rendent les approches disjonctives désuètes. Bien que les approches traditionnelles de la défaillance d’entreprises adoptant le plus souvent une perspective linéaire et binaire dominent à ce jour, il existe une tendance de plus en plus marquée aux approches intégratives. Selon ces approches, l’échec est vu comme un phénomène multidimensionnel et complexe composé de différents éléments interdépendants qui interagissent sur plusieurs niveaux.

C’est dans ce cadre que s’inscrit cet appel à contribution. Au-delà de la question des causes (pour quelles raisons certaines entrepreneurs échouent-ils et d’autres non ?) ou encore les conséquences (quelles sont les conséquences que peut avoir l’échec de l’entreprise sur l’entrepreneur ?), d’autres questions sont en jeu :

  • Qu’est qu’un échec entrepreneurial ?
  • Comment les entrepreneurs interprètent-ils leur échec ?
  • Pour quelles raisons certains entrepreneurs apprennent-ils beaucoup plus de leur échec que d’autres ?
  • Pour quelles raisons certaines entrepreneurs ont beaucoup plus peur de l’échec que d’autres ?
  • Comment accompagner les entrepreneurs en situation d’échec ?

Soumission des textes

Les propositions d’articles sont à envoyer à nabil.khelil@unicaen, à xavier.bredart@umons.ac.be, et en copie à soumission@entrepreneuriat.com,

– au plus tard le 15 septembre 2018,

en respectant les normes de la Revue de l’entrepreneuriat :

 

Normes de publication

en mentionnant dans l’objet « soumission au numéro échec entrepreneurial ».

Les textes retenus seront publiés dans un numéro thématique de la Revue de l’Entrepreneuriat (n°1, 2020).

Echéancier

L’échéancier suivant est proposé : Envoi des propositions d’article (version complète) :15 septembre 2018
Retour des évaluations et notification des décisions aux auteurs :15 janvier 2019
Dépôt des articles révisés (2ème tour d’évaluation):15 avril 2019
Dépôt des versions finales :15 octobre 2019

 

3e Colloque Interdisciplinaire sur la Défaillance d’Entreprise

Ce numéro thématique sera précédé par le 3e Colloque Interdisciplinaire sur la Défaillance d’Entreprise. Ce colloque, qui se déroulera le 15 juin à l’Université de Caen, est co-organisé par le Centre de Recherche en Economie et en Management de l’université de Caen (CREM – UMR CNRS 6211), l’unité mixte de recherche du CNRS EconomiX (Université de Nanterre) et l’institut de recherche humanOrg de l’Université de Mons. Centrée sur les approches multidimensionnelles de la défaillance des entreprises, cette troisième édition du CIDE est parrainée par l’Académie de l’Entrepreneuriat et de l’Innovation (AEI) ainsi que par l’Association Internationale de Recherche en Entrepreneuriat et PME (AIREPME). Les auteurs des meilleures communications recommandées par les évaluateurs seront invités à soumettre une version enrichie de leur texte à ce numéro thématique.
Site internet : https://businfailure.sciencesconf.org/
Télécharger l’appel à communication : 3ème Colloque Interdisciplinaire sur la Défaillance d’Entreprise

Références
Aaltonen, S., Blackburn, R., & Heinonen, J. (2010). Exploring entrepreneurial exits: a study of individual exit experiences in Finland and the UK. The theory and practice of entrepreneurship: Frontiers in European entrepreneurship research, 145-167.
Beaver, W. H. (1966). Financial ratios as predictors of failure. Journal of accounting research, 71-111.
Bruno, A. V., & Leidecker, J. K. (1988). Causes of new venture failure: 1960s vs. 1980s. Business Horizons, 31(6), 51-56.
Byrne, O., & Shepherd, D. A. (2015). Different strokes for different folks: Entrepreneurial narratives of emotion, cognition, and making sense of business failure. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(2), 375-405.
Cacciotti, G., Hayton, J. C., Mitchell, J. R., & Giazitzoglu, A. (2016). A reconceptualization of fear of failure in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(3), 302-325.
Cope, J. (2011). Entrepreneurial learning from failure: An interpretative phenomenological analysis. Journal of business venturing, 26(6), 604-623.
Corner, P. D., Singh, S., & Pavlovich, K. (2017). Entrepreneurial resilience and venture failure. International Small Business Journal, 0266242616685604.
Crutzen, N. et Van Caillie, D. (2009). Vers une taxonomie des profils d’entrée dans un processus de défaillance : Un focus sur les micro-et petites entreprises en difficulté. Revue Internationale PME, 22(1), 101-128.
Cusin, J., & Maymo, V. (2016). Stigmatisation de l’entrepreneur post-faillite et décision de financement du banquier. M@n@gement, 19(4), 305-329.
De Hoe, R. et Janssen, F. (2016). Le capital psychologique permet-il d’apprendre et de rebondir face à un échec entrepreneurial? Management International,20(2),18-28.
DeTienne, D., & Wennberg, K. (2016). Studying exit from entrepreneurship: New directions and insights. International Small Business Journal, 34(2), 151-156.
Dias, A., et Teixeira, A. A. (2017). The anatomy of business failure: A qualitative account of its implications for future business success. European Journal of Management and Business Economics, 26(1), 2-20.
Dunne, T., Roberts, M. J., & Samuelson, L. (1989). The growth and failure of US manufacturing plants. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 104(4), 671-698.
Eberhart, R. N., Eesley, C. E., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2017). Failure is an option: Institutional change, entrepreneurial risk, and new firm growth. Organization Science, 28(1), 93-112.
Freeman, J., Carroll, G. R., & Hannan, M. T. (1983). The liability of newness: Age dependence in organizational death rates. American sociological review, 692-710.
Jenkins, A., & McKelvie, A. (2016). What is entrepreneurial failure? Implications for future research. International Small Business Journal, 34(2), 176-188. Jenkins, A., & McKelvie, A. (2017). Is this the end? Investigating firm and individual level outcomes post-failure. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 8, 138-143. Khelil, N., Smida, A., & Zouaoui, M. (2012). Contribution à la compréhension de l’échec des nouvelles entreprises: exploration qualitative des multiples dimensions du phénomène. Revue de l’Entrepreneuriat, 11(1), 39-72.
Khelil, N. (2016). The many faces of entrepreneurial failure: Insights from an empirical taxonomy. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(1), 72-94.
4
Krauss, G. (2009). Les jeunes entreprises pionnières face à l’incertitude: la construction sociale de l’échec. Revue Française de socio-économie, (1), 169-186. Levratto, N., & Brédart, X. (2018). La défaillance et l’échec des PME. Revue internationale PME, Numéro thématique.
McGrath, R. G. (1999). Falling forward: Real options reasoning and entrepreneurial failure. Academy of Management review, 24(1), 13-30.
Mellahi, K., & Wilkinson, A. (2004). Organizational failure: a critique of recent research and a proposed integrative framework. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5(1), 21-41.
Minniti, M., & Bygrave, W. (2001). A dynamic model of entrepreneurial learning. Entrepreneurship: Theory and practice, 25(3), 5-5.
Moulton, W. N., Thomas, H., et Pruett, M. (1996). Business failure pathways: environmental stress and organizational response. Journal of Management, 22(4), 571-595.
Peng, M. W., Yamakawa, Y., et Lee, S. H. (2010). Bankruptcy Laws and Entrepreneur-Friendliness. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(3), 517-530. Philippart P. (2017). “L’accompagnement de l’entrepreneur en difficulté: questions autour d’un phénomène complexe”, Projectics/Proyética/Projectiques, vol.1, n°16, p.11-29.
Politis, D., & Gabrielsson, J. (2009). Entrepreneurs’ attitudes towards failure: An experiential learning approach. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 15(4), 364-383.
Shepherd, D. A. (2003). Learning from business failure: Propositions of grief recovery for the self-employed. Academy of management Review, 28(2), 318-328.
Shepherd, D. A. (2013), Entrepreneurial Failure. The International Library of Entrepreneurship Series. Edward Elgar Pub.
Shepherd, D.A., Williams, T., Wolfe, M. et Patzelt, H. (2016). Learning from Entrepreneurial Failure. Cambridge University Press.
Shepherd, D. A., et Patzelt, H. (2017). Trailblazing in Entrepreneurship: Creating New Paths for Understanding the Field. Springer.
Sheppard, J. P., & Chowdhury, S. D. (2005). Riding the wrong wave: Organizational failure as a failed turnaround. Long Range Planning, 38(3), 239-260.
Singh, S., Corner, P., & Pavlovich, K. (2007). Coping with entrepreneurial failure. Journal of Management & Organization, 13(4), 331-344. Singh, S., Corner, P. D., & Pavlovich, K. (2015). Failed, not finished: A narrative approach to understanding venture failure stigmatization. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(1), 150-166.
Ucbasaran, D., Shepherd, D. A., Lockett, A., & Lyon, S. J. (2013). Life after business failure: The process and consequences of business failure for entrepreneurs. Journal of Management, 39(1), 163-202.
Walsh, G. S. et Cunningham, J. A. (2017). Regenerative failure and attribution: Examining the underlying processes affecting entrepreneurial learning. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior et Research, 23(4), 688-707.
Walsh, G. S., & Cunningham, J. A. (2016). Business failure and entrepreneurship: emergence, evolution and future research. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 12(3), 163-285.

CfP International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business ESU 2018 Special Issue on: “Fostering European Entrepreneurship Research through a Human Action Perspective”

Call for Papers International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business

ESU 2018 Special Issue on: “Fostering European Entrepreneurship Research through a Human Action Perspective”

IJESB Call for Papers

Guest Editors: Associate Prof. Agnieszka Kurczewska, University of Lodz, Poland Prof. Francisco Liñán, Universidad de Sevilla, Spain Prof. Hans Landström, Lund University, Sweden Prof. Alain Fayolle, Emlyon Business School, France

The purpose of this special issue is to launch an academic debate on new trends in entrepreneurship research in terms of conceptual coverage and methodological advancements. It is aimed at expanding the dialogue on the diverse and dynamic dimensions of entrepreneurship, which are understood as both a phenomenon and a research field. To gain more legitimacy as well as become a unique discipline, entrepreneurship research needs to have self-defined content and, despite a proliferation of topics and approaches, it must share some common understandings of the phenomenon. One prospective connection of dispersed research threads could be a human action perspective, in which there is a perception of entrepreneurship as a human experience and interaction, with entrepreneurs as acting human beings. This standpoint is deeply rooted in the European tradition of interpreting entrepreneurship and seems to be a logical binder of previous developmental stages of entrepreneurship as a field. Therefore, this special issue aims to resolve the most evident research deficits regarding different aspects of entrepreneurial human action as an emerging topic in entrepreneurship by illuminating the nature of entrepreneurship as a human endeavour. It is also seen as a vehicle to develop and communicate the European perspective on entrepreneurship research (Dana et al., 2008).

Historically, entrepreneurship as a field of research has its foundations in European economics (Landström, 2004; Fayolle, 2003), mainly in German historical (represented by Schumpeter) and Austrian schools of economics (with von Mises and Kirzner as the most recognised representatives). With time, the focus of research has moved from classical and neo-classical theories and discussions on entrepreneurial functions towards individuals, including the inherent and enduring characteristics that make them entrepreneurial (Carland et al., 1988). However, trait theories received their critics due to their static character and methodological weaknesses. When behavioural theories emerged, they aimed to better understand entrepreneurial processes and actions. As a consequence, a remarkable development, which still seems to dominate in the European research tradition, occurred on the behavioural side of entrepreneurship (Gartner, 1988; Gartner, 1989). To help answer the question of how entrepreneurs take actions, the cognitive stream of research (Baron, 1998; Mitchell et al., 2002) emerged; it included entrepreneurial intentions, attitudes, perceptions and cognitive schemas as the main objects of its investigation.

The themes that have received more attention in entrepreneurship research include the following:

  • The process perspective of entrepreneurship, which is understood both as enacting opportunity (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000) and the way a new firm is brought into existence (Gartner, 1989);
  • The entrepreneurial action, which is understood both as discovery and creation, and is the foundation of understanding entrepreneurship (Alvarez and Barney, 2007); and The entrepreneurial decision-making and judgmental process (Foss and Klein, 2012; Mitchell et al., 2002).

 

In synthesising the above debate, each of these concepts may broaden their meaning when discussed in the context of human action and when the role of human agency in entrepreneurial processes is emphasised. The entrepreneur, seen as an individual with a particular set of traits, is replaced by the agency; and the agency is brought by entrepreneurs who think, discover, create and enact. Taking the human action perspective moves the research interest into how individuals create or discover opportunities and expends their research ambition towards exploring the dynamics of individual processes and their determinants. The entrepreneurial process is seen as one involving actions that are connected by perceiving opportunities and creating organisations to pursue those opportunities (Bygrave, 2007). However, it is not enough to study entrepreneurs’ actions alone (Dimov, 2011); the focus could be on the interplay between actions and insights, which are part of entrepreneurial experiences. In this sense, entrepreneurial actions are either external expressions or consequences of a person’s reflections, judgments and decisions. This then shifts the interest towards entrepreneurs as experiencing actors who are in the process of creating and enacting.

Special issue proposals should have the potential to make a substantial impact on research pertaining to the human-action view on entrepreneurship and expand the scope of methodologies used in entrepreneurship research (Dana and Dana, 2005; Dana and Dumez, 2015). In particular, this special issue is aimed at collecting both empirical and theoretical contributions that build on the complexity of entrepreneurship as well as provide new insights and provoke further discussion on how entrepreneurs make decisions and take actions from the perspective of human endeavour and human interaction based on both behavioural and cognitive patterns. It will bring value to academics because it will indicate the conceptual and methodological trends that are applied in entrepreneurship research. Interpretations of entrepreneurship as a human action in the European context are particularly welcome.

 

References

Alvarez, S.A., Barney, J.B. (2007). Discovery and creation: alternative theories of entrepreneurial action, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 1(1-2), 11-26. Baron, R. (1998). Cognitive mechanisms in entrepreneurship: why and when entrepreneurs think differently than other people, Journal of Business Venturing 13(4), 275-294. Bygrave, W. D. (2007). The entrepreneurship paradigm (I) revisited. Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods in Entrepreneurship, 17-48. Carland, J. W., Hoy, F., & Carland, J. A. (1988). “Who is an entrepreneur?” is a question worth asking. American Journal of Small Business, 12(4), 33-39. Dana, L.P., Dana, T.E. (2005). Expanding the scope of methodologies used in entrepreneurship research, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 2(1), 79-88. Dana, L.P., I.M. Welpe, M. Han & V. Ratten (2008). Handbook of research on European business and entrepreneurship: Towards a theory of internationalization. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Dana, L.P., Dumez, H. (2015). Qualitative Research Revisited: Epistemology of a Comprehensive Approach, International Journal of Entrepreneurship & Small Business 26(2), 154-170. Dimov, D. (2011). Grappling with the Unbearable Elusiveness of Entrepreneurial Opportunities, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 35, 57-81. Fayolle, A. (2003). Research and researchers at the heart of entrepreneurial situations, in Steyaert, C, Hjorth, D. (eds) New Movements in Entrepreneurship, Cheltenham-Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., 35-50. Foss, N. J., Klein, P. G. (2012). Organizing Entrepreneurial Judgment. New York, Cambridge University Press. Gartner, W. B. (1988). “Who is an entrepreneur?” is the wrong question. American Journal of Small Business, 12 (4), 11-32. Gartner, W. B. (1989). Some suggestions for research on entrepreneurial traits and characteristics. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14(1), 27-38. Landström, H. (2004). Pioneers in entrepreneurship research, in Corbetta, G., Huse, M., Ravasi, D. (eds.), Crossroads of Entrepreneurship, Kluwer Academic Publishers Dordretch, 13-32. Mitchell, R., Busenitz, L., Lant, T., McDougall, P., Morse, E., Smith, J.B. (2002). Toward a Theory of Entrepreneurial Cognition: Rethinking the People Side of Entrepreneurship Research, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 27(2), 93-104. Shane, S., Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review 25(1), 217-226.

 

Subject Coverage

Suitable topics include, but are not limited, to the following:

  • The role of human agency and experience in entrepreneurial processes
  • Novel concepts and practices in the research on entrepreneurial behaviour
  • Different facets of the entrepreneurial process; its phases, dynamics and outcomes from the entrepreneur and agency perspectives
  • New perspectives on entrepreneurial thinking and decision making processes: how entrepreneurs’ decisions and judgments influence the creation and the life of entrepreneurial ventures
  • Action-bound theory perspective on entrepreneurship – human discovery and creation as the foundation of understanding entrepreneurship
  • Entrepreneurship as embedded in specific European cultures and contexts – the relevance and value of entrepreneurs in contemporary society and economy
  • New methods in entrepreneurship research enabling us to grasp entrepreneurship as human enactment
  • Epistemological and theoretical foundations of entrepreneurship education

 

Notes for Prospective Authors

Submitted papers should not have been previously published nor be currently under consideration for publication elsewhere. (N.B. Conference papers may only be submitted if the paper has been completely re-written and if appropriate written permissions have been obtained from any copyright holders of the original paper).

All papers are refereed through a peer review process.

All papers must be submitted online. To submit a paper, please read our Submitting articles page.

 

Important Dates

Manuscripts due by: 31 December, 2018

Notification to authors: 28 February, 2019

Final versions due by: 30 September, 2019

Revue Française de Gestion – Appel à contributions – Numéro Spécial – La valorisation de la recherche en Sciences de Gestion

Revue Française de Gestion

Appels à contributions

La valorisation de la recherche en Sciences de Gestion

appel_a_com_valorisation_recherche_gestion

Rédacteurs invités :

Thierry Verstraete (IAE de l’Université de Bordeaux),

Pascal Philippart (IAE de l’Université de Lille)

Date limite de soumission : 1 octobre 2018

 

En matière de valorisation de la recherche, l’enseignant-chercheur est essentiellement sensibilisé à deux formes de transfert des connaissances apportées par ses travaux ou par ceux de ses pairs : la valorisation académique et la valorisation pédagogique.

La première conduit principalement à communiquer dans les congrès et à publier dans les revues savantes, avec l’idée de voir les travaux, ainsi mis à la discussion scientifique, mobilisés par les pairs y trouvant matière à avancer dans leurs propres recherches.

La seconde consiste à traduire la connaissance apportée par la recherche en contenu pédagogique. Il s’agit alors de publier des manuels et d’insérer dans les programmes de formations des contenus découlant de la recherche, avec l’idée cette fois que les connaissances ainsi déclinées apporteront aux enseignés.

Outre la valorisation scientifique et la valorisation pédagogique, une troisième forme de valorisation est questionnée depuis l’origine des Sciences de Gestion : l’apport managérial. Il s’agit d’une valorisation des produits de la recherche pour améliorer, tant que faire se peut, la pratique de la gestion. Le présent appel à contributions s’intéresse à cette forme de valorisation.

Bien que la question des apports managériaux soit souvent posée par les évaluateurs de travaux de recherche (membre d’un jury de thèse, évaluateur d’une communication ou d’une proposition d’article, commission d’évaluation de programme, etc.), généralement, le chercheur se contente de les évoquer. A l’exception des recherches de type ingénierique qu’il déploie, le chercheur applique rarement les résultats de ses recherches aux situations de gestion concernées par ses travaux. Plus largement, en considérant que le transfert est une offre de connaissances produite par la recherche à destination de ceux qui gèrent des organisations ou de leurs conseillers, force est de constater que peu de chercheurs s’en soucient. Certes, quelques cas remarquables constituent des exceptions au constat précédent (le Medaf, le Balanced Score Card, l’expérience client, etc.), mais il suffit de demander à un collègue de citer 5 produits de la recherche française en Sciences de Gestion ayant eu une influence significative sur les pratiques de gestion pour observer sa peine à répondre.

Il faut dire que la forme de valorisation nous intéressant ici est rarement explicitée, notamment lors de l’apprentissage de la recherche, même si les doctorants se voient proposer des séminaires dans ce domaine (il faut alors constater que leurs participants sont essentiellement les doctorants des sciences dites « dures »). Dans les formations à la recherche en Sciences de Gestion, la valorisation est généralement cantonnée à sa forme académique (la première présentée au début de cet appel), alors que la gestion comporte une capacité de transfert vers la pratique inscrite dans les gènes de la discipline. Cet appel à contributions pour un dossier de la Revue Française de Gestion a pour objectif de recevoir des illustrations de recherches où l’apport managérial fera l’objet d’une discussion plus poussée qu’à l’accoutumée dans une revue savante.

 

L’ambivalence de la valorisation

La valorisation est ambivalente car elle interroge concrètement l’articulation entre le processus de valorisation et son produit. S’agissant de ce dernier, un produit de la recherche est valorisé lorsque les publics auxquels il réfère l’emploient. Autrement dit, le produit ne sera pas considéré comme valorisé tant qu’il n’est pas mobilisé pour raisonner ou agir. Ainsi, le chercheur a peut-être hâtivement le sentiment d’avoir valorisé son travail de recherche lorsqu’il donne, auprès de praticiens concernés par le problème étudié, une conférence livrant les résultats d’une recherche. Le processus de valorisation est certes engagé, mais rien ne garantit que la connaissance ne soit valorisée. Ce constat pose deux questions. La première porte sur les actions à mener pour que le travail du chercheur soit réellement valorisé, autrement dit pour que son offre rencontre une demande (c’est la question du processus). La seconde renvoie aux évaluations qu’il faudrait mettre en place pour repérer voire mesurer les manifestations de la valorisation (c’est la question du produit). Ce double questionnement singularise bien le caractère finalisé de la valorisation, qui est à la fois intention et action.

 

Un problème d’une actualité aigue, depuis longtemps …

La valorisation de la recherche est souvent entendue au seul profit des sciences dites dures. Les différentes politiques en la matière confirment une vision étroite, si ce n’est étriquée, de la valorisation. Son périmètre a pourtant fait l’objet de nombreuses discussions, depuis longtemps, et encore récemment. La dernière date marquant de façon sensible l’intérêt porté à la valorisation de la recherche s’est exprimée par la création des SATT (Société d’Accélération du Transfert de Technologie) en 2012. Il s’agit de filiales créées par des établissements dont l’objectif est de favoriser les échanges entre les laboratoires de recherche publics et les industries. Principalement, les SATT étudient le portefeuille des produits technologiques sortant des laboratoires de recherche pour les traduire en compétences exploitables par l’industrie. Le processus afférent s’exprime par un transfert de technologie pouvant revêtir plusieurs formes (licensing, prestation de service, création d’entreprise innovante, etc.) avec, aussi, l’idée que les ponts public-privés créés incitent la recherche à participer à l’effort productif national. La création des SATT est ainsi une récente et sensible expression de l’intérêt porté à la valorisation de la recherche, intérêt évidemment plus ancien, avec, par exemple, l’appel lancé en 2005 par l’ANR pour la mutualisation des efforts en matière de valorisation de la recherche, constatant qu’ils étaient trop atomisés dans les établissements. Bien que des coordinations régionales plus ou moins formelles, et l’existence d’institutions nationales (rappelons que l’Anvar a été créée en 1967 et qu’à partir de 1979 ses directions régionales géraient les aides à l’innovation), favorisaient l’échange de bonnes pratiques, il semblait utile de créer des plateformes optimisant la coordination (pour un court historique, voir Marion et al., 2000).

Bref, la valorisation de la recherche n’est pas une thématique nouvelle. Ceci dit, force est de constater, par le paragraphe précédent, que la singularité des Sciences Humaines et Sociales a insuffisamment irrigué les réflexions inhérentes à la construction des institutions de la valorisation de la recherche. Mais peut-être que les quelques représentants des SHS ont trop joué l’opposition au modèle des sciences dures, par exemple en différenciant le transfert de technologie au transfert des connaissances.

 

Transfert de technologie, transfert de connaissances, … valorisation commerciale, valorisation sociale …

La valorisation par transfert de technologie est parfois distinguée de celle par transfert de connaissances, alors qu’elle en est peut-être un sous-ensemble. Sa singularité renvoie au caractère brevetable de la connaissance produite (relevant de la propriété industrielle) alors que plus globalement tout transfert pose le problème du transfert de méthodes, de modèles, de théories, de savoir-faire, etc. (relevant du droit de la propriété intellectuelle ou des droits d’auteur). Les sciences de gestion peuvent être concernées par le transfert de technologie au regard des nombreux outils utilisés par les praticiens de chacune de ses spécialités (comptabilité, finance, ressources humaines, marketing, etc.). Elles sont concernées plus largement par le transfert des connaissances lorsqu’il s’agit d’apporter des modèles aidant les acteurs, qui s’en saisissent, à gérer. Dans les deux cas, des considérations éthiques découlent soit de la marchandisation des produits de la recherche publique, soit de l’utilisation sociale qui en est faite. La valorisation nécessite alors d’éclaircir la relation entre la recherche et les organisations auxquelles s’intéressent les chercheurs en sciences de gestion. La question correspondante peut prendre la forme suivante : dans quelle mesure et sous quelle forme le chercheur doit-il rendre à la Cité ce qu’il lui emprunte comme ressources pour mener ses recherches ? La valorisation interroge aussi l’indépendance du chercheur, dans la mesure notamment où il s’agit, d’un côté, de garantir qu’aucun rapport de force ne conduise à poser à sa place les questions de recherche (Stengers, 1995) et, d’un autre côté, que son interaction avec le terrain ne se réduise pas à une analyse strictement fondamentale. Il semble que les Sciences de Gestion, certes en fonction du cadre opératoire déployé par le chercheur, composent avec une certaine forme d’interdépendance avec les organisations étudiées et de façon plus générale avec la Cité dans laquelle le chercheur exerce son métier. La valorisation managériale de la recherche constitue un pont entre deux univers qui ne se côtoient pas facilement : des appréhensions culturelles, éthiques, économiques, voire juridiques freinent souvent les envies de valorisation du chercheur et interroge son rôle de passeur ou de médiateur entre ces deux univers (Van de Ven et Johnson, 2006). Qui plus est, bien que la valorisation de la recherche soit un critère présent à la fois dans les dossiers d’évaluation des laboratoires et dans celles des candidats pour l’avancement de leur carrière, tout participant à des comités aura aisément relevé l’intérêt mineur qui lui est porté, souvent en raison d’une méconnaissance de ce qu’est la valorisation (on passera sous silence les éventuelles condescendances dont elle peut parfois malheureusement faire l’objet, les activités afférentes étant jugées moins nobles).

 

Le projet des sciences de gestion et la valorisation de la recherche

Il convient de relire le rapport Percerou de 1982, les assises AFCET-CESTA de 1982, les actes du colloque de la FNEGE à Nancy de 1983, le rapport Moisdon de 1983 et les actes des journées FNEGE ISEOR (colloque de 1984) pour constater que la valorisation de la recherche est inscrite dans le projet des Sciences de Gestion. Partant de l’idée que celles-ci ont comme périmètre la conception et le pilotage des organisations sociales finalisées, les apports managériaux sont plus ou moins explicitement appelés sans qu’il y ait à considérer une quelconque antinomie avec une approche plus fondamentale de la recherche. Autrement dit, il n’y aurait pas une recherche appliquée d’un côté et une recherche fondamentale de l’autre. Cela est d’autant plus vrai pour certaines formes de recherche telles que la recherche-action (Susman et Evered, 1978) ou la recherche ingénierique (Chanal et al. 1997), faisant alors du chercheur en Sciences de Gestion un docteur-ingénieur (Verstraete, 2007). Cette perspective varie bien sûr en fonction du projet de recherche engagé, lequel relève d’une position épistémologique dirigée vers une ambition théorique plus ou moins forte (Koenig, 1993). Il est alors possible de discuter tout un ensemble de couples a priori opposables mais souvent conciliables, par exemple le couple « explicatif/normatif », pour constater que le chercheur en Sciences de Gestion ne peut s’arrêter à une visée explicative, pas plus qu’il ne peut produire du savoir sans comprendre les situations de gestion étudiées (Martinet, 1990).

 

Types de contributions attendues

Ce trop court appel n’épuise évidemment pas les enjeux très nombreux induits par la valorisation de la recherche, à l’instar des thèmes auxquels elle renvoie comme l’innovation ou le développement des territoires (au sein desquels la valorisation s’exprime). Sans verser dans l’état de l’art, il propose un cadre pour ce qu’il semble raisonnable de qualifier de valorisation afin de solliciter un certain type de contributions. A ce propos, celles-ci sont des recherches avec phases empiriques dont les résultats ont été mobilisés pour la gestion de l’organisation concernée. A priori, on peut penser entre autres aux recherches ingénieriques, aux recherches-actions/interventions ou à d’autres protocoles démontrant une relation forte et directe entre les chercheurs et les acteurs de la situation de gestion. Ces recherches intéressent évidemment le présent appel à articles, mais il pourrait y avoir un biais à imaginer que seuls ces types de protocoles puissent produire des résultats valorisables au sens entendu ici. Par analogie avec d’autres sciences, certaines recherches qualifiées de fondamentales ont eu des répercussions sur la vie de la Cité. Dans tous les cas, les textes évalueront ou démontreront l’utilisation effective, de façon plus ou moins durable, des résultats produits par la recherche en Sciences de Gestion, donc la façon dont ces résultats ont influencé la pratique de la gestion de l’espace managérial concerné. Il faut ici confesser, en réponse à l’hégémonie anglo-saxonne, que les recherches francophones valorisées intéressent particulièrement l’appel à contributions.

 

Modalités de soumission

Les soumissions sont ouvertes à tous. Les articles doivent être déposés avant le 9 janvier 2019 sur le site internet de la RFG http://rfg.revuesonline.com/appel.jsp (« soumettre votre article en ligne ») en mentionnant dans la lettre d’accompagnement le titre du dossier : « Dossier RFG – Recherche en science de gestion ». Ils devront strictement respecter les consignes de la RFG disponibles sur : http://rfg.revuesonline.com.

Tous les manuscrits retenus dans le cadre de cet appel à contributions feront l’objet d’une évaluation en « double aveugle».

 

Bibliographie

Chanal V., Lesca H., Martinet A-C. (1997), « Vers une ingénierie de la recherche en sciences de gestion », Revue Française de Gestion, vol. 116, nov.-déc., 41-51.

Koenig, G. (1993), « Production de la connaissance et constitution des pratiques organisationnelles », Revue de Gestion des Ressources Humaines, n°9, novembre, 4-17

Marion S., Philippart P. et Verstraete T. (2000). « La valorisation de la recherche publique par la création d’entreprise », in Verstraete T. (dir), Histoire d’entreprendre – Les réalités de l’entrepreneuriat, Editions Management et Société, 115-132.

Martinet A-C. (1990), « Grandes questions épistémologiques et sciences de gestion », in Martinet A-C. (coord.), Epistémologies et sciences de gestion, Economica, Paris, 9-29.

Stengers I. (1995), L’invention des sciences modernes, La Découverte, Paris.

Susman G.I. et Evered R.D. (1978), « An Assessment of the Scientific Merits of Action Research », Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 23, n°4, 582-603.

Van de Ven A.H. et Johnson P.E. (2006), « Knowledge for theory and practice », Academy of Management Review, vol. 31, n°4, 902-921.

Verstraete T. (2007), « A la recherche des sciences de gestion », Revue Française de Gestion, vol. 33,n° 178-179, p. 91-105.

Appel à contributions – Entreprendre & Innover – Echec…Rebond…Résilience: Cercle vertueux ou mythe du super héros?

ENTREPRENDRE & INNOVER

APPEL À COMMUNICATION NUMERO SPECIAL

ECHEC…REBOND…RESILIENCE :

Cercle vertueux ou mythe du super héros ?

Éditeurs : Fabienne Bornard, Olivier Toutain, Alain Fayolle, Caroline Verzat

Appel à com ECHEC ET RESILIENCE

Thématique du numéro spécial

La peur de l’échec constitue un des freins au démarrage d’une activité entrepreneuriale. En 2016, 40,3 % des français ont affirmé que la peur de l’échec1 pourrait les empêcher de créer une entreprise, d’après l’enquête annuelle du programme de recherche Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM). Cependant, qu’entend-on réellement par « échec » ? Cette question s’avère complexe et reste posée sur le plan académique2.

De plus l’enquête de GEM constate sur cette question des écarts élevés entre les pays, entre un minimum de 17,9 % de la population (Burkina Faso) à un maximum de 54,4 % (Emirats arabes unis). Comment peut-on interpréter de tels écarts ? La perception de l’échec renvoie à des conventions, des normes culturelles, en relation avec la place et l’acceptation de l’échec dans les sociétés, mais également avec la manière dont l’audace, la curiosité et le risque sont valorisés. Sur le plan individuel, l’échec renvoie à la nature des attendus ou objectifs de l’entrepreneur, à la perception de ce qu’il a perdu ou risque de perdre. C’est une émotion qui intervient dans les processus décisionnels de l’entrepreneur en minorant par exemple les effets de l’évaluation3 .

Sur le plan organisationnel l’échec entrepreneurial développe également des émotions négatives que les organisations doivent apprendre à gérer ou anticiper4 .Outre la dimension collective (équipe entrepreneuriale, organisation, société) ou individuelle, l’échec peut s’interpréter selon deux types de mesures5, objectives (indicateurs non atteints, faillite financière, etc.) et subjectives (j’estime avoir échoué). Se pose également la question des échelles temporelles ou spatiales, par exemple jusqu’à quand se donne-t-on pour « réussir » ?

Si l’on poursuit le raisonnement un peu plus loin, l’entrepreneuriat peut également s’envisager comme un processus d’apprentissage. Honig proposait dès 2004 un modèle expérientiel de l’éducation entrepreneuriale intégrant l’apprentissage par l’échec et le développement de la confiance, de la Echec, Résilience, Rebond tolérance au risque, du leadership et de l’expérience managériale grâce à cela. Des méthodes comme le « Lean start up »6 portant sur la façon la plus efficace de créer des entreprises ou des projets innovants prônent l’entrée le plus tôt possible dans une boucle d’apprentissage accélérée. En somme il faudrait s’engager joyeusement dans un cycle d’essais-erreurs pour trier au plus tôt, pivoter si nécessaire, dessiner progressivement le projet en faisant confiance aux potentialités du futur. Ce qui fait écho, dans le monde académique, à la théorie de l’effectuation pour les entrepreneurs experts en situation d’incertitude élevée. La maxime favorite des GAFA, « fail harder » semble se diffuser lentement en France, comme le montrent l’apparition des « failcon » (témoignages d’entrepreneurs ayant échoué7).

Mais qu’en est-il réellement pour ces entrepreneurs qui tentent un nouveau projet ? On ne peut ignorer les drames que peut déclencher un échec entrepreneurial. Comment survivre à ce type d’échec ? Est-il réellement possible de rebondir pour reprendre sa carrière entrepreneuriale ? Dans quelles conditions ? Est-ce souhaitable ? Qu’apprend-t-on réellement d’une situation d’échec ? La résilience entrepreneuriale, considérée par certains chercheurs comme un trait de caractère utile à l’entrepreneur8, le conduirait à poursuivre sa dynamique entrepreneuriale9. Pourtant, n’est-on pas en train de tomber dans un autre type de vision idéaliste qui survaloriserait la valeur de l’expérience par l’échec10 ? Dès lors, l’échec ne relèverait-il pas de croyances populaires, de visions de la société occidentale, influencées par exemple par certaines idéologies religieuses ou libérales qui prônent des attitudes et des comportements proches des logiques de survie ?

Enfin, est-il possible de se préparer à l’échec, d’accompagner, voire d’enseigner l’échec dans l’idée d’améliorer ses capacités de résilience et de rebond ? Dans ce cas, quels types d’encadrement pédagogiques faudrait-il mettre en place ? Shepherd11 recommande ce sujet à des compétences psychologiques particulières.

La dimension émotionnelle et psychologique de l’entrepreneur (stress, risques de burnout, passion, etc.) suscite actuellement un certain nombre de travaux intéressants et contrastés, que la revue Entreprendre & Innover avait commencé à aborder dans son numéro 29, L’agir entrepreneurial, entre émotions et raison. Ce numéro spécial propose d’aborder les notions d’échec, de résilience et de rebond en privilégiant des travaux critiques qui puissent apporter une contribution nuancée à la question de la place de ces sujets en entrepreneuriat : dans quelle mesure permettent-ils une meilleure compréhension, anticipation, et un meilleur accompagnement des difficultés rencontrées par l’entrepreneur ? Ne sont-ils pas une facette de plus de la mythologie entrepreneuriale qui appréhende l’entrepreneur comme un super héros capable de surmonter tous les obstacles et d’en sortir plus fort ? Echec, Résilience, Rebond ENTREPRENDRE & INNOVER P. 3

 

 

1 % de la population des 18 à 64 ans percevant de bonnes opportunités pour créer une entreprise.

2 Anna Jenkins et Alexander McKelvie (2016), what is entrepreneurial failure ?, International Small Business Journal, 34-2, pp. 176-188.

3 Isabell M. Welpe , Matthias Spörrle, Dietmar Grichnik, Theresa Michel, et David B. Audretsch (2012), Emotions and opportunities: The interplay of opportunity evaluation, fear, joy, and anger as antecedent of entrepreneurial exploitation”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 36, no. 1, p. 69-96.

4 Dean A. Shepherd et Holger Patzelt (2016), Learning from entrepreneurial failure, Cambridge University Press.

5 Jenkins et al., ibid.

6 Eric Ries (2011), The lean startup: How today’s entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses, Crown Books.

7 Voir par exemple : http://france.thefailcon.com/

8 Mathew LA Hayward, William R. Forster, Saras D. Sarasvathy, and Barbara L. Fredrickson (2010), Beyond hubris: How highly confident entrepreneurs rebound to venture again, Journal of Business Venturing 25, no. 6, p. 569-578.

9 Marie-Josée Bernard et Saulo Dubard Barbosa (2016), Resilience and entrepreneurship: A dynamic and biographical approach to the entrepreneurial act., M@ n@ gement 19, no. 2, p. 89.

10 Franck Bares et Claudine Auger (2016), Au-delà du fantasme, Gestion 41, no. 1, p. 102-105.

11 Dean A Shepherd.(2004), Educating entrepreneurship students about emotion and learning from failure, Academy of Management Learning & Education, no. 3 , p. 274-287.

Les propositions traiteront, entre autres, des sujets suivants :

Quels sont les éléments qui constituent la relation à l’échec (appréhensions, émotions, influence sur les choix futurs, importance dans la trajectoire de vie…) ? En quoi interviennent-ils dans la décision ou le comportement entrepreneurial ? Comment se remettre d’un échec entrepreneurial ? Dans quelle mesure la résilience joue-t-elle un rôle ?

La dimension collective de l’échec en entrepreneuriat : au niveau des équipes (contagion émotionnelle, processus de décision, confiance et conditions d’engagement, soutien de l’équipe apprenante…) ; au niveau des organisations (entreprises, écoles, incubateurs…) et de l’écosystème entrepreneurial : comment prévenir, anticiper, mesurer l’échec ?

Est-ce qu’on apprend vraiment de l’échec entrepreneurial et si oui, qu’est-ce qu’on apprend ? Etude de la relation échec-apprentissages ; Les individus qui ont connu l’échec sont-ils vraiment de meilleurs entrepreneurs ensuite en termes de comportement entrepreneurial ?

Comment laisser le droit à l’erreur aux porteurs de projet et jusqu’où ? Peut-on imaginer des dispositifs institutionnels ou organisationnels qui puissent ouvrir des espaces d’essai-erreur aux futurs entrepreneurs ? Comment aménager les dispositifs d’incubation actuels dans ce sens ?

Comment enseigner l’apprentissage par l’échec ? Faut-il l’enseigner ? Sous quelles conditions la pédagogie par projets permet- elle de s’y préparer ?

 

Échéancier :

Soumission des textes

 

Au plus tard 15 mai 2018

ParutionMars 2019

 

https://entreprendreetinnover.com/ 

Call for Special Issue – Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies ‘Migrant and Transnational Entrepreneurs: International Entrepreneurship and Emerging Economies’

 

Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies

Special Issue on ‘Migrant and Transnational Entrepreneurs: International Entrepreneurship and Emerging  Economies’

EIE_CFP

Special Issue Editors:

Sarika Pruthi

Jay Mitra

Submission Deadline: 31 March 2018

Background

A significant body of research in migrant entrepreneurship has addressed venture creation by ethnic entrepreneurs (EEs) in their host countries (Basu, 1998, 2011; Deakins et al., 2007; Ram & Jones, 2008). Studies have also explored business and technological expertise of returnee entrepreneurs (REs), and their role in the development of high-tech industries in emerging economies (Filatotchev et al., 2009; Pruthi, 2014). Research on migrant entrepreneurs makes clear distinctions between other types of migrant entrepreneurs and transnational entrepreneurs (TEs) that cross host country borders to commercialize a business idea in their home countries (Drori, Honig & Wright, 2009). The phenomenon of transnational entrepreneurship implies a distinct opportunity structure, which enables those migrants who found and maintain businesses to benefit from ‘two worlds’ as a crucial factor for survival, a way of breaking out, and/or a method for providing competitive advantage (Terjesen & Elam, 2009). TEs are an important source of innovation that contributes to economic development in both host and home countries. Apart from enabling a globalization from below in developed host markets (McEwan, Pollard & Henry, 2005), TEs also make available, locally, a wide range of managerial, technical and international marketing skills through their ventures in emerging home markets (Breshnahan, Gambardella & Saxenian, 2001; Parthasarathy & Aoyama, 2006).

Compared to other international entrepreneurs, differences in migrant entrepreneurs’ behaviour may stem from their unique social networks, market specific knowledge and experience (Elo & Volovelsky, 2017; Riddle, Hrivnak, & Nielsen, 2010), or even cultural, linguistic and religious features that represent particular resources and competences for internationalization (e.g., Brinkerhoff, 2016). Recent research has explored the role of migrant decision makers in the internationalization of their ventures to their home countries (Chung & Tung, 2013). Studies have also explored the motivations, typology (Drori et al., 2009; Elo, 2016; Portes, Haller, & Guarnizo, 2002) and economic contribution of TEs to their host and home countries (Portes et al., 2002; Wagner, Head & Ries, 2002). However, little is known about networks and capabilities, locational dynamics, mechanisms and processes that migrant entrepreneurs employ in identifying and exploiting opportunities in multiple institutional contexts (Brinkerhoff, 2016; Tung, 2008). With few exceptions, international entrepreneurship (IE) research on individual founders of international new ventures, or strategies and performance of migrant entrepreneurs beyond the host and home country duality, is limited (Elo & Freiling, 2015).

Transnational entrepreneurship can be conceptualized in both positivist (a phenomenon) and constructivist (a subjective abstraction) terms. This inherent conceptual duality mirrors the dual habitus presence of TEs. Crucially, it embraces other concepts of ethnicity, race, internationalization, globalization, migration and diasporas to name a few, all of which have merited attention in different studies on entrepreneurship. New research could, therefore, offer rich perspectives to enable a better, nuanced and critical understanding of this relatively less explored subject of our times.

The aim of this Special Issue is to make a theoretical and empirical contribution to the IE literature by exploring the international entrepreneurial processes of migrant entrepreneurs and TEs that initiate and conduct entrepreneurial processes in at least two social and economic arenas. Key themes include, but are not limited to, the role of multiple institutional contexts, social and human capital, and heterogeneity of migrant entrepreneurs and TEs as focal actors in the creation, organization and growth of transnational and international new ventures (Autio, Sapienza & Almeida, 2005; Oviatt & McDougall, 1994). TEs can be envisaged to operate their dual structures between developed economies, between emerging economies, or between developed and emerging economies (Drori et al., 2009; Wright, Pruthi & Lockett, 2005). These different trajectories likely involve different challenges for TEs (Hoskisson et al., 2013; Kiss, Danis & Cavusgil, 2012). Entrepreneurial action of TEs is constrained by their home country endowments due to variations in home country institutional structures (Yeung, 2002, 2009). They also have to cope and adapt to, and form strategies shaped by, institutional constraints, political-economic structures, and dominant organizational and cultural practices in both previous and currently adopted countries in which they operate (Portes, 1995; Saxenian, 1999, 2002, 2005). There is a need to understand how varied institutional contexts and differences, rather than merely their personal attributes and innovative capacities, shape the way they operate. The literature on TEs of ethnic origin in developed markets describes the significance of ‘transnational communities’ for the transfer of knowledge back home. However, not all TEs form transnational ventures (TNVs) from the position of being based in the host country; they can also do so from being based in the home country (Drori et al., 2009).

TEs are not passive adherents to institutional constraints, but actively mould them to suit their own unique initiatives. They leverage opportunities arising from their dual fields and networks, optimizing resources where they may be most effective (Drori et al., 2009). Unlike EEs, TEs go beyond ethnic ties in venture founding, using class or national resources to expand business contacts beyond their ethnic group (Gold & Light, 2000). TEs open up a new frontier to develop insights on the nature of global and local networks that link individual resources at the micro level with structure at the macro level (Chen & Tan, 2009). As employees of multinational corporations (MNCs), diasporas often encourage their employers to investigate the possibility of investing in the diasporan’s country of origin (Kotabe et al., 2013). TEs’ prior experience of entering the home country with a former  mployer may impact the nature of social capital in venture founding in the home country (Pruthi & Wright, 2017a). An understanding of TEs’ social and human capital in venture founding opens up the possibility for new insights regarding the behaviour and contribution of migrant entrepreneurs (Yang, Ho & Chang, 2012). An established stream of literature (e.g., Deakins et al., 2007; Light, Rezaei & Dana, 2013; Portes & Zhou, 1992) explores the role of personal or ethnic ties in venture founding by EEs, mainly in their new country of residence. Where entrepreneurs’ connections in both host and home countries are explored, they are mainly in the context of internationalizing EEs that extend their firms to the home country (Chung & Tung, 2013), or REs that draw on their connections abroad to found new ventures upon returning home (Lewin & Zhong, 2013; Lorenzen & Mudambi, 2013; Nanda & Khanna, 2010; Pruthi, 2014; Wadhwa et al., 2011). In contrast, we know little about the link between migrant entrepreneur’s and TEs’ social and human capital, or how they use social ties to overcome resource constraints in venture founding. As the role of social capital in venture founding is quite diverse among ethnic communities in developed markets, even in the same host country (Nwankwo, Akunuri & Madichie, 2010), entrepreneurs from different ethnic groups need to be systematically studied to understand the nature of their social capital in transnational activities.

Also less understood is the link between the structure of TEs’ social networks and pattern of growth (Pruthi & Wright, 2017a, 2017b). Founded by migrants and continued by their descendants, some family businesses, for example, grow to become leading firms and expand beyond their countries of residence (Discua Cruz, Howorth & Hamilton, 2013). These firms often connect back to their countries of origin from their very outset and involve a collective approach by members of one or several migrant family generations, a process supported by hard to imitate resources nurtured by transnational family networks from various parts of the world over time (Sirmon & Hitt, 2003). While the entrepreneurship literature advocates the role of non-family, weak ties for growth (Jack, 2005), the IE literature suggests that entrepreneurs that first enter their home country to found a TNV are more likely to found ventures that are ‘born global’ (Oviatt & McDougall, 1994, 2005). Therefore, research may examine the performance of TNVs in TEs’ home country, and whether TEs that complement family ties with other ties are more successful than others. Prior research on migrant entrepreneurs has looked at migrants that are either first generation or undifferentiated in their embeddedness in the host country (Janjuha-Jivraj, 2003). While first-generation migrants may be embedded in their home country based on strong family connections, second-generation migrants are likely to be more integrated with their host country (Bachkaniwala, et al, 2001). Therefore, a related research question is whether there is a difference in use of social ties and performance of TNVs depending on whether focal actors from family are the first or second-generation migrants.

TNVs offer a fertile opportunity to explore the nature of control and co-ordination outside the ontext of MNCs (Dabic, González-Loureiro, & Harvey, 2015; Massingham, 2010). Saxenian and Hsu (2001) suggest that the transnational linkages of TEs may supersede conventional international business relationships, and the MNC may no longer be the preferred organizational vehicle for transferring knowledge or personnel across geographic boundaries. Yet, little is known about the organization and co-ordination of transnational activities or performance of their ventures (Discua Cruz & Basco, 2017). It may be interesting to understand the way TEs and their managers apportion responsibilities and build social capital in a situation of commitment to two different work units in host and home countries (Collings, Scullion, & Harvey, 2009; Harvey, Novicevic, & Garrison, 2005).

 

Focus of this Special Issue

We aim to explore in this Special Issue the role of networks and resources, origin and location (national context), in the cross-border entrepreneurial activity of migrant entrepreneurs and TEs traversing geographic boundaries, and differences in their strategies and outcomes from those of international entrepreneurs. This Special Issue presents an opportunity to explore the heterogeneity of migrant entrepreneurs and TEs in terms of different roles and positions including family business owners and managers (Elo & Riddle, 2016), first- and second-generation migrants, as well as those originating from developed or developing home countries. The overall objective is to develop a more robust scholarly interest in migrant and transnational entrepreneurship, and provide novel insights to advance IE theory using a combination of multidisciplinary and/or multi-method approaches, especially in emerging economy contexts. Focal themes and representative research questions for this Special Issue are outlined below:

Focal Themes

  • Migrant entrepreneurs and TEs: Motivations, strategies and contributions
  • Impact of emerging (and developed) economy institutional contexts on migrant/transnational
  • entrepreneurship
  • Social and human capital of migrant entrepreneurs/TEs
  • Migrant/diaspora families
  • Organization and performance of TNVs
  • Migrant entrepreneurs/TEs and international new ventures/born globals
  • Returnee entrepreneurs

Possible Research Questions

  • How do national variations in institutional structures influence entrepreneurial processes, ownership patterns, business formation and co-ordination, intra-firm management and/or migrant-owned firms?
  • How are network relationships of migrant entrepreneurs/TEs structured and used in venture founding in host and home countries?
  • What is the role of migrant entrepreneurs/TEs’ prior knowledge and experience in host and home countries in the way they use their networks in venture founding?
  • How do TEs with expertise in doing business in an emerging economy, where social networks are important because of weak legal institutions, use their networks in moving to a developed market context where legal institutions are stronger?
  • Is there a link between TEs’ use of social networks, and pace and scope of growth of their TNVs?
  • Is the link with the home country important for second-generation migrants? Does the home country connection persist or disappear in successive generations?
  • Are there differences in social capital among foreign born, first-generation migrants, and their second-generation descendants born in the host country? What are the implications of these differences for the performance of their ventures?
  • How do TEs control and coordinate their ventures across borders? How do they recruit managers for their TNVs?
  • How does the location of TEs impact the organization and management of their TNVs? Do TEs that live in the host country and recruit local managers based on social ties in the host country perform a more strategic role compared to those that relocate to live at home who may be more hands-on in their approach?
  • What is the role of the home country (e.g., market or R&D centre) in the pace (incremental or rapid) and scope of growth of TNVs?
  • Are there differences in venture creation processes of TEs of different ethnic origins in developed host countries?
  • How do TEs found TNVs from the position of being based in developing/emerging home countries?
  • Are social ties and hence performance of REs that return home with the intention to live there on a permanent basis different from those of TEs that maintain regular contact with their home country?

Timeline and Submission:

All submissions must be uploaded electronically at: https://peerreview.sagepub.com/eie

Deadlines

Submissions: 31 March 2018

Expected Publication Date: January 2019; Volume 5, Issue 1

Please see manuscript submission guidelines on the JEIEE website

https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/journal-of-entrepreneurship-and-innovation-in-emerging-economies/journal202283#submissionguidelines

for format, style, instructions, and other requirements. For queries about this Special Issue,  please contact the editors: Sarika Pruthi (sarika.pruthi @ sjsu.edu)/ Jay Mitra (jmitra @ essex.ac.uk)

References

Autio, E., Sapienza, H.J., & Almeida, J.G. (2005). Effects of age at entry, knowledge intensity, and imitability on international growth. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 909–924.

Bachkaniwala, D., Wright, M., & Ram, M. (2001). Succession in South Asian family businesses in the UK. International Small Business Journal, 19(4), 15–27.

Basu, A. (1998). An exploration of entrepreneurial activity among Asian small businesses in Britain. Small Business Economics, 10(4), 313–326.

———. (2011). From ‘break out’ to ‘breakthrough’: Successful market strategies of immigrant entrepreneurs in the UK. International Journal of Entrepreneurship, 15, 1–24.

Breshnahan, T., Gambardella, A., & Saxenian, A.L. (2001). Old economy inputs for new economy outcomes: Cluster formation in the new Silicon Valleys. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(4), 835–860.

Brinkerhoff, J.M. (2016). Institutional reform and diaspora entrepreneurs: The in-between advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chen, W., & Tan, J. (2009). Understanding transnational entrepreneurship through a network lens: Theoretical and methodological considerations. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(5), 1079–1091.

Chung, H., & Tung, R. (2013). Immigrant social networks and foreign entry: Australia and New Zealand firms in the European Union and Greater China. International Business Review, 22(1), 18–31.

Collings, D.G., Scullion, H., & Dowling, P.J. (2009). Global staffing: A review and thematic research agenda. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(6), 1253–1272.

Dabic, M., González-Loureiro, M., & Harvey, M. (2015). Evolving research on expatriates: What is ‘known’ after four decades (1970–2012). The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(3), 316–337.

Deakins, D., Ishaq, M., Smallbone, D., Whittam, G., & Wyper, J. (2007). Ethnic minority businesses in Scotland and the role of social capital. International Small Business Journal, 25(3), 307–326.

Discua Cruz, A & Basco, R. (2017). A family perspective on Entrepreneurship, in Turcan R & Fraser, N (eds), A Handbook of Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Entrepreneurship. Basingstoke, United Kingdom: Palgrave.

Discua Cruz, A., Howorth, C., & Hamilton, E. (2013). Intra-family entrepreneurship: The formation and membership of family entrepreneurial teams. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(1), 17–46.

Drori, I., Honig, B., & Wright, M. (2009). Transnational entrepreneurship: An emergent field of study. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(5), 1001–1022.

Elo, M. (2016). Typology of diaspora entrepreneurship: Case studies in Uzbekistan. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 14(1), 121–155.

Elo, M., & Freiling, J. (2015). Transnational entrepreneurship: An introduction to the volume. American Journal of Entrepreneurship, 8(2).

Elo, M., & Riddle, L. (Eds) (2016). Diaspora Business. Oxford: Interdisciplinary Press.

Elo, M., & Volovelsky, E.K. (2017). Jewish diaspora entrepreneurs-the impact of religion on opportunity exploration and exploitation. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 31(2), 244–269.

Filatotchev, I., Liu, X., Buck, T., & Wright, M. (2009). The export orientation and export performance of hightechnology SMEs in emerging markets: The effects of knowledge transfer by returnee entrepreneurs. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(6), 1005–1021.

Gold, S.J., & Light, I. (2000). Ethnic economies and social policy. In Research in social movements, conflicts and change (pp. 165–191). Bingley, United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Harvey, M., Novicevic, M.M., & Garrison, G. (2005). Global virtual teams: A human resource capital architecture. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(9), 1583–1599.

Hoskisson, R., Wright, M., Filatotchev, I., & Peng, M. (2013). Emerging multinationals from mid-range economies: The influence of institutions and factor markets. Journal of Management Studies, 50(7), 1295–1321.

Jack, S. (2005). The role, use and activation of strong and weak network ties: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 42(6), 1234–1259.

Janjuha-Jivraj, S. (2003). The sustainability of social capital within ethnic networks. Journal of Business Ethics, 47(1), 31–43.

Kiss, A.N., Danis, W.M., & Cavusgil, S.T. (2012). International entrepreneurship research in emerging economies: A critical review and research agenda. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(2), 266–290.

Kotabe, M., Riddle, L., Sonderegger, P., & Täube, F. (2013). Diaspora investment and entrepreneurship: The role of people, their movements, and capital in the international economy. Journal of International Management, 19(1), 3–5.

Lewin, A., & Zhong, X. (2013). The evolving diaspora of talent: A perspective on trends and implications for sourcing science and engineering work. Journal of International Management, 19(1), 6–13.

Light, I., Rezaei, S., & Dana, L. (2013). Ethnic minority entrepreneurs in the international carpet trade: An empirical study. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 18(2), 125.

Lorenzen, M., & Mudambi, R. (2013). Clusters, connectivity and catch-up: Bollywood and Bangalore in the global economy. Journal of Economic Geography, 13(3), 501–534.

Massingham, P. (2010). Managing knowledge transfer between parent country nationals (Australia) and host country nationals (Asia). The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(9), 1414–1435.

McEwan, C., Pollard, J., & Henry, N. (2005). The ‘global’ in the city economy: Multicultural economic development in Birmingham. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29(4), 916–933.

Nanda, R., & Khanna, T. (2007). Diasporas and domestic entrepreneurs: Evidence from the Indian software industry. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 19(4), 991–1012.

Nwankwo, S., Akunuri, J., & Madichie, N. (2010). Supporting black businesses: Narratives of support providers in London. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 16(6), 561–580.

Oviatt, B.M., & McDougall, P. (1994). Toward a theory of international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(1), 45–64.

Oviatt, B.M., & McDougall, P.P. (2005). Defining international entrepreneurship and modeling economic development in Birmingham. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29(4), 916–933.

Parthasarathy, B., & Aoyama, Y. (2006). From software services to R&D services: Local entrepreneurship in the software industry in Bangalore, India. Environment and Planning, 38(7), 1269–1285.

Portes, A. (1995). Economic sociology and the sociology of immigration: A conceptual overview. In A. Portes (Ed.), The Economic Sociology of Immigration (pp. 1–41). New York, NY: Russel Sage Foundation.

Portes, A., Haller, W.J., & Guarnizo, L.E. (2002). Transnational entrepreneurs: An alternative form of immigrant economic adaptation. American Sociological Review, 67, 278–298.

Portes, A., & Zhou, M. (1992). Gaining the upper hand: Economic mobility among immigrant and domestic minorities. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 15(4), 491–522.

Pruthi, S. (2014). Social ties and venture creation by returnee entrepreneurs. International Business Review, 23(6), 1139–1152.

Pruthi, S., & Wright, M. (2017a). Social ties, prior experience and venture creation by transnational entrepreneurs. International Journal of Entrepreneurship & Small Business. Retrieved 10 May 2017 from http://www.inderscience.com/info/ingeneral/forthcoming.php?jcode=IJESB

———. (2017b). Social ties, social capital and recruiting managers in transnational ventures. Journal of East-West Business. Retrieved 10 May 2017 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10669868.2016.1270247

Ram, M., & Jones, T. (2008). Ethnic minority businesses in the UK: A review of research and policy developments. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26(2), 352–374.

Riddle, L., Hrivnak, G.A., & Nielsen, T.M. (2010). Transnational diaspora entrepreneurship in emerging markets: Bridging institutional divides. Journal of International Management, 16(4), 398–411.

Saxenian, A. (2002). Transnational communities and the evolution of global production networks: The cases of Taiwan, China and India. Industry and Innovation, 9(3), 183–202.

Saxenian, A., & Hsu, J.Y. (2001). The Silicon Valley–Hsinchu connection: Technical communities and industrial upgrading. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(4), 893–920.

Saxenian, A.L. (1999). Silicon Valley’s new immigrant entrepreneurs. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.

———. (2005). From brain drain to brain circulation: Transnational communities and regional upgrading in India and China. Studies in Comparative International Development, 40(2), 35–61.

Sirmon, D.G., & Hitt, M.A. (2003). Managing resources: Linking unique resources, management, and wealth creation in family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(4), 339–358.

Terjesen, S., & Elam, A. (2009). Transnational entrepreneurs’ venture internationalization strategies: A practice theory approach. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(5), 1093–1120.

Tung, R.L. (2008). Brain circulation, diaspora, and international competitiveness. European Management Journal, 26(5), 298–304.

Wadhwa, V., Jain, S., Saxenian, A.L., Gerefti, G., & Wang, H. (2011). The grass is indeed greener in India and China for returnee entrepreneurs: America’s new immigrant entrepreneurs, Part VI. Kauffman: The Foundation for Entrepreneurship.

Wagner, D., Head, K., & Ries, J. (2002). Immigration and the trade of provinces. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 49(5), 507–525.

Wright, M., Pruthi, S., & Lockett, A. (2005). International venture capital research: From cross-country comparisons to crossing borders. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(3), 135–165.

Yang, X., Ho, E., & Chang, A. (2012). Integrating the resource-based view and transaction cost economics in immigrant business performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29(3), 753–772.

Yeung, H. (2002). Entrepreneurship in international business: An institutional perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19(1), 29–61.

Yeung, H. (2009). Transnationalizing entrepreneurship: A critical agenda for economic geography. Progress in Human Geography, 33(2), 210–235.

CALL FOR PAPERS Cross Cultural & Strategic Management SPECIAL ISSUE ON: MICRO-FOUNDATIONS OF SMALL BUSINESS INTERNATIONALIZATION

CALL FOR PAPERS
Cross Cultural & Strategic Management
SPECIAL ISSUE ON: MICRO-FOUNDATIONS OF SMALL BUSINESS INTERNATIONALIZATION

CCSM_Micro-Foundations_SmallBusinesses_Internationalization_1215
Guest Editors
Arjen van Witteloostuijn
Free University Amsterdam, the Netherlands
University of Antwerp and Antwerp Management School, Belgium
Johanna Vanderstraeten
University of Antwerp, Belgium
Ellen Loots
Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands
Anaïs Hamelin
EM Strasbourg Business School, Université de Strasbourg, France

Long before the upsurge of entrepreneurship research, Edith Penrose pointed to the difficulty of including ‘entrepreneurship’ into a general economic theory of firm growth, because of its close association with the personality and temperament of the individuals involved (Penrose, 1959). In this call for papers, we put central those individuals who, so we argue, are of interest to better understand small businesses’ growth and, in particular, small businesses’ international growth. Recent evidence suggests that small businesses show differences in growth patterns while appearing similar in terms of organizational and environmental characteristics, such as size, sector, governance, and access to finance (Hamelin, 2013; Hurst and Pugsley, 2011). Such findings are at the center of a longstanding discussion in the entrepreneurship literature (Carland et al., 1984) about whether and how an entrepreneur’s individual characteristics influence firm outcomes (including growth) and societal value creation.
The individual characteristics examined in studies about growth-oriented entrepreneurs include aspects such as gender, educational background and personality traits (Baum et al., 2014; Brandstätter, 2011; Zhao et al., 2010; Lee and Tsang, 2001; Baron, 2000). For example, it has been demonstrated that aspects such as gender (Verheul and Van Mil, 2011), social background, education and experience (Cassar, 2006; Guzmán and Santos, 2001) have a direct impact on an entrepreneur’s growth ambitions. Interestingly, a number of empirical studies dive deeper into psychological and behavioral aspects, such as an entrepreneur’s attitudes, motives and ambitions, and show, among other things, that growth attitudes and intentions are important predictors of subsequent firm growth (Davidsson et al., 2006; Stam and Wennberg, 2009). This is exactly what we want to explore further within the scope of this special issue.
More specifically, we aim to move beyond the usual suspects such as gender, education, and experience, and want to bring together studies that open up the personal lens. In this way, we aim to further develop the state-of-the-art on the psychological and behavioral drivers (e.g., motives, attitudes, ambitions and aspirations) of small businesses’ international growth. Indeed, whereas the literature has established that growth aspirations influence expected firm growth (Cassar, 2006; Wiklund and Shepherd, 2003), the specificities and determinants of entrepreneurs’ underlying psychological and behavioral aspects impacting small businesses’ international growth are far less known. For example, it has been argued that growth-oriented entrepreneurs have higher intrinsic motivations, residing within specific needs such as that for personal development (Guzmán and Santos, 2001); whether (or not?) there is a distinction  between the intrinsic motivations of entrepreneurs oriented towards the domestic market only, and those seeking for international expansion, is still to be discovered.
Overall, this special issue aims at addressing the paucity of studies on individuals’ psychological and behavioral aspects in the field of internationally growing small businesses. As such, more generally, we want to respond to the need for a deeper understanding of micro-foundations to explain small business international competitiveness and performance (Abell et al., 2008; Coff and Kryscynski, 2011). We thus explicitly put the entrepreneur (and her/his team) in the central position and try to answer the question: What makes that some entrepreneurs (want to) explore and exploit international markets while others do not, apart from the perceived business opportunities abroad?
In order to address this caveat, we encourage more systematic research that focuses on the micro-foundations of internationally growing small businesses, preferably by comparing different cultural and institutional settings. Comparative studies do not only allow us to dive deeper into the individual differences of internationally growing entrepreneurs, but also to better understand whether and how cultural and institutional contexts impact such differences (e.g., Leung and Bond, 1989; Migliore, 2011). The comparative approach thus contributes to the clarification of how and to what extent entrepreneurs’ growth aspirations, ambitions and motives interact with their willingness and openness to expand in and adjust to different regional or national contexts (e.g., Busenitz and Lau, 1996; Liñán and Chen, 2009).
Cross Cultural & Strategic Management (CCSM) is interdisciplinary in nature and welcomes submissions from scholars from different disciplines, including international business, strategic management, economics, psychology and sociology. We invite submissions for a special issue of CCSM entitled ‘Understanding the micro-foundations of small businesses’ international growth’. The purpose of this special issue is to publish work that will significantly enhance our theoretical and empirical understanding of the specificities and determinants of the entrepreneur’s underlying psychological and behavioral aspects impacting small businesses’ international growth. Within the scope of this special issue, potential themes for submissions could include, but are not limited to, the following:

  • Contributions adding to the development of comprehensive and complex models to understand the underlying psychological and behavioral aspects of international growth of small businesses. As the international growth of small businesses could be expected to be determined by a complex web of bundles of factors at the levels of the entrepreneur, firm and environment, conceptual models that include these different levels of analysis, as well as studies with a truly interdisciplinary perspective, are also welcomed.
  • Contributions applying novel conceptual and empirical approaches, collecting and analyzing unique and original data. We highly welcome papers that rely on the latest developments within other disciplines, such as psychology, sociology and behavioral economics. For instance, recent insights from personality psychology, the constructs of explicit and implicit motives (e.g., Hermans et al., 2017), growth ambitions and aspirations (e.g., Cassar, 2006; Wiklund and Shepherd, 2003) could be piloted within the study of internationally growing small businesses.
  • Studies of internationally growing small businesses across different cultural and institutional contexts, addressing questions such as whether or not the international growth of small businesses is associated with different antecedents and consequences in developing and emerging countries, vis-à-vis the developed world.
    In line with the goal of CCSM to publish discerning, theoretically grounded, evidence-based and cutting-edge research on issues relevant to all aspects of global management, we invite diverse types of papers (empirical, conceptual, methodological and literature reviews), under the condition that submissions be cross-country or comparative in nature. Submissions should be between 8,000-14,000 words, including references, figures, and tables, and follow the manuscript requirement outlined on the journal’s website. All manuscripts will undergo a double-blind review process. The expected year of publication of this special issue is 2019 or 2020..

Additional information
This special issue is related to the following activities:

  • European Academy of Management (EURAM), which will be held in Reykjavik (Iceland), June 20-23, 2018; sub-track 3: ‘Ambitious Entrepreneurship’, of the track ‘ST03_04 Entrepreneurial decision making and behavior’ (Entrepreneurship SIG).
  • Belgian Entrepreneurship Research Day (BERD), which will be held in Antwerp (Belgium) on May 4, 2018.
  • The second edition of the Workshop on Entrepreneurship: Behavioral and Cognitive Approaches (EBCA), which will be held in Bath (UK) at the School of Management, University of Bath in autumn 2018.

Guest editors will be available at the aforementioned meetings. Authors are encouraged, but not required, to submit their manuscripts to any of them to get feedback prior to final submission.
Timeline and submissions
Submissions are due by January 15, 2019. Contributors should follow the directions for manuscript preparation and submission available at Cross Cultural & Strategic Management. All articles will be subject to the standard CCSM double-blind review process. For questions regarding this special issue, please contact any of the guest editors: Arjen van Witteloostuijn (a.van.witteloostuijn@vu.nl), Johanna Vanderstraeten (johanna.vanderstraeten@uantwerpen.be), Ellen Loots (loots@eshcc.eur.nl), and Anaïs Hamelin (anais.hamelin@unistra.fr).
References
Abell, P., Felin, T., & Foss, N., 2008, Building micro‐foundations for the routines, capabilities, and performance links. Managerial and Decision Economics, 29: 489-502.
Baron, R. A., 2000, Psychological perspectives on entrepreneurship: Cognitive and social factors in entrepreneurs’ success. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9: 15-18.
Baum, J. R., Frese, M., & Baron, R. A. (Eds.), 2014, The Psychology of Entrepreneurship. East Sussex, New York: Psychology Press.
Brandstätter, H., 2011, Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: A look at five meta-analyses. Personality and Individual Differences, 51: 222-230.
Busenitz, L. W., Lau, C. M., 1996, A cross-cultural cognitive model of new venture creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 20: 25-40.
Carland, J. W., Hoy, F., Boulton, W. R., & Carland, J. A. C., 1984, Differentiating entrepreneurs from small business owners: A conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 9: 354-359.
Cassar, G., 2006, Entrepreneur opportunity costs and intended venture growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 21: 610-632.
Coff, R., & Kryscynski, D., 2011, Invited editorial: Drilling for micro-foundations of human capital-based competitive advantages. Journal of Management, 37: 1429-1443.
Davidsson, P., Delmar, F., Wiklund, J., 2006, Entrepreneurship and the Growth of Firms. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.Guzmán, J., Santos, F.J., 2001, The booster function and the entrepreneurial quality: An application to the province of Seville. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 13: 211-228.
Hamelin, A., 2013, Influence of family ownership on small business growth. Evidence from French SMEs. Small Business Economics, 41(3), 563-579.
Hermans, J., Slabbinck, H., Vanderstraeten, J., Brassey, J., Dejardin, M., Ramdani, D., van Witteloostuijn, A., 2017, The power paradox: Implicit and explicit power motives, and the importance attached to prosocial organizational goals in SMEs. Sustainability, 9, 2001, doi:10.3390/su9112001.
Hurst, E., & Pugsley, B. W., 2011, What do small businesses do? Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 43(2), (No. w17041), 73-142.
Lee, D. Y., Tsang, E. W., 2001, The effects of entrepreneurial personality, background and network activities on venture growth. Journal of Management Studies, 38: 583-602.
Leung, K., Bond, M. H., 1989, On the empirical identification of dimensions for cross-cultural comparisons. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20: 133-151.
Liñán, F., Chen, Y. W., 2009, Development and Cross‐Cultural application of a specific instrument to measure entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33: 593-617.
Migliore, L. A., 2011, Relation between big five personality traits and Hofstede’s cultural dimensions: Samples from the USA and India. Cross Cultural Management and Strategy, 18: 38-54.
Penrose, E. T., 1959, The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: Sharpe.
Stam, E., Wennberg, K., 2009, The roles of R&D in new firm growth. Small Business Economics, 33: 77-89.
Verheul, I., Van Mil, L., 2011, What determines the growth ambition of Dutch early-stage entrepreneurs? International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, 3: 183-207.
Wiklund, J., Shepherd, D., 2003, Aspiring for, and achieving growth: The moderating role of resources and opportunities. Journal of Management Studies, 40: 1919-1941.
Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E., & Lumpkin, G. T., 2010, The relationship of personality to entrepreneurial intentions and performance: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management, 36: 381-404.

 

Call for chapters – Handbook of Research on Business Transformations in the Era of Digitalization

Call for Chapters: Handbook of Research on Business Transformations in the Era of Digitalization

 Editors

  • Dr. Karim Mezghani: Al Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU), Saudi Arabia & University of Sfax, Tunisia.
  • Dr. Wassim Aloulou: Al Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU), Saudi Arabia & University of Sfax, Tunisia.

 Call for Chapters

Proposals Submission Deadline: December 30, 2017
Full Chapters Due: April 30, 2018
Submission Date: August 30, 2018

CfP – European management Review “Disadvantage and entrepreneurship : from shadow to the light »

Disadvantage and Entrepreneurship: from Shadow to the Light

Special Issue

European Management Review

CFP EMR Disadvantage and entrepreneurship 

Guest Editors:

Adnane Maâlaoui, Associate Professor of Entrepreneurship, PSB Paris School of Business,

France

Vanessa Ratten, Associate Professor of Entrepreneurship, La Trobe University, Australia

Alan Carsrud, Visiting Research Professor of Entrepreneurship, ÅboAkademi University, Finland & PSB Paris School of Business, France

Malin Brännback, Chair of International Business, Åbo Akademi University, Finland

Sibylle Heilbrunn, Professor of Entrepreneurship, Kinneret Academic College, Israel

Thomas M. Cooney, Professor of Entrepreneurship, Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland

Description

Despite the increased interest in recent years regarding social and gender-based entrepreneurship studies, there remains a significant lack of research relating to the topic of entrepreneurship amongst disadvantaged communities. In 2012, The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation featured a Special Issue on ‘Silent Minorities’ (Vol 13,2) but otherwise entrepreneurship literature has remained relatively quiet on this topic. This special issue will discuss disadvantaged entrepreneurship by exploring what is meant by the term and then taking a broad approach towards its understanding as a research field worthy of more attention. The special issue will additionally consider if entrepreneurship supports the social and economic integration of disadvantaged people through their creation of new enterprises. Although the focus is on the positive benefits of entrepreneurship for disadvantaged people, we also acknowledge the undesirable realization that it can often be a necessity for those facing societal marginalisation.

For many years, researchers did not believe that any disadvantage might occur because of one’s profile and that all entrepreneurs should be treated as a homogenous group. However, some initial works regarding people suffering from discrimination put forward gender as one of the principal ways that some entrepreneurs were disadvantaged. As proposed by Fischer (1993:151) “liberal feminist theory suggests that women are disadvantaged relative to men due to overt discrimination and/or to systemic factors that deprive them of vital resources like business education and experience”. Previous research had suggested that gender was not a difference in terms of cognitive and intellectual capacities but mainly in terms of access to resources. Therefore, women were considered as one of the most disadvantaged people, not only in terms of employment, but also in terms of socialization and value creation (Marlow and Patton, 2005). Much research has now taken place regarding the additional and distinctive challenges faced by women when starting a business, while more recently significant amounts of research have highlighted the trials faced by immigrant and ethnic entrepreneurs. Collectively the studies on these communities have substantiated the argument that entrepreneurs are not a homogeneous group and that each community is deserving of detailed attention regarding the unique attributes that might influence their ability to start and grow a business.

The term disadvantaged entrepreneurship has also been referred to as inclusive entrepreneurship (OECD Report, 2016) or necessity entrepreneurship (Hart & Acs, 2011), but in this special issue we are also examining the physical, mental, and health conditions of an entrepreneur and how they may help or hinder their entrepreneurial capabilities. Hence, disadvantaged entrepreneurs incorporate a range of individuals that vary depending on their socio-demographic characteristics such as young people and students (Krueger, Reilly and Carsrud, 2000), women (Marlow, 2014), seniors (Kautonen, 2008 ;Kautonen et al. 2011; Maâlaoui, et al. 2013, Curran and Blackburn, 2013), unemployed, immigrants (Aliaga-Isla and Rialp, 2013), ethnic minorities ( Aldrich and Waldinger, 1990 ; Carter et Al, 2015; Dana, 2007; Zhou, 2004), immigrants ( Nonna et al., 2017), ex-prisoners (Cooney, 2012) and disabled people including those with developmental challenges (Dimic and Orlov, 2014; Logan, 2009; Pagán, 2009). Other types of disadvantaged people are also emerging due to continuous political and economic changes (e.g. refugee entrepreneurs) who are newly classified as disadvantaged (Bernatd, 1976; De Clercq and Honig, 2011). These disadvantaged people due to their different characteristics such as having a disability or illhealth should be examined distinctively to understand their entrepreneurial intentions.

As suggested by Miller & Miller (2017: 7), some critical drivers of entrepreneurship come in the form of serious life challenges rather than personal advantages and strengths, or favorable contexts”. This special issue aims to better understand the inclusive entrepreneurship literature through the theory of disadvantage by considering different areas of research, such as psychology, sociology and small business. Topics of interests include, but are not limited to:

  • Disadvantage and cultural theory versus disadvantaged entrepreneurs
  • Entrepreneurial alertness and disadvantaged entrepreneurs
  • Disadvantage Entrepreneurship and Circular Economy
  • Entrepreneurial motivation and cognitive aspects of disadvantaged entrepreneurs
  • Entrepreneurial ecosystem of disadvantage entrepreneurs
  • Geography, culture, building network and social capital of disadvantaged
  • entrepreneurs
  • Social integration of disadvantaged entrepreneurs
  • Entrepreneurial rebound of disadvantaged entrepreneurs
  • Financing small business creation by disadvantaged entrepreneurs
  • Innovation, performance and disadvantaged entrepreneurs

The special issue is seeking papers that will offer new insights and knowledge relating to entrepreneurship in disadvantaged communities and will enhance the broader understanding that entrepreneurship is not a ‘one size fits all’ activity. Moreover, researches related to the socio-Economic Approaches and sustainability/environmental considerations are welcome.

Submission and Timetable for the special issue:

  • 5th June 2018: Submission deadline
  • 5th October 2018: Round 1 review
  • 5th December 2018: Revisions/resubmissions
  • 5th February 2019: Round 2 review
  • 25th March 2019: Revisions/resubmissions
  • 5th Mai 2019: Final editorial and delivery to EMR
  • Journal Volume SI published September-December 2019

 

Email submission: a.maalaoui @ psbedu.paris; malin.brannback @ abo.fi and v.ratten @ latrobe.edu.au

All submissions should conform to EMR style guidelines detailed: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1740-4762/homepage/ForAuthors.html

 

References:

 Aldrich, H. E., & Waldinger, R. (1990). Ethnicity and Entrepreneurship. Annual Review of Sociology, 16(1), 111-135.

Aliaga-Isla, R., & Rialp, A. (2013). Systematic review of immigrant entrepreneurship literature: previous findings and ways forward. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 25(9-10), 819-844.

Bjerregaard, T., & Lauring, J. (2012). Entrepreneurship as institutional change: Strategies of bridging institutional contradictions. European Management Review, 9(1), 31-43.

Carter, S., Mwaura, S., Ram, M., Trehan, K., & Jones, T. (2015). Barriers to ethnic minority and women’s enterprise: Existing evidence, policy tensions and unsettled questions. International Small Business Journal, 33(1), 49-69.

Cooney, T.M. (2012) – Reducing Recidivism Through Entrepreneurship Programmes Inside Prison – International Journal for Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Vol 13, No 2, 2012, pp 99–107

Dana, L. P. (Ed.). (2007). Handbook of Research on Ethnic Minority Entrepreneurship: A Co-Evolutionary View on Resource Management. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Evans, D. S., & Leighton, L. S. (1989). Some empirical aspects of entrepreneurship. The American Economic Review, 79(3), 519-535.

Fischer, E. M., Reuber, A. R., & Dyke, L. S. (1993). A theoretical overview and extension of research on sex, gender, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(2), 151-168.

Kautonen, T., Tornikoski, E. T., & Kibler, E. (2011). Entrepreneurial intentions in the third age: the impact of perceived age norms. Small Business Economics, 37(2), 219-234.

Krueger, N. F., Reilly, M. D., & Carsrud, A. L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5), 411-432.

Loarne-Lemaire, S. L., Maalaoui, A., & Dana, L. P. (2017). Social entrepreneurship, age and gender: toward a model of social involvement in entrepreneurship. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 31(3), 363-381.

Levesque, M., & Minniti, M. (2006). The effect of aging on entrepreneurial behavior. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(2), 177-194.

Light, I. (1979). Disadvantaged minorities in self-employment. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 20, 31.

Maâlaoui, A., Castellano, S., Safraou, I., & Bourguiba, M. (2013). An exploratory study of seniorpreneurs: a new model of entrepreneurial intentions in the French context. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 20(2), 148-164.

Marlow, S., & Patton, D. (2005). All credit to men? Entrepreneurship, finance, and gender. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(6), 717-735.

Miller, J. (2008). The ongoing legitimacy project: corporate philanthropy as protective strategy. European Management Review, 5(3), 151-164.

Miller, D., & Breton‐Miller, L. (2017). Underdog Entrepreneurs: A Model of Challenge‐Based Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,41(1), 7-17.

Kushnirovich, Nonna, Sibylle Heilbrunn, and Liema Davidovich. “Diversity of Entrepreneurial Perceptions: Immigrants vs. Native Population.” European Management Review (2017).

Stevenson, L. A. (1986). Against all odds: The entrepreneurship of women. Journal of Small Business Management, 24, 30.

Volery, T. (2007). Ethnic entrepreneurship: a theoretical framework. Handbook of Research on Ethnic Minority Entrepreneurship, 1, 30-41.

Zhou, M. (2004). Revisiting ethnic entrepreneurship: convergencies, controversies, and conceptual advancements. International Migration Review, 38(3), 1040-1074.

 

Guest editor’s information

Dr. Adnan Maalaoui is the Head of the chair Entrepreneurship and diversity at Paris School of Business. His researches mainly focus on entrepreneurship issues and especially on disadvantaged entrepreneurs (elderly, refugees, disabled entrepreneurs, etc.). He is interested in topics such as: entrepreneurial intention and cognitive approach to entrepreneurship. He mainly applies those questions to cases of diversity and social entrepreneurship. Adnan Maalaoui is the author of 20+ articles published in academic journals. Likewise, he is the author of articles published in professional journals, and in edited books. Adnane is also the author of a series of French speaking MOOCs on entrepreneurship.

 

Vanessa Ratten is Associate Professor of Entrepreneurship and Innovation at La Trobe Business School Melbourne Australia. She received her PhD from the UQ Business School, The University of Queensland, Australia. Her research publications include six edited books by Routledge, Springer and Edward Elgar; and publications in journals including Entrepreneurship & Regional Development; Journal of Business Research, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business amongst others. Her main research interests include social entrepreneurship, gender entrepreneurship and international entrepreneurship.

Alan Carsrud is Visiting Research Professor at Åbo Akademi University and PSB Paris School of Business. He previously was the Loretta Rogers Chair of Entrepreneurship at Ryerson University in Toronto. He is widely published in entrepreneurship, family business, social and clinical psychology. He has nine books and over 225 research papers.

Malin Brännback is Dean and Chair of International Business at Åbo Akademi University where she received her doctoral degree in management science in 1996. She also holds a B.Sc. in pharmacy. Prior to her return to Åbo Aka- demi University in 2003, she served as Associate Professor in Information Systems at University of Turku, and Professor of Marketing at Turku School of Economics where she was head of the Innomarket research unit. She is Docent at the Turku School of Economics where she taught prior to returning to Åbo Akademi and she is Docent at Hanken. She has held a variety of teaching and research positions in such fields as Entrepreneurship, Market Research, Information Systems, International Marketing, Strategic Management and Pharmacy. She has published widely on en- trepreneurship, biotechnology business, and knowledge management. Her current research interests are in entrepreneurial intentionality, entrepreneurial cognition and entrepreneurial growth and performance in technology entrepreneurship.

Sibylle Heilbrunn, Ph.D., is Professor for Organizational Sociology and holds currently the position of Dean of School of Social Sciences and Humanities at Kinneret Academic College in Israel. Formerly she was Head of MA Studies in Immigration and Social Integration at the Ruppin Academic Center. Her research focuses on entrepreneurship of minority and migrant groups, cultural diversity issues and on forms of organizational behavior including perspectives of diversity and multi-culturalism.

Thomas M. Cooney is Professor in Entrepreneurship at the Dublin Institute of Technology, Academic Director of the DIT Institute for Minority Entrepreneurship and Adjunct Professor at the University of Turku (Finland). He is a former President of the International Council for Small Business (2012-13) and of the European Council for Small Business (2009-11), and was Chair of the ICSB 2014 World Entrepreneurship Conference. He was a Member of the Department of Enterprise, Jobs and Innovation ‘Entrepreneurship Forum’ (2013-14) and has been a policy advisor to the Irish Government, European Commission, OECD and other international organisations. He was a founding Director of Startup Ireland and works in various capacities with a range of businesses. He has researched and published widely on the topic of entrepreneurship and further details of his work can be found at www.thomascoon ey.com.

OPPE et AFE – Appel à Etudes de Cas

15 partenaires reconnus dans leurs domaines d’intervention – Onisep, AFE (Agence France Entrepreneur), l’Etudiant, Association Nationale des Groupements de Créateurs, Crea IUT, Demain TV, Moovjee, Paris & Co, NRJ, Union des Couveuses, Pépite France/FNEGE, AVISE, Crédit Mutuel, CIC, Banque Populaire – se sont associés pour créer le 1er site web dédié à l’entrepreneuriat pour les 15 à 25 ans : Kangae.
Cette plateforme gratuite, qui sera lancée le 17 novembre prochain à l’occasion du Salon européen de l’Education, mettra à leur disposition l’ensemble des ressources nécessaires pour les sensibiliser à l’esprit d’entreprendre et les accompagner dans leurs démarches entrepreneuriales, associatives ou de micro-projets éducatifs.

Le site proposera un espace dédié aux professionnels de l’enseignement, de la sensibilisation et de l’information des jeunes à l’entrepreneuriat (enseignants, formateurs, associations, réseaux d’accompagnement…). L’ensemble des ressources recensées par l’OPPE et présentes sur le site de l’AFE (espace enseignant) sera exportées sur le site Kangae.

L’objectif de l’OPPE est de mettre à la disposition des enseignants du site Kangae, des supports pédagogiques simples, clairs et téléchargeables gratuitement, pour les aider dans leurs actions de sensibilisation et de formation à l’esprit d’entreprendre et à la création d’entreprise.

Les cas et mini cas pédagogiques font partis de ce projet, et le présent cahier des charges vise à aider les auteurs à améliorer la qualité des cas, tant dans leur contenu que dans leur présentation formelle. Les cas et mini cas pédagogiques concernées par ce projet sont ceux qui traitent d’entrepreneuriat, d’intrapreneuriat, de création et de reprise d’entreprise.

Pour cette première session du projet, les cas et mini cas que nous retiendrons en priorité sont ceux qui sont déjà construits et testés auprès des élèves.

Le respect de ce cahier des charges est un gage de qualité et de professionnalisme, qui devrait améliorer la visibilité des cas sur le site Kangae.

 

Les recommandations pour un cas de qualité

1- Qu’est-ce qu’un cas ?

Un cas est la simulation d’une situation d’entreprise ou de future entreprise. Un “bon” cas sera tiré d’une situation réelle, vécue dans une entreprise ou une organisation. En revanche, un scénario inventé de toutes pièces risque de présenter un côté artificiel, qui le rapprochera davantage d’un exercice que d’une véritable étude de cas.
Par ailleurs, un cas doit être propice à la réflexion et à la discussion. La structure d’un cas est ouverte, par opposition à un exercice, système fermé comportant une solution pour chaque question.
L’étude d’un cas suppose :

  • Une analyse des faits/de la situation,
  • Une interprétation et évaluation des données,
  • Une prise de décision.

Dans une étude de cas, il n’y a pas forcément UNE bonne décision : le plus souvent se dégage une pluralité d’options, élaborées par les étudiants et argumentées par un travail d’analyse. Dans la note pédagogique, on ne fournit pas le corrigé mais des propositions que l’on peut discuter. La solution choisie dans la réalité est elle-même discutable.

2- Qu’est-ce qu’un mini cas ?

Tout comme les cas, les mini cas présentent une simulation d’une situation d’entreprise. Les deux produits diffèrent à deux niveaux :

  • La taille du mini cas est moins importante que le cas. Son contenu ne doit pas dépasser une à deux pages.
  • La note pédagogique d’un mini cas contient simplement quelques indications sur l’utilisation du cas et les scénarios possibles.

3- Pourquoi la méthode des cas ?

La méthode des cas est largement utilisée par les enseignants dans l’enseignement supérieur.
Etudier un cas, c’est :

  • familiariser les étudiants avec le monde de l’entrepreneuriat, montrer la complexité et la diversité des problèmes dans le montage de projet,
  • introduire du réalisme dans l’enseignement de l’entrepreneuriat : les solutions sont des solutions imparfaites prises par des individus dotés d’une certaine expérience,
  • s’entraîner à la prise de décision, c’est-à-dire “descendre de sa tour d’ivoire” et s’impliquer dans un travail d’équipe.

4- Thématiques des cas et mini cas

  • Start-up (ex. levée de fonds, son premier développement, etc.)
  • ESS
  • Création d’une association
  • Crowdfunding
  • Recherche d’une idée
  • Reprise d’entreprise

Toutes les informations dans le document suivant : Cahier des charges étude de cas Oppe 2017

Communiqué Presse création de KANGAE – CP Kangae_VF_V_AFE

Call for Papers Strategic Change: Briefings in Entrepreneurial finance – Special Issue – Challenging the legitimacy assumption in entrepreneurship

Guest Editors:

Olivier Germain, School of Management, Université du Québec à Montréal, Canada.

Frank Janssen, Louvain School of Management, Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium.

Amira Laifi, Normandy Business School, France.

SUBMISSION:

Papers have to be submitted by April 30th 2018. Submissions should be sent to legitimacySC@gmail.com

Original papers must be submitted using the Journal two-stage submission process; early submissions are encouraged. Authors of papers invited to revise and resubmit will be expected to work within a tight timeframe to meet the special issue’s publication deadline.

Please make sure to indicate that your submission is made for the special issue on: Challenging the legitimacy assumption in entrepreneurship.

Please refer to Authors Guidelines to write your paper: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1697/homepage/ForAuthors.html

About the Journal Strategic Change: Briefings in Entrepreneurial finance is an international journal designed to support entrepreneurs, new businesses and those who provide services to them. The journal editorial policy is interdisciplinary, bridging economics, business strategy and finance to support better decision-making and business performance. BIEF targets valuable findings published in scholarly research journals to create accessible ‘briefing articles’ that practitioners find appealing. BIEF is unique in applying vigorous research analysis to inform

CfP – Special Issue Entrepeneurship as Practice – IJEBR

Entrepreneurship as Practice


Special issue call for papers from International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research

Guest Editors:
Bruce Teague, Eastern Washington University
Richard Tunstall, University of Leeds
Claire Champenois, Audencia Business School
William B. Gartner, Babson College and Linnaeus University

This special issue focuses on a core tenet of IJEBR to “advance the study of human and behavioural dimensions of entrepreneurship” by furthering an “entrepreneurship as practice perspective” (EAP) that should showcase fieldwork that explores specific entrepreneurial practices in specific settings.  As championed by Steyaert (2007), Johannisson (2011) and Watson (2013), the entrepreneurship-as-practice perspective is now gaining traction, witnessed by such contributions as De Clercq & Voronov (2009), Terjesen & Elam (2009); Goss et al. (2011), and Keating et al. (2013).
While classic “philosophers of practice” (e.g. Heidegger, 1929/1996; Wittgenstein, 1953, 1969, 1982, 1980) and “theorists of practice” (e.g. Bourdieu, 1990; Giddens, 1976) have emphasized the habitual, repetitive and taken-for-granted role of human practices, we posit that current research on practice focuses on the coordination of actions that reflect people’s understandings of “how to get things done” in complex settings (Nicolini, 2012; Orlikowski, 2002).  Expanding upon this search for commonalities across practice theory approaches, Schatzki argues that practice theories generally recognize elements of human activity that cannot be put into words, or neatly captured through methodologies that assume subject-object independence.   Instead, scholars attempt to capture an understand the tacit interplay that leads to emergence, reproduction, and transition of social practices (Schatzki, 2002; 2012).  Taking a practice approach makes it possible to conceive of the entrepreneurial process “as a culturally shaped achievement, the result of engaging with and transforming social practices of doing and living” (Steyaert, 2007).
From an “entrepreneurship as practice” perspective, the entrepreneur carries patterns of bodily behaviour, but also of certain routinized ways of understanding, knowing how and desiring, for and about, entrepreneurship. These conventionalized ‘mental’ activities of — understanding, knowing how and desiring — are necessary elements and qualities of entrepreneurship practices in which the entrepreneur participates, and which are not necessarily qualities of the entrepreneur.  Moreover, practice as a ‘nexus of doings and sayings’ (Schatzki, 2001) is not solely understandable to the agent or the agents who carry it out, it is likewise understandable to potential observers (at least within the same culture). Entrepreneurship practices are thus routinized ways in which entrepreneurs move bodies, handle objects, treat subjects, describe things and understands the world. Schatzki (2001) summarizes these elements within the umbrella term of ‘field of practices’, comprising of knowledge, meaning, human activity, science, power, language, social institutions, and historical transformation.
We see the use of practice theory and the general framework of “entrepreneurship as practice” as a means to advance entrepreneurship research in several ways. First, entrepreneurship as practice moves us away from a focus on ‘who’ an entrepreneur, placing emphasis instead on the importance of activity, performance, and work in the creation and perpetuation of entrepreneurial practices.  Second, practice theory helps us understand the critical role of the body and material objects in organizing entrepreneurship. Third, the practice perspective helps us perceive and better understand the reproduction of entrepreneurial practices across time, space, and individuals. Fourth, EAP highlights the importance of mundane, and often overlooked activities within the performance of action hierarchies and higher order teleological hierarchies.  Finally, we see EAP as a lens through which strong ethnographic research can be developed that facilitates understanding the relatedness of actions and practices across contexts and nets of practices.
We invite authors to clarify the question of how individual entrepreneurship practices relate to (the) ‘organizing context’ and that employ fieldwork and careful observation to capture those mechanisms by which collective support for entrepreneurship may be mobilized (Johannisson, 2011).   We specifically look for research that (1) identifies the every-day and socially situated nature of entrepreneurship, or that elaborates how practices relate to their broader contexts; (2) clearly recognize and describe the practice theory approach used to motivate the research, (3) recognize entrepreneurship practices, tools and methods used, and (4) relates and integrates these practices with the cognitions, behaviours, and/or skills of entrepreneurs.  We reiterate that articles accepted for this special issue will report on empirically based fieldwork rather than manuscripts that focus on or elaborate theoretical conjectures.
Submission Guidelines: We invite papers that focus on fieldwork that explores entrepreneurial practices.  Papers should be clear on the methodological approaches used for studying entrepreneurial practices and provide linkages between the practice ontologies grounding their theory with the methods used and evidence offered. We are not particularly interested in theory development papers or papers that offer speculative methodological innovations that are not applied to actual settings.  All submissions are subject to the standard double- blind review process. Manuscripts must be original, unpublished works not concurrently under review for publication at another outlet and are expected to follow the standard formatting guidelines for the journal.

Full paper submission must be made through the ScholarOne site at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijebr by October 1, 2018. Submissions should be prepared according to the IJEBR Author Guidelines found at http://emeraldgrouppublishing.com/products/journals/author_guidelines.htm?id=ijebr.
When submitting your manuscript, please ensure you select this special issue from the relevant drop-down menu on page four of the submission process. Reviews, drafts and outcomes will be conducted through early to mid-2019, with publication for those accepted papers expected to be in 2020. Initial queries can be directed towards any of the guest editors at the following email addresses:
Bruce Teague: bteague@ewu.edu
Richard Tunstall: r.tunstall@leeds.ac.uk
Claire Champenois: cchampenois@audencia.com
William B. Gartner: william.gartner@lnu.se or wgartner@babson.edu

Relevant References 
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice. Stanford University Press.
De Clercq, D. and Voronov, M. (2009). Toward a practice perspective of entrepreneurship entrepreneurial legitimacy as habitus. International Small Business Journal, 27(4), 395-419.
Feldman, M.S. and Orlikowski, W.J. (2011). Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organization Science, 22(5), 1240-1253.
Giddens, A. (1976). New Rules of Sociological Method. Hutchinson, London.
Goss, D., Jones, R., Latham, J., and Betta, M. (2011). Power as practice: A micro-sociological analysis of the dynamics of emancipatory entrepreneurship. Organization Studies, 32(2), 211–229.
Heidegger, M. (1929/1996). Being and Time. Albany: SUNY Press.
Johannisson, B. (2011). Towards a practice theory of entrepreneuring. Small Business Economics. 36(2), 135-150.
Keating, A., Geiger, S. and McLoughlin, D. (2014). Riding the practice waves: Social resourcing practices during new venture development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 38(5), 1207-1235.
Nicolini, D. (2012). Practice Theory, Work and Organization: An Introduction. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
Orlikowski, W.J. (2002). Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organization Science, 13(3), pp. 249-273.
Schatzki, T.R. 2001. “Practice Theory: An Introduction.” In: The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory, edited by Theodore R. Schatzki, Karin Knorr-Cetina, and Eike von Savigny, 1–14. London: Routledge.
Schatzki, T.R. (2002). The site of the social: A philosophical account of the constitution of social life and change, Penn State Press.
Schatzki, T.R. (2012). “A primer on practices.” Practice-based education: Perspectives and strategies: 13-26.
Schatzki, T.R., Knorr-Cetina, K. and von Savigny, E. (Eds.). (2001). The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. Psychology Press. London.
Steyaert, C. (2007). ‘Entrepreneuring’ as a conceptual attractor? A review of process theories in 20 years of entrepreneurship studies. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 19(6), 453-477.
Terjesen, S. and Elam, A. (2009). Transnational entrepreneurs’ venture internationalization strategies: A practice theory approach. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 33(5), 1093–1120.
Watson, T.J. (2013). “Entrepreneurship in Action: Bringing Together the Individual, Organizational and Institutional Dimensions of Entrepreneurial Action.” Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 25 (5–6): 1–19.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.
Wittgenstein, L. (1969). On certainty. Oxford: Blackwell.
Wittgenstein, L. (1981). Zettel (2nd. Ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Wittgenstein, L. (1980). Culture and value (Amended 2nd Ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.

Contenu provenant de la page suivante : http://emeraldgrouppublishing.com/products/journals/call_for_papers.htm?id=7510

Call for Papers : Marché et Organisations

Numéro spécial : L’entrepreneur scientifique, un entrepreneur comme les autres ?

Dirigé par Sophie Boutillier (Université du Littoral, CLERSE, UMR-CNRS 8019) et Laurice Alexandre (Université Paris-Descartes)

Nombre de travaux ont été publiés depuis les années 1980, depuis la loi Doyle-Bah, sur le chercheur entrepreneur, l’entrepreneur scientifique, voire l’entrepreneur académique (les définitions sont multiples et variées) initiative qui a été suivie dans de nombreux pays, comme par exemple en France, avec la loi Allègre en 1999. Par ailleurs, le concept de l’université entrepreneuriale, qui s’est imposé en 1988 avec les travaux de Burton Clark (Gjerding et al., 2006) a aussi très largement contribué à diffuser l’idée d’une nouvelle alliance (de plus en plus étroite) entre la science et l’industrie. Cependant si ces faits et ces théories qui sont supposés les expliquer, s’imposent à la fin du 20e siècle, les faits analysés par celles-ci ne sont pas nouveaux. Dès le 19e siècle, voire dès le 18e siècle, des scientifiques (ou des savants, selon le terme approprié en fonction de la période considérée) ont été amenés à déposer des brevets, voire à créer une entreprise, lesquelles sont parfois devenues des firmes dominantes.

Le développement de l’entreprise managériale au cours du 20e siècle a largement contribué à diffuser l’idée selon laquelle l’innovation ne pouvait être le fait que des grandes entreprises (Chandler, 1977 ; Schumpeter, 1979 ; Galbraith, 1968), et que ces initiatives décentralisées des siècles précédents devaient être appréhendées comme des épiphénomènes, voire comme une phase de balbutiement, annonçant des changements profonds à venir. C’est au demeurant dès la fin du 19e siècle, que de grandes entreprises créent leur centre de recherche- développement pour mettre au point de nouveaux prototypes. Il s’agit majoritairement d’entreprises relevant de secteurs très intensifs en capital (métallurgie, sidérurgie, chimie), qui sont aussi étroitement à la fabrication d’armement comme Schneider en France, qui après la défaite de 1870 se voit imposer par le nouveau gouvernement de fabriquer les « canons de la victoire ». En effet, dès la guerre de 1870, une collaboration étroite entre savants et militaires s’était développée dans le but de sélectionner et de mettre au point les inventions de renverser le cours du conflit (Galvez-Behar, 2005). Mais, ce fait n’est pas isolé, on le rencontre dans nombre de pays industrialisés.

Mais, l’émergence des nouvelles technologies de l’information et de la communication (NTIC) à la fin des années 1970 a largement remis en cause l’idée selon laquelle la grande entreprise était seule capable de générer des innovations majeures, d’autant plus que bien que si la création des gros systèmes informatiques depuis la seconde guerre mondiale avait été le fait des ingénieurs des grandes firmes et des militaires (voir l’ordinateur ENIAC ou l’invention d’Internet par l’armée américaine), l’invention du micro-ordinateur a été le fait d’entrepreneurs isolés passionnés (avec Gates et Jobs, on cite beaucoup moins fréquemment Ed Roberts, qui fut pourtant un entrepreneur scientifique en série), mais pas forcément chercheurs. Le développement du réseau Internet en revanche depuis la fin du 20e siècle, s’est accompagné par la création d’entreprises par des scientifiques dont l’exemple le plus connu est certainement Google. Larry Page et Serguei Brin ont détourné leur projet de thèse de doctorat pour créer Google ! ce qui ne fut pas en revanche le cas de Mark Zuckerberg qui créa Facebook avant la fin de ses études.

L’objectif de ce numéro spécial de Marché & Organisations est de retracer le parcours universitaire et entrepreneurial d’entrepreneurs scientifiques d’hier et d’aujourd’hui afin de faire ressortir les permanences et les différences en relation avec le contexte institutionnel, économique, social et politique propre à chacune des périodes étudiées, depuis la première révolution industrielle à nos jours.

Calendrier :

  • 14 juillet 2017 : envoi d’un résumé de 300 mots.
  • 10 août 2017 : réponse du comité de rédaction
  • 25 décembre 2017 : envoi du texte final (8000 mots maximum)
  • 5 janvier 2018 : réponse du comité de rédaction
  • 30 avril 2018 : envoi de la version finale corrigée
  • Septembre 2018 : publication du numéro

Contacts :

  • Sophie Boutillier Sophie.Boutillier @ univ-littoral.fr
  • Laurice Alexandre : Laurice.alexandre-leclair @ parisdescartes.fr

Marché & organisations sur Cairn : https://www.cairn.info/revue-marche-et-organisations.htm

Appel à communication

Special issue call for papers EBRSpecial issue call for papers IJEBR – Filling in the Blanks: ‘Black Boxes’ in Enterprise/Entrepreneurship Education

Filling in the Blanks: ‘Black Boxes’ in Enterprise/Entrepreneurship Education


Special issue call for papers from International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research

Aims & Scope
The number of programmes and courses offered in entrepreneurship has exploded in the past couple of decades (Kuratko, 2005; Katz, 2003; 2008; Nabi et al 2016). Corresponding to this growth in educational programmes, entrepreneurship education research has become a field in its own right (Fayolle et al., 2006, Pittaway and Cope, 2007a, Fayolle, 2007; Fayolle and Kyrö, 2008, Neck and Green, 2011). Indeed, existing studies have been particularly adept in examining different forms of pedagogy (Pittaway and Cope, 2007a) and the way that entrepreneurship education influences students’ propensity for, and intentions of entrepreneurship (Bae et al., 2014). However, entrepreneurship education research is still a young scholarly field that struggles for legitimacy (Fayolle, 2013), and there are needs for more robust intellectual foundations that can inform and advance the current knowledge base, both at theoretical and methodological levels (Pittaway and Cope, 2007a; Fayolle, Verzat & Wapshott, 2016). In this respect, a number of topics remain un(der)explored that we perceive as ‘black boxes’ in entrepreneurship education. They include but are not limited to the following:

First, research into how entrepreneurship education contributes to the development of active, employable, and entrepreneurial citizens remains scarce. Indeed, we know far too little about the variability of outcomes of student learning, both in the short and the long-term. Furthermore, while experiential forms of learning are often taken for granted in entrepreneurship education, there is a need for research on different learning approaches (including experiential and transformational) and how these approaches may help foster learning (Pittaway and Cope, 2007b). Research is also needed on how individuals are involved with different types of educational experiences and interventions, as well as explorations of differences in motivations for and immersion in entrepreneurship education and learning (Kassean et al, 2015). We would like to see research that takes into account differences among individuals as learners (Corbett, 2007; Politis and Gabrielsson, 2015). Contributions that investigate the ways that entrepreneurial competencies are developed, that is, offering insights into “how, when, why and what” entrepreneurial competencies are learned over time (and in particular circumstances – see the next “black box”) are particularly welcomed (Lackeus, 2015).

Second, the impact of context is a topic that is rarely addressed in the entrepreneurship education literature compared to what is found in entrepreneurship research, overall (Welter, 2011; Welter at al., 2016). For example, the role of institutions and regulations set up by governments and universities remains underexplored (Walter and Block, 2016). However, context clearly plays an important role in what is possible, achievable, and appropriate in entrepreneurship education (Urban and Kujinga, 2017; Refai and Klapper, 2016). We would like to see submissions that investigate and critically assess how context (broadly defined) limits or facilitates the kinds of opportunities and challenges that educators and students encounter.  Besides institutional and cultural aspects of context, we seek manuscripts that might explore such questions as: What role does space and place play in the unfolding of entrepreneurial learning?  How are tensions between freedom and creativity on one hand and control and accountability on the other recognized and “managed” in entrepreneurial learning?

Third, entrepreneurship education seems to exist in a vacuum, that is, it fails to recognize a broad and deep literature about the nature of learning and pedagogical innovation (Fayolle, et al., 2016), even though many of the approaches used in entrepreneurship education have a long history in educational science (Fayolle, 2013). For example, entrepreneurship education often draws on notions of experiential and transformational learning, reinterpreting these in an entrepreneurship/ enterprise context. We also tend to borrow liberally from psychology when trying to understand student behaviour (e.g., Krueger & Carsrud, 1993; Wilson et al., 2007) and from e.g. design-thinking or action learning to devise learning activities (Rae, 2012). Therefore, we would encourage contributions that address and even problematize the cross-fertilization that takes place between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial learning and insights into learning and education from other disciplines.

Finally, intentions and self-efficacy measures have traditionally been a major focus for exploring the outcomes of entrepreneurship education (Nabi et al., 2015).  We encourage submissions that would evaluate other kinds of outcome measures, particularly research that explores how entrepreneurship education impacts the behaviours of individuals engaged in entrepreneurship. We are looking for contributions that use innovative samples and/or methodologies to collect and analyze the data on a broad range of entrepreneurial activities and outcomes. We welcome research needs that addresses how the impact of entrepreneurship education is measured, particularly research that might capture possible unintended or adverse outcomes of entrepreneurship education. Longitudinal approaches for studying entrepreneurship education and learning are of particular interest. Most research in entrepreneurship education tends to focus on samples from single universities, so we would welcome comparisons of university programmes or comparisons of university programmes with other forms of training programmes. We also encourage research that aims at developing new ways to measure the impact of entrepreneurship education.

We would like to encourage a diversity of methods and approaches to tackle the above issues as some black boxes lend themselves better to either conceptual, qualitative or quantitative designs, and we will be open to novel approaches. However, we will stress rigour and transparency, so we encourage contributions that incorporate recent methodological advances (e.g. Gioia et al, 2012).

Submission Guidelines:

All submissions are subject to the standard double-blind review process. Manuscripts must be original, unpublished works not concurrently under review for publication at any other outlet and are expected to follow the standard formatting guidelines for the journal. Submission must be made through the ScholarOne site at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijebr by April 30th 2018.Submissions should be prepared according to the Author Guidelines found at http://emeraldgrouppublishing.com/products/journals/author_guidelines.htm?id=ijebr
When submitting your manuscript, please ensure you select this special issue from the relevant drop-down menu. Reviews will be conducted through mid to late-2018, aiming at publication for those accepted expected in late 2019.

Initial inquiries can be directed to any of the Guest Editors at the following email addresses:
Helle Neergaard (Helle.Neergaard@mgmt.au.dk)
William B. Gartner (wgartner@babson.edu)
Ulla Hytti (ullhyt@utu.fi)
Diamanto Politis (diamanto.politis@fek.lu.se)
David Rae (david.rae@bishopg.ac.uk)

REFERENCES
Bae, T. J., Qian, S., Miao, C. & Fiet, J. O. (2014) The Relationship between Entrepreneurship Education and Entrepreneurial Intentions: A Meta‐analytic Review. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(2) 217-254
Corbett, A.C. (2007) Learning Asymmetries and the Discovery of Entrepreneurial Opportunities.  Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1) 97–118.
Fayolle, A. (Ed.). (2007) Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education: A General Perspective (Vol. 1). Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK
Fayolle, A. (2013) Personal Views on the Future of Entrepreneurship Education. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 25(7-8) 692-701
Fayolle, A. & Kyrö. P. (Eds) (2008) The Dynamics between Entrepreneurship, Environment and Education. Edward Elgar Publishing. Cheltenham, UK
Fayolle, A., Gailly, B. & Lassas-Clerc, N. (2006) Assessing the Impact of Entrepreneurship Education Programmes: A new Methodology. Journal of European Industrial Training, 30(9) 701-720
Fayolle, A., Verzat, C. & Wapshott, R. (2016) In Quest of Legitimacy: The Theoretical and Methodological Foundations of Entrepreneurship Education Research, International Small Business Journal, 34(7), 895–904
Gioia, D A; Kevin G. Co; Hamilton, A L. (2012) Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1) 15-31.
Kassean, H., Vanevenhoven, J., Ligouri, E. & Winkel, D.E. (2015) Entrepreneurship Education: A Need for Reflection, Real-world Experience and Action. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 21(5) 690-708
Katz, J. A. (2003) The Chronology and Intellectual Trajectory of American Entrepreneurship Education: 1876–1999. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2) 283-300.
Krueger, N. F., & Carsrud, A. L. (1993) Entrepreneurial Intentions: Applying the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 5(4) 315-330
Lackeus, M (2015) Entrepreneurship in Education: What, why, when, how. Entrepreneurship360. Background Paper. OECD
Nabi, G., Liñán, F., Fayolle, A., Krueger, N. & Walmsley, A. (2016) The Impact of Entrepreneurship Education in higher Education: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda. Academy of Management Learning & Education, amle-2015
Neck, H. M., & Greene, P. G. (2011) Entrepreneurship Education: Known Worlds and New Frontiers. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1) 55-70
Pittaway, L. & Cope, J. (2007a) Entrepreneurship Education: A Systematic Review of the Evidence. International Small Business Journal, 25(5) 479-510
Pittaway, L. & Cope, J. (2007b) Simulating Entrepreneurial Learning: Integrating experiential and Collaborative Approaches to Learning. Management Learning, 38(2) 211-233
Politis, D. & Gabrielsson, J. (2015) Modes of Learning and Entrepreneurial Knowledge. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 18(1) 101-122
Rae, D (2012) Action Learning in New Creative Ventures. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 18(5) 603-623
Refai, D. & Klapper, R. (2016) Enterprise Education in Pharmacy Schools: Experiential Learning in Institutionally Constrained Contexts. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 22(4) 485-509
Urban, B & Kujinga, L (2017) The Institutional  Environment and Social Entrepreneurship Intentions. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 23(4) 638-655
Walter, S. G., & Block, J. H. (2016) Outcomes of Entrepreneurship Education: An Institutional Perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(2) 216-233
Welter, F. (2011) Contextualizing Entrepreneurship—Conceptual Challenges and Ways Forward. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1) 165-184
Welter, F., Gartner, W. B., & Wright, M. (2016) The Context of Contextualizing Contexts. In: Welter, Gartner & Wright (Eds), A Research Agenda for Entrepreneurship and Context, pp. 1-15, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK
Wilson, F., Kickul, J., & Marlino, D. (2007) Gender, Entrepreneurial Self‐efficacy, and Entrepreneurial Career Intentions: Implications for Entrepreneurship Education. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(3) 387-406

Information provenant de la page : http://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/authors/writing/calls.htm?id=7399

Appel à contributions : Management International en Afrique : Spécificités, stratégies des acteurs et enjeux de développement

Management International en Afrique :
Spécificités, stratégies des acteurs et enjeux de développement

Date limite de soumission : 30 novembre 2017

Appel MI Management International en Afrique-1

Dossier thématique coordonné par :
Foued CHERIET, Maître de Conférences, UMR 1110 MOISA, Montpellier SupAgro-France
Hanane BEDDI, Maître de Conférences, IAE Lyon, Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3-France
Abdoulkadre ADO, Professeur Adjoint, Ryerson University- Canada
Emmanuel KAMDEM, Professeur des Universités, ESSEC Douala- Cameroun
* * *

A l’heure où les pays émergents constituent un objet d’attention à la fois des chercheurs et des entreprises, la zone Afrique offre de nombreuses opportunités, tant pour les firmes multinationales que les petites et moyennes entreprises (PME). Méconnue, l’Afrique constitue ainsi un « terrain » de recherche particulièrement attractif.
Le potentiel des entreprises africaines a fait l’objet de très nombreuses publications (Severino, Hadjenberg, 2016) et d’analyses très fines du profil des entrepreneurs et des spécificités organisationnelles ou liées au contexte (Ellis, Faure, 1995). Depuis quelques années déjà, un courant de recherche important se focalise sur les spécificités du management et de l’entrepreneuriat africains (Shamba, 2007). Des recherches plus récentes ont porté sur la dimension « internationale » des entreprises africaines. Une dynamique importante a été relevée dans le champ du management international sur le continent africain (Adeleye et al., 2015 ; Babarinde, 2009).
Au-delà des caractéristiques managériales africaines (Shamba 2007, Babarinde 2009), plusieurs recherches antérieures ont pu dégager des spécificités « continentales » de l’internationalisation des firmes, que ce soit au niveau des acteurs (firmes multinationales et petites entreprises), des processus, ou des enjeux en termes de développement économique (Munemo 2012 ; Amal et al., 2013, Adeleye et al., 2015). Ces spécificités permettent d’appréhender l’internationalisation en Afrique comme un champ de recherche « différent », nécessitant des efforts de contextualisation et des adaptations des backgrounds théoriques adoptés jusqu’ici.
Dans une analyse bibliométrique extensive, Ibeh et al., (2012), ont montré une forte diversité des facteurs spécifiques de l’internationalisation des firmes africaines : une utilisation des réseaux formels et informels, une focalisation régionale, une prédominance du secteur des services ainsi que des rythmes précoces et rapides d’internationalisation. A ces quelques caractéristiques communes, il faudrait opposer une très forte diversité des situations selon les secteurs, les pays, les régions et les types d’entreprises.
Dans une analyse des 40 plus grandes firmes africaines à l’international, un rapport du Boston Consulting Group confirmait certaines des tendances précédentes : une forte concentration régionale des grandes firmes (18 en Afrique du Sud, 10 au Maghreb, 7 en Egypte), une internationalisation davantage « macro-régionale » que mondiale et une concentration sectorielle de plus en plus affirmée (Banques et Finance, Télécommunications, ressources naturelles1).
L’internationalisation des entreprises en Afrique interpelle également les chercheurs sur plusieurs questions spécifiques : le rôle accru des diasporas africaines ou étrangères en Afrique (chinoise, indienne ou libanaise), les stratégies des firmes de certains pays sur des zones régionales (Maroc en Afrique de l’Ouest, Egypte en Afrique de l’Est, Afrique du Sud en Afrique australe, etc.) (Mc Namme et al., 2015), la performance et la compétitivité internationale (Ngok-Evina, 2014) des entreprises selon leur profil managérial et leur mode d’internationalisation (Gumede, 2014 ; Kropp et al., 2006 ; Matanda 2012). Avec des terrains d’application souvent distincts sur le plan empirique et des contextes institutionnels et économiques différents, ces études ont néanmoins abouti à mettre à jour des résultats intéressants quant au processus et aux résultats de l’internationalisation des firmes africaines (Okpara, 2012 ; Mtigwe, 2005).
L’ambition du présent numéro spécial est de traiter de l’internationalisation des entreprises africaines mais aussi de la présence des firmes étrangères en Afrique. Au-delà des aspects analytiques, il s’agira également de rendre compte de certaines implications managériales et de recommandations en matière de politiques publiques. Il visera enfin à mettre l’accent sur les enjeux en matière de développement de l’internationalisation des entreprises (rattrapage économique, emploi et croissance, valorisation des produits, apprentissage organisationnel, attractivité et compétitivité économiques, etc.).
Ce dossier se veut triplement ouvert :
– D’abord sur le plan disciplinaire et conceptuel, en accueillant à la fois des contributions relevant du champ du management international mais aussi des autres disciplines en gestion.
– Ensuite sur le plan méthodologique en suggérant des contributions relevant des analyses statistiques et économétriques mais également des études de cas (secteurs, pays, régions, etc.) ou des monographiques d’entreprises.
– Enfin, ce dossier a l’ambition de s’ouvrir sur des thématiques « classiques » en management international (modes d’internationalisation, compétitivité, processus, performance, etc.) mais aussi sur des thématiques spécifiques (diasporas, entrepreneuriat ethnique, réseaux informels, etc.). Les questions posées peuvent toucher l’internationalisation des firmes multinationales ou des PME en lien avec l’entrepreneuriat.
Cette triple ouverture permettrait de relever le défi de rendre compte de la complexité du contexte africain et de la diversité des situations.
1 Boston consulting Group (2010), The African Challengers : global competitors emerge from the overlooked continent, 12p. Disponible sur: www.bcg.com/documents/file44610.pdf
Questions à traiter (liste indicative et non exhaustive)
– Modes d’entrée, coopérations et implantations des entreprises africaines à l’étranger
– Spécificités des acteurs et des processus d’internationalisation des entreprises africaines : séquentialité, rythmes, contraintes et adaptations
– Profils des entreprises et des entrepreneurs africains à l’international
– Les multinationales africaines : un acteur spécifique de l’internationalisation
– Internationalisation ethnique, entrepreneuriat social et/ou féminin à l’international
– Diasporas africaines à l’international et diasporas étrangères en Afrique (Chine, Inde, Liban)
– Déterminants de la performance des entreprises africaines à l’international
– Compétitivité des entreprises africaines à l’étranger et des firmes étrangères en Afrique
– Sourcing international et stratégie des entreprises étrangères en Afrique : choix de localisation et de régionalisation
– Contextes institutionnels, structures et outils d’accompagnement du développement international des entreprises (influence de l’ancrage territorial)
– Enjeux de responsabilité sociale des entreprises et de développement durable ; liens avec les organisations à but non lucratif et les entreprises locales
– Réseaux internationaux et stratégies d’implantation des firmes
– Analyses sectorielles ou régionales de l’internationalisation des entreprises
– Présence régionale des entreprises africaines en Afrique

Calendrier et dates clés

  • 15 juin 2017 : diffusion de l’appel à contribution
  • 30 novembre 2017 : Date limite d’envoi des manuscrits (textes complets)
  • Printemps 2019 : Parution du dossier thématique « Management International en Afrique : Spécificités, stratégies des acteurs et enjeux de développement »

Soumission des articles

Les propositions d’articles pour ce dossier thématique doivent comporter la mention « soumission pour le dossier spécial –Management International en Afrique ». Une copie du texte soumis est à envoyer à Foued CHERIET (éditeur invité correspondant) : foued.cheriet@supagro.fr.
Les articles soumis à Management International doivent respecter les consignes aux auteurs et la politique rédactionnelle de la revue.
http://www.managementinternational.ca/section-des-auteurs/soumettre-un-article/
Pour plus d’informations à propos de la revue Management International, merci de consulter le site Internet : http://www.managementinternational.ca/catalog/
Références bibliographiques (liste indicative)
Adeleye, I., Ibeh, K., Kinoti, A., White, L. (2015), The Changing Dynamics of International Business in Africa. Basingstoke and New York, Palgrave Macmillan.
Amal, M., Awuah, G.B., Raboch, H., Anderson, S. (2013), Differences and similarities of the internationalization process of multinational companies from developed and emerging countries”, European Business Review, 25 (5), 411-428.
Babarinde, O. A. (2009). Africa is open for business: A continent on the move. Thunderbird International Business Review, 51(4), 319-328.
Ellis, S., Faure, Y-A., (dir) (1995). Entreprises et entrepreneurs africains, Paris, Editions Khartala-Orstom. 695p.
Gumede, V., (2004), Export Propensities and Intensities of Small and Medium Manufacturing Enterprises in South Africa, Small Business Economics, 22(5), 379-389.
Ibeh, K., Wilson, J., Chizema, A. (2012), The internationalization of African firms 1995-2011: Review and implications. Thunderbird International Business Review, 54(4), 411- 427.Kamdem, E. (dir.), (2016), Innovation entrepreneuriale et développement durable en Afrique : défis et opportunités, Paris, Éditions L’Harmattan.
Kamdem, E., (2007), « Éthique, mondialisation et pratique des affaires : enjeux et perspectives pour l’Afrique ». Management International, 11(2), pp. 65-79.
Kropp, F., Lindsay, N. J., Shoham, A. (2006), Entrepreneurial, market, and learning orientations and international entrepreneurial business venture performance in South African firms. International Marketing Review, 23(5), 504-523.
Matanda M.J., (2012), Internationalization of established small manufacturers in a developing economy : A case study of Kenyan SMEs, Thunderbird International Business Review, 54(4), 509-519.
McNamee, T., Pearson, M. & Boer, W. (2015) Africans Investing in Africa: Understanding Business and Trade, Sector by Sector. Basingstoke and New York, Palgrave Macmillan.
Mtigwe, B., (2005). The entrepreneurial firm internationalization process in the Southern African context: A comparative approach, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 11(5), 358 – 377.
Munemo, J. (2012). Entrepreneurship in developing countries: is Africa different? Journal of Development Entrepreneurship, 17(1), 125-137.
Ngok-Evina, J-F., (2014), La compétitivité des entreprises africaines : le cas du Cameroun, Revue des Sciences de Gestion, 3 (267-268), 51-58.
Okpara, J.O., (2012), An exploratory study of international strategic choices for exporting firms in Nigeria, Thunderbird International Business Review, 54(4), 479-491.
Severino, J.M., Hadjenberg, J., (2016). Entreprenante Afrique. Paris, Ed Odile Jacob. 284p.
Shamba, P.B., (2007), Existe-t-il un modèle spécifique du management en Afrique? Le « management africain » à l’épreuve des évidences empiriques, Actes du 18ème congrès de l’AGRH, Université de Fribourg, Suisse, 12p.

International management in Africa: Specificities, strategies of actors, and development challenges
Deadline for submission: November 30, 2017

Special issue editors:
Foued CHERIET, Associate Professor, UMR 1110 MOISA, Montpellier SupAgro-France
Hanane BEDDI, Associate Professor, IAE Lyon, Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3-France
Abdoulkadre ADO, Assistant Professeur, Ryerson University- Canada
Emmanuel KAMDEM, Full Professor, ESSEC Douala- Cameroun

At a time when emerging countries are attracting attention from both researchers and companies, the Africa zone offers many opportunities, not only for multinational firms but also for small and medium-sized enterprises (SME). Rather neglected up to now, Africa is thus a particularly attractive area of research.
The potential of African companies has been examined in a host of publications (Severino, Hadjenberg, 2016) and in highly detailed analyses of entrepreneur profiles and of specificities that are either organisational or context-linked (Ellis, Faure, 1995). Over the last few years, a significant line of research has emerged, focusing on the specificities of African management and entrepreneurship (Shamba, 2007). Some more recent research has explored the “international” dimension of African companies. Researchers have noted the dynamism of international management on the African continent (Adeleye et al., 2015; Babarinde, 2009).
Looking beyond African managerial characteristics (Shamba 2007, Babarinde 2009), several earlier papers have brought to light “continental” specificities in the internationalisation of firms, whether considered in terms of actors (multinational firms and small companies), processes, or economic development issues (Munemo 2012; Amal et al., 2013; Adeleye et al., 2015). These specific features suggest that internationalisation in Africa should be seen as a “different” field of research, for which efforts are required in terms of contextualisation and of adapting the theoretical backgrounds usually applied up to now.
In an extensive bibliometric analysis, Ibeh et al., (2012) have highlighted the great diversity of factors that are specific to the internationalisation of African firms: the use of formal and informal networks, regional focus, the predominance of the services sector, and internationalisation that took place early and at a rapid pace. This handful of common characteristics should be set against the very wide diversity of situations found, depending on sectors, countries, regions and types of companies.
In an analysis of the 40 largest African firms in terms of international operations, a report by the Boston Consulting Group confirmed some of the tendencies outlined above: strong regional concentration amongst the large firms (18 in South Africa, 10 in the Maghreb, 7 in Egypt), an internationalisation that is more “macro-regional” than global, and an increasingly strong tendency towards sectorial concentration (banking and finance, telecommunications, and natural resources2).
The internationalisation of companies in Africa has also attracted interest from researchers considering a number of specific issues: the growing role played in Africa by African diasporas and foreign diasporas (particularly Chinese, Indian and Lebanese), the strategies of firms from certain countries in regional zones (Morocco in Western Africa, Egypt in Eastern Africa, South Africa in the southern part of the continent, etc.) (McNamee et al., 2015), and the performance and international competitiveness (Ngok-Evina, 2014) of companies as related to their managerial profile and their internationalisation mode (Gumede, 2014; Kropp et al., 2006; Matanda 2012).
Although the fields of application are often different in empirical terms, and despite the variety of the institutional and economic contexts, these studies have nevertheless come up with some interesting findings concerning the process and the results of the internationalisation of African firms (Okpara, 2012; Mtigwe, 2005).
The aim of this special issue is to look not only at the internationalisation of African companies, but also at the presence of foreign firms in Africa. Going beyond analytical aspects, it is also important to consider certain managerial implications and recommendations as regards public policy. Lastly, the special issue will aim to emphasise issues relating to the development of the internationalisation of companies (such as the economic catching up process, employment and growth, enhancing the value of products, organisational learning, and economic attractiveness and competitiveness).
The dossier aims to be open in three senses:
– Firstly in disciplinary and conceptual terms, by including contributions relating not only to international management but also to other management disciplines.
– Secondly in methodological terms, by calling not only for contributions based on statistical or econometric analyses, but also for case studies (sectors, countries, regions, etc.) and monographs on companies.
– Finally, the dossier aims to be open to themes that are customarily raised in international management (internationalisation modes, competitiveness, processes, performance, etc.) but also to more specific topics (diasporas, ethnic entrepreneurship, informal networks, etc.). The questions examined may concern the internationalisation of multinational firms or SME linked to entrepreneurship.
This three-dimensional openness should prove an effective way of encompassing the complexity of the African context and the great diversity of situations.
2 Boston Consulting Group (2010), The African Challengers: global competitors emerge from the overlooked continent, 12 p. Available at: www.bcg.com/documents/file44610.pdf
Questions to be examined (the list is non-exhaustive and for information only)
– Entry modes, African companies setting up cooperation agreements or businesses in foreign countries
– Specificities of actors and of the internationalisation processes of African companies: sequentiality, pace of internationalisation, constraints and adaptations
– Profiles of African companies and entrepreneurs operating internationally
– African multinationals: a specific internationalisation actor
– Ethnic internationalisation, social entrepreneurship and/or female entrepreneurship operating internationally
– African diasporas on the international scene and foreign diasporas in Africa (China, Lebanon,…)
– Factors that determine the performance of African companies operating internationally
– Competitiveness of African companies in foreign countries and of foreign companies in Africa
– International sourcing and the strategy of foreign companies in Africa: location and regionalisation choices
– Institutional contexts, structures and tools to support the international development of companies (influence of territorial anchoring)
– Challenges of corporate social responsibility and sustainable development; links with not-for-profit organisations and local companies
– Firms’ international networks and location strategies
– Sectorial and regional analyses of the internationalisation of companies
– Regional presence of African companies in Africa

Key dates

  • June 15, 2017 : diffusion of the call for contribution
  • November 30, 2017 : Deadline for submission (full papers)
  • Spring 2019 : Publication of the special issue « International Management in Africa : Specificities, strategies of actors, and development challenges»

Submission process
Manuscripts for the special issue should include the following mention: « submission for the special issue – International management in Africa ». They should be sent by email to Foued CHERIET (the corresponding guest editor) : : foued.cheriet@supagro.fr.
Presented papers must follow the standards set out in the editorial policy of the International Management Review. http://www.managementinternational.ca/section-des-auteurs/soumettre-un-article/. For more information about the International Management Review, please visit the website: http://www.managementinternational.ca/catalog/
References (indicative list)
Adeleye, I., Ibeh, K., Kinoti, A., White, L. (2015), The Changing Dynamics of International Business in Africa. Basingstoke and New York, Palgrave Macmillan.
Amal, M., Awuah, G.B., Raboch, H., Anderson, S. (2013), Differences and similarities of the internationalization process of multinational companies from developed and emerging countries”, European Business Review, 25 (5), 411-428.
Babarinde, O. A. (2009). Africa is open for business: A continent on the move. Thunderbird International Business Review, 51(4), 319-328.
Ellis, S., Faure, Y-A., (dir) (1995). Entreprises et entrepreneurs africains, Paris, Editions Khartala-Orstom. 695p.
Gumede, V., (2004), Export Propensities and Intensities of Small and Medium Manufacturing Enterprises in South Africa, Small Business Economics, 22(5), 379-389.
Ibeh, K., Wilson, J., Chizema, A. (2012), The internationalization of African firms 1995-2011: Review and implications. Thunderbird International Business Review, 54(4), 411- 427.Kamdem, E. (dir.), (2016), Innovation entrepreneuriale et développement durable en Afrique : défis et opportunités, Paris, Éditions L’Harmattan.
Kamdem, E., (2007), « Éthique, mondialisation et pratique des affaires : enjeux et perspectives pour l’Afrique ». Management International, 11(2), pp. 65-79.
Kropp, F., Lindsay, N. J., Shoham, A. (2006), Entrepreneurial, market, and learning orientations and international entrepreneurial business venture performance in South African firms. International Marketing Review, 23(5), 504-523.
Matanda M.J., (2012), Internationalization of established small manufacturers in a developing economy : A case study of Kenyan SMEs, Thunderbird International Business Review, 54(4), 509-519.
McNamee, T., Pearson, M. & Boer, W. (2015) Africans Investing in Africa: Understanding Business and Trade, Sector by Sector. Basingstoke and New York, Palgrave Macmillan.
Mtigwe, B., (2005). The entrepreneurial firm internationalization process in the Southern African context: A comparative approach, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 11(5), 358 – 377.
Munemo, J. (2012). Entrepreneurship in developing countries: is Africa different? Journal of Development Entrepreneurship, 17(1), 125-137.
Ngok-Evina, J-F., (2014), La compétitivité des entreprises africaines : le cas du Cameroun, Revue des Sciences de Gestion, 3 (267-268), 51-58.
Okpara, J.O., (2012), An exploratory study of international strategic choices for exporting firms in Nigeria, Thunderbird International Business Review, 54(4), 479-491.
Severino, J.M., Hadjenberg, J., (2016). Entreprenante Afrique. Paris, Ed Odile Jacob. 284p.
Shamba, P.B., (2007), Existe-t-il un modèle spécifique du management en Afrique? Le « management africain » à l’épreuve des évidences empiriques, Actes du 18ème congrès de l’AGRH, Université de Fribourg, Suisse, 12p.

Management Internacional en África: Especificidades estrategias de los actores y desafíos de desarrollo

Fecha límite de entrega: 30 Noviembre 2017

Edición especial coordinada por:
Foued CHERIET, Profesor, UMR 1110 MOISA, SupAgro-France
Hanane Beddi, Profesor, IAE Lyon, Universidad de Lyon-Francia 3
Abdoulkadre ADO, Profesor Adjunto, Universidad de Ryerson-Canadá
Emmanuel KAMDEM, profesor, ESSEC Douala-Camerún
* * *

En un momento en que los mercados emergentes son un foco de atención de los investigadores y las empresas, África ofrece muchas oportunidades para ambas multinacionales y las pequeñas y medianas empresas (PME). Desconocido hasta hoy, África constituye así un “campo” de investigación particularmente atractivo. Desde hace algunos años el potencial de las empresas africanas fue objeto de muchas publicaciones (Severino Hadjenberg, 2016) y de análisis muy finas del perfil de los empresarios y de las características organizativas o relacionadas al contexto (Ellis, Faure, 1995).
Desde hace algunos años, la investigación actual se centra en los aspectos específicos de la gestión y el espíritu empresarial de África (Shamba, 2007).Una investigación más reciente se ha centrado en la dimensión “internacional” de las empresas africanas. Una dinámica importante se ha planteado en el campo de la gestión internacional en el continente africano (Adeleye et al, 2015. Babarinde, 2009).
Más allá de las características de gestión de África (2007 Shamba Babarinde 2009), varias investigaciones previas han podido identificar aspectos específicos “continentales” de la internacionalización de las empresas, ya sea a nivel de los actores (empresas multinacionales y pequeñas empresas), de los procesos o de los desafíos en términos de desarrollo económico (Munemo 2012; .. y Amal al, 2013, Adeleye et al, 2015). Estas características permiten entender la internacionalización en África como un campo de investigación “diferente”, lo que requiere un esfuerzo de contextualización y de adaptación de los antecedentes teóricos adoptados hasta ahora.
En un extenso análisis bibliometrico, Ibeh et al (2012) mostraron una grande diversidad de factores específicos de la internacionalización de las empresas africanas: el uso de las redes formales e informales, un enfoque regional, y un predominio del sector servicios así como ritmos tempranos y rápidos de internacionalización. Se podría oponer a características comunes una muy alta diversidad de situaciones entre sectores, países, regiones y tipos de negocios.
En un análisis de las 40 mayores empresas africanas que trabajan en el extranjero, un informe de Boston Consulting Group confirma algunas de las tendencias anteriores: una fuerte concentración regional de las grandes empresas (18 en África del Sur, 10 en el norte de África, Egipto 7), una internacionalización más “macro-regional” que global y una concentración sectorial cada vez más firme (Banca y Finanzas, Telecomunicaciones, recursos1 natural).
La internacionalización de las empresas en África también interpela a los investigadores sobre varios temas específicos: el creciente papel de las diásporas africanas o extranjeras en África (China, India o Líbano), las estrategias de las empresas de algunos países en áreas regionales (Marruecos en África del Oeste, Egipto, en África de Este, África del Sur en África austral etc.) (Mark Namme et al., 2015), el rendimiento y la competitividad internacional (Ngok-Evina, 2014) de las empresas de acuerdo a su perfil de gestión y su modo de internacionalización (Gumede, 2014 Kropp et al, 2006;. Matanda 2012). A menudo con distintos campos de aplicación empírica y diferentes contextos institucionales y económicos, estos estudios, sin embargo, dieron lugar a la actualización de los resultados interesantes sobre los procesos y los resultados de la internacionalización de las empresas africanas (Okpara, 2012; Mtigwe, 2005).
El objetivo de este número especial es tratar de la internacionalización de las empresas africanas, y también de la presencia de empresas extranjeras en África. Más allá de los aspectos analíticos, habrá también que dar cuenta de las implicaciones de gestión y de las recomendaciones de gestión en cuanto a las políticas públicas.
Por último, se tratará de centrarse en las cuestiones de desarrollo de la internacionalización de las empresas (captura económica, el empleo y el crecimiento, el desarrollo de productos, el aprendizaje organizacional, la competitividad y el atractivo económico, etc.).
Este estudio esta abierto a tres niveles:
En primer lugar en el plano de la disciplina y del concepto, aceptando las contribuciones en el ámbito de la gestión internacional, así como otras disciplinas de gestión.
En segundo lugar en el plano metodológico sugiriendo contribuciones con análisis estadísticos y econométricos y también estudios de casos (sectores, países, regiones etc;). Por último, esta carpeta desea quedar abierta en temas de gestión internacional (modos de internacionalización, competitividad, procesos, rendimiento, etc.), y en temas específicos (diásporas, espíritu empresarial étnico, redes informales etc.). Los cuestionablemente pueden tratar de la internacionalización de las empresas multinacionales o de las PME en relación con el espíritu empresarial.
Esta triple apertura tomaría el reto de dar cuenta de la complejidad del contexto africano y la diversidad de las situaciones.
Cuestiones que deben abordarse (lista indicativa y no exhaustiva)

  • Modos de entrada, cooperación y asentamientos de las empresas africanas en el extranjero
  • Actores específicos y procesos de internacionalización de las empresas africanas : secuencialidad, ritmos, acentuación y adaptaciones
  • Los perfiles de las empresas y de los empresarios africanos a nivel internacional
  • Les multinacionales africanas: un actor específico de la internacionalización
  • internacionalización étnica, el espíritu empresarial social y / o femenino en el plano internacional
  • Las diásporas africanas en el plano internacional y las diásporas extranjeras en África (China, India, Líbano)
  • Determinantes del desempeño de las empresas africanas en el extranjero Competitividad de las empresas africanas en el extranjero y de las empresas extranjeras en África
  • Sourcing internacional y estrategia de las empresas extranjeras en África: elección del lugar y de la regionalización
  • Contextos institucionales, estructuras y herramientas de apoyo internacionales para el desarrollo de negocios (influencia del anclaje territorial)
  • Desafíos de las empresas con su responsabilidad social y con el desarrollo sostenible ; vínculos con las organizaciones sin fines de lucro y las empresas locales
  • Las redes internacionales y las estrategias de implementación de las firmas
  • Análisis sectoriales y regionales de la internacionalización de las empresas
  • Presencia regional de las empresas africanas en África

Calendario y fechas clave

  • 15 de junio de 2017: Abertura de la convocatoria
  • 30 de noviembre de 2017: Fecha límite para la presentación de los manuscritos (texto completo)
  • Primavera de 2019: Publicación de la edición especial “Gestión Internacional en África: Especificaciones, las estrategias de los actores y los desafíos del desarrollo”

Sumisión de los artículos
Las presentaciones de este informe especial deben incluir el término oferta’ para la carpeta especial “Gestión Internacional en África”. Una copia del texto presentado se enviará a Foued CHERIET (editor invitado y correspondiente): foued.cheriet@supagro.fr.
Los artículos presentados para la Management Internacional deben seguir las instrucciones a los autores y la política editorial de la revista.
http://www.managementinternational.ca/section-des-auteurs/soumettre-un-article/
Para obtener más información sobre la revista International Management, favor consultar el sitio web: http://www.managementinternational.ca/catalog/
Referencias (lista indicativa)
Adeleye, I., Ibeh, K., Kinoti, A., White, L. (2015), The Changing Dynamics of International Business in Africa. Basingstoke and New York, Palgrave Macmillan.
Amal, M., Awuah, G.B., Raboch, H., Anderson, S. (2013), Differences and similarities of the internationalization process of multinational companies from developed and emerging countries”, European Business Review, 25 (5), 411-428.
Babarinde, O. A. (2009). Africa is open for business: A continent on the move. Thunderbird International Business Review, 51(4), 319-328.
Ellis, S., Faure, Y-A., (dir) (1995). Entreprises et entrepreneurs africains, Paris, Editions Khartala-Orstom. 695p.
Gumede, V., (2004), Export Propensities and Intensities of Small and Medium Manufacturing Enterprises in South Africa, Small Business Economics, 22(5), 379-389.
Ibeh, K., Wilson, J., Chizema, A. (2012), The internationalization of African firms 1995-2011: Review and implications. Thunderbird International Business Review, 54(4), 411- 427.Kamdem, E. (dir.), (2016), Innovation entrepreneuriale et développement durable en Afrique : défis et opportunités, Paris, Éditions L’Harmattan.
Kamdem, E., (2007), « Éthique, mondialisation et pratique des affaires : enjeux et perspectives pour l’Afrique ». Management International, 11(2), pp. 65-79.
Kropp, F., Lindsay, N. J., Shoham, A. (2006), Entrepreneurial, market, and learning orientations and international entrepreneurial business venture performance in South African firms. International Marketing Review, 23(5), 504-523.
Matanda M.J., (2012), Internationalization of established small manufacturers in a developing economy : A case study of Kenyan SMEs, Thunderbird International Business Review, 54(4), 509-519.
McNamee, T., Pearson, M. & Boer, W. (2015) Africans Investing in Africa: Understanding Business and Trade, Sector by Sector. Basingstoke and New York, Palgrave Macmillan.
Mtigwe, B., (2005). The entrepreneurial firm internationalization process in the Southern African context: A comparative approach, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 11(5), 358 – 377.
Munemo, J. (2012). Entrepreneurship in developing countries: is Africa different? Journal of Development Entrepreneurship, 17(1), 125-137.
Ngok-Evina, J-F., (2014), La compétitivité des entreprises africaines : le cas du Cameroun, Revue des Sciences de Gestion, 3 (267-268), 51-58.
Okpara, J.O., (2012), An exploratory study of international strategic choices for exporting firms in Nigeria, Thunderbird International Business Review, 54(4), 479-491.
Severino, J.M., Hadjenberg, J., (2016). Entreprenante Afrique. Paris, Ed Odile Jacob. 284p.
Shamba, P.B., (2007), Existe-t-il un modèle spécifique du management en Afrique? Le « management africain » à l’épreuve des évidences empiriques, Actes du 18ème congrès de l’AGRH, Université de Fribourg, Suisse, 12p.

Call for papers Special issue IJEBR – Artisan, cultural and tourism entrepreneurship

Overview

This special issue call for papers seeks to contribute to the growing interest about artisan entrepreneurship and the role of culture and tourism in its growth. There has been an increased emphasis on local and handmade goods that are linked to the culture and tourism of a region (Ratten and Ferreira, 2017). Artisan entrepreneurship involves the making of handcrafted goods or services that are sold to others. This form of entrepreneurship is increasing as people focus more on cultural forms of business ventures (Lounsbury and Glynn, 2001). Typically most artisan entrepreneurs are in the clothing and food industries as they prefer to make their own products that are linked to their cultural heritage (Tregear, 2005).
Many artisan entrepreneurs start their businesses because they have a hobby or interest tied to their culture that they want to use as a source of income. Typically most artisan entrepreneurs have a creative asset that can lead to sustainable income when marketed in the right way. Artisan entrepreneurs utilize their passion and creativity to sell products including organic locally grown food, craft beers and handmade clothes. There has been a trend towards more cultural-based businesses and as part of the tourism experience more people are focusing on artisan entrepreneurs. Possible topics for this special issue include:
•    How artisan entrepreneurs are using tourism as a way to develop their businesses
•    The role of culture in artisan entrepreneurship
•    Types of businesses and services involved in artisan entrepreneurship
•    Impact of tourism entrepreneurs in the growth of artisan businesses
•    The trend away from technology to handmade and hobby-based businesses
•    Job creation and tourism growth through artisan entrepreneurship
•    The role of urban and regional location in artisan entrepreneurship
•    Entrepreneurial personality and link to artisan businesses in tourism development
Due date: February 28 2018

Guest Editorial Team
Initial queries can be directed to any of the guest editors on the following email addresses:
Dr. Vanessa Ratten, La Trobe University Australia
v.ratten@latrobe.edu.au
Dr. Carlos Costa, University of Aveiro, Portugal
ccosta@ua.pt
Dr. Marcel Bogers, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
marcel@ifro.ku.dk

References

Lounsbury, M. and Glynn, M.A. (2001) ‘Cultural entrepreneurship stories, legitimacy and the acquisition of resources’, Strategic Management Journal, 22: 545-564.
Ratten, V. and Ferreira, J. (2017) ‘Future research direction for cultural entrepreneurship and regional innovation’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 21(3): 163-169.
Tregear, A. (2005) ‘Lifestyle growth or community involvement? The balance of goals of artisan food producers’, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 17(1): 1-15.

Content from : http://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/products/journals/call_for_papers.htm?id=7281

Call for papers: IJEBR Special Issue Migration, Entreprise and Society

Guest Editors:
Dr. Natalia Vershinina, University of Birmingham
Dr. Peter Rodgers, University of Sheffield

Overview
This Special Issue Call for Papers seeks to contribute to a growing strand of academic literature, which recognises the social and cultural contexts in which entrepreneurial endeavours take place (Bruton et al. 2010; Jennings et al. 2013; Welter and Smallbone 2006). Within this ‘social turn’ in the study of entrepreneurship (Johannisson, 1988; Ansari et al. 2012; McKeever et al, 2014) there is a recognition of the ‘everyday’ nature of many manifestations of entrepreneurial practices and the fact that the entrepreneurs themselves and the entrepreneurial processes and practices are not taking place in political, cultural or societal vacuums. Rather than simply accepting the traditional view of entrepreneurial activities involving the ‘super-hero’ stereotype of the entrepreneur (Burns, 2001), a growing strand of critical entrepreneurship (Anderson et al, 2010; De Clercq and Voronov, 2009) calls for the recognition of the everyday (Johannisson 2011) and mundane nature (Rehn and Taalas, 2004) of varied forms of entrepreneurship. In order to critically examine the dominant discourses of entrepreneurship, Steyaert (2005) argues for the need to explore diverse and alternative entrepreneurial individuals, processes and practices beyond the mainstream. Embracing the desire within the ‘European tradition’ of entrepreneurship (Gartner 2008; Down 2013; Davidsson 2013; McKeever, 2014) to look beyond the ‘mainstream’ has led to calls for more academic interest in the ‘other’ (Gartner, 2013) entrepreneurial individuals and practices living and taking place on the edges and margins of our societies (Watson 2013; Imas et al., 2012).
To this end, taking the UK as a contextual example, over the past decade, increasing numbers of ‘new’ migrants have arrived in the UK (Jones et al. 2014). This is explained by a rise in refugees and asylum seekers from war-torn countries (Edwards et al. 2016) and migration from the new EU member-states (Vershinina, et.al, 2011; Ciupijus, 2011; Drinkwater et al. 2009; Khattab and Fox. 2016; Barrett and Vershinina, 2016). Despite the growth of ‘new’ migrant communities in the UK, within an ‘age of super-diversity’ (Vertovec, 2007, Ram, Jones and Villares, 2017), such groups have rarely figured in contemporary debates on self-employment and/or entrepreneurship, other than in a few notable studies (Edwards et al. 2016; Ram et al, 2008).

Although migration seems to be absent from mainstream academic literature on business and management, the proponents of the ‘super diversity’ (Vertovec, 2007) paradigm have argued that at present a number of important populations are either excluded from the research agenda, or appear rarely; voices which play a critical role in the fabric of multicultural society.  For instance, in the field of business, the core concept associated with migration – “liabilities of foreignness” (Fang, et al., 2013) – sees “difference and distance” as liabilities, whether they are national, cultural, geographic, or semantic. While existing research is valuable, recently it has been suggested that an emphasis on liabilities and adverse outcomes associated with such differences may hinder our understanding of the processes and conditions that help to leverage the value of diversity in a wide range of contexts. Moreover, the field of entrepreneurship, treats ethnicity in a negative light, and the theory exploring ethnic minority enterprises seem to highlight the negative effects of environment on ethnic migrants who set up and run businesses in new geographical locations. Researchers in entrepreneurship have the opportunity to examine the specific political contexts of excluded groups (new arrivals: legal, illegal, and refugees) and pursue important theoretical and policy-related questions that cast light on the workings and complexities of modern economies around the world.

The aims of this Special issue are aligned to unpacking the interdependency of modes of organising on diversity, the recent increase in racialization of work, and the meaning of integration for newcomer populations, are key questions for future research within the field of entrepreneurship studies.

Interested authors might want to explore the variety of levels of spatiality (local, regional, national, international, transnational), variety of enterprises and individuals involved in business activity (self-employment, micro, small, medium-sized firm), variety of governing structures including family firms representing different generations; and ethnic minority enterprises set up by migrants from a variety of locations and migration waves. This Special Issue seeks to develop understanding of the inter-relationships between processes of migration and entrepreneurial behaviour within the broader entrepreneurship discipline. Research Questions may include but are not limited to: 

•    What are the “every day” manifestations of entrepreneurial practices and activities of migrants?
•    How do different migration experiences impact upon business start-up?
•    What is the role of co-ethnic and co-migrant networks in facilitating migrant entrepreneurial behaviour?
•    What is the role of diversity in the interdependency of modes of organising of migrant enterprises?
•    How has the recent increase in racialization of work impacted on migrant entrepreneurship?
•    What role do spatial and temporal dimensions play in migrant entrepreneurship?
•    How can the focus on gender advance our understanding of migrant entrepreneurship?
•    What can migrant experiences inform us about family firm functioning?
•    Do the experiences of contemporary migrants align with those of older patterns of migrants?
•    What can migrant experiences inform us about developing new forms of social enterprises?
•    Do migrant experiences facilitate more unconventional, values driven enterprise development?

Submission Guidelines: We invite both theoretical and empirical papers for this special issue. All submissions are subject to the standard double-blind review process. Manuscripts must be original, unpublished works not concurrently under review for publication at another outlet and are expected to follow the standard formatting guidelines for the journal. Submission must be made though the ScholarOne site at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijebr by 28th February 2018. Submissions should be prepared according to the Author Guidelines found at http://emeraldgrouppublishing.com/products/journals/author_guidelines.htm?id=ijebr. 

When submitting your manuscript, please ensure you select this special issue from the relevant drop down menu on page four of the submission process. Reviews, drafts and outcomes will be conducted through early to mid-2018, with publication for those accepted expected to be early 2019.

Initial queries can be directed towards any of the guest editors on the following email addresses: 

Natalia Vershinina on n.a.vershinina@bham.ac.uk
Peter Rodgers on peter.rodgers@sheffield.ac.uk

Guest Editorial Team

Dr. Natalia Vershinina is a Senior Lecturer in Entrepreneurship at Birmingham Business School. She has a PhD in Business Relationships and prior to that completed MBA from De Montfort University, and DEng in Foreign Economic Relations from St. Petersburg State University of Technology and Design. Her research cuts across diverse but complementary areas of entrepreneurship, gender, family firms, ethnicity and social class, and her latest papers are in Journal of Small Business Management, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development and Work, Employment and Society.  She is a Co-Chair for Entrepreneurship SIG and a Council Member at British Academy of Management, and a Co-Chair for Family and Community Business Track at Institute of Small Business and Enterprise Conference. She is also on the committee of ISBE Gender and Enterprise Network (GEN).

Dr. Peter Rodgers is a Lecturer of Strategy and International Business. Peter gained a BA (Hons) degree in Social and Political Sciences from Fitzwilliam College, University of Cambridge and an MA and PhD from the Centre for Russian and East European Studies, University of Birmingham. Peter’s research interests include the nature of business-state relations in Russia and former socialist spaces, informal work and informal entrepreneurship. He has published widely in journals such as Work, Employment and Society, Environment and Planning C, International Small Business Journal, Employee Relations.

Selected References
Ansari, S., Munir, K. and Gregg, T. (2012). “Impact at the ‘Bottom of the Pyramid’: The Role of Social Capital in Capability Development and Community Empowerment.” Journal of Management Studies 49: 813–842.
Barrett, R. and Vershinina, N. (2016). “Intersectionality of Ethnic and Entrepreneurial Identities: A Study of Post-War Polish Entrepreneurs in an English City”. Journal of Small Business Management.
Bruton, G.D., Ahlstrom, D. and Li, H.L. (2010). “Institutional theory and entrepreneurship: where are we now and where do we need to move in the future?” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(3): 421-440.
Ciupijus, Z. (2011). “Mobile central eastern Europeans in Britain: successful European Union citizens and disadvantaged labour migrants?” Work, Employment & Society, 25(3): 540-550.
De Clercq, D., and Voronov, M. (2009). “Toward a practice perspective of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial legitimacy as habitus”. International Small Business Journal, 27(4): 395-419.
Drinkwater, S., Eade, J. and Garapich, M. (2009). “Poles apart? EU enlargement and the labour market outcomes of immigrants in the United Kingdom”. International Migration, 47(1): 161-190.
Edwards, P., Ram, M., Jones, T. and Doldor, S. (2016). “New migrant businesses and their workers: developing, but not transforming, the ethnic economy”. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 1-31.
Essers, C., Doorewaard, H., and Benschop, Y. (2013). Family ties: Migrant female business owners doing identity work on the public–private divide. Human Relations, 66(12): 1645-1665.
Fang, T., Samnani, A.K., Novicevic, M.M. and Bing, M.N. (2013). Liability-of-foreignness effects on job success of immigrant job seekers. Journal of World Business, 48(1): 98-109.
Gartner, W.B. (2013) “Creating a community of difference in entrepreneurship scholarship.”
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 25(1-2): 5-15.
Jones, O., Ghobadian, A., O’ Regan, N. and Antcliff, V. (2013). Dynamic capabilities in a sixth
generation family firm: entrepreneurship and the Bibby Line. Business History, 55(6): 910-941.
Jones, T., et al. (2014) “Mixed embeddedness and new migrant enterprise in the UK.”
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 26(5-6): 500-520.
Khattab, N. and Fox, J. (2016). East-European immigrants responding to the recession in Britain: is there a trade-off between unemployment and over-qualification? Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 1-16.
López-Fernández, M.C., Serrano-Bedia, A.M. and Pérez-Pérez, M. (2016). “Entrepreneurship
and Family Firm Research: A Bibliometric Analysis of an Emerging Field.” Journal of Small
Business Management, 54(2): 622-639.
McKeever, E., Anderson, A. and Jack, S. (2014). “Entrepreneurship and mutuality: social capital in processes and practices.” Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 26(5-6): 453-477.
Rehn, A. and Taalas, S. (2004). Znakomstva I Svyazi! [Acquaintances and Connections]: Blat, the
Soviet Union and mundane entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 16(3): 235–250.
Ram, M., Theodorakopoulos, N. and Jones, T. (2008). “Forms of capital, mixed embeddedness and Somali enterprise.” Work, employment and society, 22(3): 427-446.
Ram, M., Jones, T. and Villares-Varela, M. (2016). “Migrant entrepreneurship: Reflections on research and practice.” International Small Business Journal, 0266242616678051.
Sharma, P. and Chua, J. H. (2013). “Asian family enterprises and family business research.” Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 30(3): 641-656.
Steyaert, C. (2005) “Entrepreneurship: in between what? On the” frontier” as a discourse of
Entrepreneurship research.” International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business 2(1): 2-16.
Vershinina, N., Barrett, R. and Meyer, M. (2011). “Forms of capital, intra-ethnic variation and Polish entrepreneurs in Leicester”. Work, Employment and Society, 25(1): 101-117.

Content from : http://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/products/journals/call_for_papers.htm?id=7197

Call for papers : Special Issue Cooperative Longevity: Why are So Many Cooperatives So Successful?

Message from the guest editors:

Despite popular misconceptions, cooperatives present a very successful organizational form worldwide. A recent study found that, in the U.S., for example, among the companies that have survived for over 100 years, more than 80 firms are cooperatives. This observation on cooperative longevity is not matched by a corresponding research on what makes cooperatives so successful. Most of the extant research seems to focus on intracooperative problems that posit significant challenges to cooperatives. This Special Issue of Sustainability aims at bridging the considerable gap between scholarly work and reality. By focusing on what makes cooperatives so successful for such a long period of time, this issue will shed light on key aspects of cooperative longevity. The insights thereby gained will be useful to students of cooperatives, practitioners, and policy makers. We are primarily interested in the social science approaches to the study of cooperatives. The unit of analysis can be either the cooperative or the member. Theoretical, conceptual, and empirical papers are welcome as long as they do not make heroic assumptions.

A special issue of Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050).

http://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/special_issues/cooperative_longevity

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 28 February 2018

Call For Papers SUSTAINABILITY

 

Call for papers Journal of Management Studies – Corporate Entrepreneurship and Family Business

SPECIAL ISSUE: CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND FAMILY BUSINESS: LEARNING ACROSS DISCIPLINES

Submission Deadline: 15 June 2018

Guest Editors:

Tommaso Minola, University of Bergamo, Italy Franz W. Kellermanns, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA Nadine Kammerlander, WHU – Otto Beisheim School of Management, Germany Frank Hoy, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, USA

JMS Editor: Riikka Sarala, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, USA

Call for Papers June 2017 JMS SI-CEFB

Background to Special Issue

Scholars have been calling for research into corporate entrepreneurship (CE) for decades (Guth and Ginsberg, 1990; Schendel and Hofer, 1979). Early contributions to the literature proposed recommendations for introducing entrepreneurial and innovative behaviour into large, complex organizations, while acknowledging that successful applications were the exception rather than the rule (Block and MacMillan, 1993; Kanter, 1984; Pinchot, 1985). Although resistance to innovative behaviour within large organizations can still be found (Vuori and Quy, 2015), evidence now indicates greater acceptance of entrepreneurship by corporate leaders (Clarysse et al., 2011; Czarnitzki et al., 2010; Dess and Lumpkin, 2005; Dunlap-Hinkler et al., 2010; Zahra and Covin, 1995). After resolving initial definitional issues (Sharma and Chrisman, 1999), interest in CE has been growing in strategic management research (Covin and Miles, 2007; Hitt and Ireland, 2000).

McKelvie et al. (2014) proposed that there is a need to increase research on CE strategies in family businesses, offering the following justifications: 1) “strategic management in family businesses differs from non-family businesses based on their systems of governance and needs for family harmony” (p. 340); 2) “family involvement can result in the development of resources unique to family businesses” (p. 340), which can influence CE activities; and 3) “agency problems are thought to influence CE, and family businesses experience different agency problems than non-family businesses” (p. 341). These issues, as well as many others driven by family firm uniqueness, together with family firm dominance across the world, open up fruitful paths for future research.

Early contributions to the family business literature in the 1980s and 1990s were predominantly from consultants as well as based on biographies and autobiographies of business owners. These publications laid frameworks that were mostly unsubstantiated by empirical research but some of them still serve as assumptions for how family businesses should and do operate. One important assumption is that family firms are not as professionally managed as nonfamily businesses (Stewart and Hitt, 2012), suggesting inherent problems in family firms and dysfunctional behaviour that need to be resolved. Contrary to that rather pessimistic view, however, in 2005, Miller and Le Breton Miller published a breakthrough comparison study of family and nonfamily firms in Canada finding superior performance by many family-owned and -managed enterprises. Based on lessons learned from family businesses, those authors were able to formulate recommendations from their research for nonfamily companies. Another disruptive contribution in this regard was a study by Anderson and Reeb, published in 2003, indicating that family-owned firms were more profitable over time than nonfamily corporations. In 2016, a meta-analysis by Duran, Kammerlander, van Essen, and Zellweger revealed that family businesses, and particularly those firms that are managed by later generation family members, are more efficient in their innovation processes leading to higher innovation output as compared to nonfamily firms, despite lower input. Thus, while much attention from scholars continues to be given to problems characterizing family businesses, theories and models are being developed that propose best practices from family businesses that can be applied to other organizations (e.g., König et al., 2013). These and several other highly rigorous contributions, particularly surging from the last decade, have contributed to make family business a research field that fulfils the requirements of top tier management journals, contributes to mainstream management disciplines and even finds ways to give back to business and economics general theories (such as behavioural theory and agency theory) (Gedajlovic et al., 2012; Melin et al., 2014; Sharma, 2010).

The field of CE makes no exception in this respect. So, while we expect a number of contributions to take advantage of CE literature to address the distinctiveness of family firms’ entrepreneurial behaviour in the proposed special issue, we also aim at stimulating contributions for the CE literature in general. That is, research on family business that has the potential to provide insightful suggestions to CE scholars. For example, Minola et al. (2017) provide a developmental perspective to corporate venturing in enterprising families that introduces the concept of norms and attitudes as ‘internal triggers’ of CE. This complements and extends the notion of ‘external triggers’ largely adopted in holistic, process-based models of CE (Kuratko, 2010). In a similar vein, concerns for noneconomic goals (Gomez-Mejia et al., 2011), imprinting of a firm’s legacy (Jaskiewicz et al., 2015; Kammerlander et al., 2015) and stakeholder engagement (Eddleston et al., 2012) have been recently used to explain entrepreneurial behaviour in family firms. They provide insights that are generalizable and customizable also to nonfamily firms. Hence, for the proposed special issue we will also solicit submissions that examine prospective applications from the family firms literature to CE theories, models and practical recommendations (Hoskisson et al., 2011; Teng, 2007; Williams and Lee, 2011).

This special issue seeks to determine the relevance that research findings from studies of CE have for family businesses and the relevance that findings from family business investigations have for CE. While the crossroad of the two fields of research is deemed as promising, it is the reciprocity of the two directions of scholarly contributions that represents the novelty of this special issue. Such area of inquiry has not been satisfactorily addressed in management literature, but it has the potential to stimulate the contributions from a broad scholarly community as well as the interest of a quite vast readership. It could also substantially advance our scholarly understanding of both family business behaviour and CE.

There are many interesting questions that could be addressed in the context of family business, with the aim of capturing their distinctiveness and the sources of such distinctiveness, providing conceptual elements that are generalizable to nonfamily businesses (Miller et al., 2016). The following questions would represent illustrative examples of such research endeavours:

  • How are the behavioural antecedents and foundations of CE represented in family and nonfamily firms?
  • How do capabilities and attitudes towards CE evolve and interact over time? How do these patterns relate to the complexity of the family business system?
  • What is the role of social dynamics (such as social exchange, social comparison and social identity processes) in entrepreneurial family firms? How do they affect entrepreneurship-oriented and human resource management practices?
  • How are different types of CE initiatives (e.g., internal vs. external, explorative vs. exploitative) affected by the trade-off of economic and noneconomic goals of family firms?
  • How does CE create value and by which criteria is this assessed in family vs. nonfamily firms?
  • What are the founding conditions of family- and corporate-sponsored new ventures and how do these conditions affect the development of such ventures (e.g., behaviour, performance)?
  • How does a family firm’s embeddedness in a local innovation ecosystem affect CE investment and performance?
  • When, and under which circumstances, does stewardship behaviour induce individuals within an organization to behave entrepreneurially?
  • How and when does psychological ownership emerge and deploy into CE?
  • How do family firms conceive, manage and allocate resources in CE? Which resources are particularly valuable?
  • What family-related factors and contingencies determine the way CE initiatives are operationally managed (e.g., autonomy, delegation, accountability)?
  • How do family firms engage in CE to support the growth of the enterprising family?
  • What are the components of family and organizational culture that are at work in promoting and managing CE initiatives?
  • How does family involvement determine the emergence of CE initiatives in periods of crisis or declining business performance?

There are no universally accepted definitions of either CE or family business. For the special issue, we require authors to specify how they are defining the terms for their studies, whether conceptual or empirical, in order to assist scholars in assessing and in replicating the studies. We will provide guidance to authors by referencing frequently cited articles addressing the terms including Sharma and Chrisman (1999) for CE and Chua et al. (1999) for family business.

Submission Process and Deadlines

  • Manuscripts will be reviewed according to the JMS double-blind review process.
  • Submissions should be prepared using the JMS Manuscript Preparation Guidelines (see: http://www.socadms.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/JMS-Manuscript-Preparation-Guidelines.pdf)
  • The deadline for submission is 15th June 2018.
  • Manuscripts should be submitted by e-mail to business.jms @ durham.ac.uk
  • For informal inquires related to the Special Issue, proposed topics and potential fit, and/or the conferences below, please contact the guest editors at jms.ce.fb @ gmail.com

Special Issue Workshop

November 2018 at University of Bergamo (Italy) To help authors advance their manuscripts, the proponents of the Special Issue will organize a special issue workshop. Authors of R&R manuscripts will be invited to present their papers and react to their colleagues’ papers during the workshop, but presentation at the workshop will not guarantee acceptance of the paper for publication in JMS. Attending the workshop will not be a precondition for acceptance into the Special Issue.

References

Anderson, R. C. and Reeb, D. M. (2003). ‘Founding‐family ownership and firm performance: evidence from the S&P 500’. Journal of Finance, 58, 1301-28.

Block, Z. and MacMillan, I. C. (1993). Corporate Venturing: Creating New Businesses within the Firm. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J. and Sharma, P. (1999). ‘Defining the family business by behavior’. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23, 19-39.

Clarysse, B., Wright, M. and Van de Velde, E. (2011). ‘Entrepreneurial origin, technological knowledge, and the growth of spin-off companies.’ Journal of Management Studies, 48, 1420-42.

Covin, J. G. and Miles, M. P. (2007). ‘Strategic use of corporate venturing’. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31, 183-207.

Czarnitzki, D., Dick, J. M. H. and Hussinger, K. (2010). ‘The contribution of corporate ventures to radical innovation’. ZEW Discussion Papers, No. 10-060.

Dess, G. G. and Lumpkin, G. T. (2005). ‘The role of entrepreneurial orientation in stimulating effective corporate entrepreneurship’. Academy of Management Executive, 19, 147-56.

Dunlap-Hinkler, D., Kotabe, M. and Mudambi, R. (2010). ‘A story of breakthrough versus incremental innovation: Corporate entrepreneurship in the global pharmaceutical industry’. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4, 106-27.

Duran, P., Kammerlander, N., van Essen, M. and Zellweger, T. (2016). ‘Doing more with less: Innovation input and output in family firms’. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 1224-64.

Eddleston, K. A., Kellermanns, F. W. and Zellweger, T. M. (2012). ‘Exploring the entrepreneurial behavior of family firms: does the stewardship perspective explain differences?’. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36, 347-67.

Gedajlovic, E., Carney, M., Chrisman, J. J. and Kellermanns, F. W. (2012). ‘The adolescence of family firm research: Taking stock and planning for the future’. Journal of Management, 38, 1010-37.

Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Cruz, C., Berrone, P. and De Castro, J. (2011). ‘The bind that ties: Socioemotional wealth preservation in family firms’. Academy of Management Annals, 5, 653-707.

Guth, W. D. and Ginsberg, A. (1990). ‘Guest editors’ introduction: Corporate entrepreneurship’. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 5-15.

Hitt, M. A. and Ireland, R. D. (2000). ‚The intersection of entrepreneurship and strategic management research’. In Sexton, D. L. and Landstrom, H. (Eds.), Handbook of Entrepreneurship. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 45-63.

Hoskisson, R. E., Covin, J., Volberda, H. W. and Johnson, R. A. (2011). ‘Revitalizing entrepreneurship: The search for new research opportunities’. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 1141-68.

Jaskiewicz, P., Combs, J. G., & Rau, S. B. (2015). ‘Entrepreneurial legacy: Toward a theory of how some family firms nurture transgenerational entrepreneurship’. Journal of Business Venturing, 30, 29-49.

Kammerlander, N., Dessi, C., Bird, M., Floris, M. and Murru, A. (2015). ‘The Impact of Shared Stories on Family Firm Innovation: a Multi-Case Study’. Family Business Review, 28, 332-54.

Kanter, R. M. (1984). Change Masters. New York: Simon and Schuster.

König, A., Kammerlander, N. and Enders, A. (2013). ‘The Family Innovator’s Dilemma: How Family Influence Affects the Adoption of Discontinuous Technologies by Incumbent Firms’. Academy of Management Review, 38, 418-41.

Kuratko, D. F. (2010). ‘Corporate entrepreneurship: An introduction and research review’. In Acs, Z. J. and Audretsch, D. B. (eds), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research. New York: Springer, 129-63.

McKelvie, A., McKenny, A. F., Lumpkin, G. T. and Short, J. C. (2014). ‘Corporate entrepreneurship in family businesses: Past contributions and future opportunities’. In Melin, L., Nordqvist, M. and Sharma, P. (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Family Business. Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 340-63.

Melin, L., Nordqvist, M. and Sharma, P. (Eds.). (2014). The SAGE Handbook of Family Business. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Miller, D. and Le Breton-Miller, I. (2005). Managing for the Long Run: Lessons in Competitive Advantage from Great Family Businesses. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Miller, D., Steier, L. and Breton-Miller, L. (2016). ‘What can scholars of entrepreneurship learn from sound family businesses?’. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40, 445-55.

Minola, T., Brumana, M., Campopiano, C., Garrett, R. and Cassia, L. (2017). ‘Corporate venturing in family business: A developmental approach of the enterprising family’. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 10, 395-412.

Pinchot, G. (1985). Intrapreneuring: Why You Don’t Need to Leave the Corporation to Become an Entrepreneur. Cambridge, MA: Harper & Row.

Schendel, D. and Hofer, C. W. (Eds.). (1979). Strategic Management: A New View of Business Policy and Planning. Boston, MA: Little Brown.

Sharma, P. and Chrisman, J. J. (1999). ‘Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the field of corporate entrepreneurship’. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 23, 11-27.

Sharma, P. (2010). ‘Advancing the 3Rs of family business scholarship: Rigor, relevance, reach’. In Stewart, A. Lumpkin, G. T. and Katz, J. (Eds.), Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth. Bingley: Emerald Group, 12, 383-400.

Stewart, A. and Hitt, M. A. (2012). ‘Why can’t a family business be more like a nonfamily business? Modes of professionalization in family firms’. Family Business Review, 25, 58-86.

Teng, B.-S. (2007). ‘Corporate entrepreneurship activities through strategic alliances: A resource-based approach toward competitive advantage’. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 119-42.

Vuori, T. O. and Quy, Q. N. (2015). ‘Distributed attention and shared emotions in the innovation process: How Nokia lost the smartphone battle’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 1-43.

Williams, C. and Lee, S. H. (2011). ‘Political heterarchy and dispersed entrepreneurship in the MNC’. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 1243-68.

Zahra, S. A. and Covin, J. G. (1995). ‘Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurship-performance relationship: A longitudinal analysis’. Journal of Business Venturing, 10, 43-58.

 

Appel à contribution: Entreprendre & Innover – Special issue on “hybrid entrepreneurship”

Entreprendre & Innover, revue trimestrielle, va publier un dossier spécial en anglais sur le thème: “hybrid entrepreneurship”.

Pour consulter le contenu original du site de la revue :

https://revueentreprendreinnover.wordpress.com/2017/06/20/appel-a-contributions-special-issue-on-hybrid-entrepreneurship/

Invited editor:

– Marcus Drescher (AGER Consultant) Marcus.Drescher.AGER@Amway.com

Editors:

– Alain Fayolle (EM-Lyon business school) fayolle @ em-lyon.com

– Bernard Surlemont (HEC-Liège Business school from Liège University) b.surlemont @ ulg.ac.be

Special issue

Over the last decades, entrepreneurship became a very popular topic in most developed countries. Despite this success, academics still fail to reach a consensus about the definitions of Entrepreneurship and Entrepreneurs. For example, questions such as: “Are Intrapreneurs, entrepreneurs?” or “Are Franchisees real entrepreneurs?” are still debated among many researchers. Over the last few years the emergence of new phenomena have blurred the frontiers of entrepreneurship even further. The number of part-time entrepreneurs and freelancers has surged all over the world. In many developed countries the legal framework of social status is evolving in such a way that the frontier between the employee status and the self-employed status is fading away. Not to mention, the consequences of the booming phenomenon of the, so called, sharing economy. The « uber’s » and « airbnb’s » of this world are contributing to the emergence of new forms of “self-employment”, micro-entrepreneurs and business models that are challenging most industry incumbents and policy makers. Finally, students and retired persons tend to be more and more engaged into jobs that could be characterized as entrepreneurial or, at least, self-employed. All these emerging phenomena could be labeled under the umbrella of “Hybrid Entrepreneurship”.

In this special issue, we would like to invite contributions that could help our community to a better understanding of these phenomena and to enlighten their implications for entrepreneurs, support organizations and policy makers. Any research, interview, data analysis, opinion, cases that could contribute to achieve this are welcome. To pilot this special issue with the editorial board we invited as a guest editor, Marcus Drescher. He is the European coordinator of the Amway Global Entrepreneurship Report (AGER). This international study measures the public pulse of self-employment around the world[1] and is providing policy recommendations in many countries to favor self-employment.

While Entreprendre & Innover is a review that is usually published in French, this special issue will be published in English in order to address an international audience.

Editorial line

« Entreprendre & innover » is a high level outreach review in the entrepreneurship and the innovation field, edited by an International Publisher. Its aim is to publish strong scientific and innovative articles to corporate executives, entrepreneurs and business leaders, without the artifacts of academic publications.

The review addresses all fields of studies and all the different points of view that are related to entrepreneurship and innovation. As this review targets practitioners, we are very cautious that contributions have practical implications and include some recommendations being for entrepreneurs, supports organizations, managers or policy markers.

As a consequence, contributions are expected to:

  • Have a section referring to these concerns: The reader should always tell himself after the reading: « Then what? » “How does this article helps me through acting or thinking better about my future actions?”
  • Use a concrete and operational language than the one used in Academic reviews. Theory should not be absent, but rather popularized. Which means to be translated into simple terms. Abstract concepts must be explicit, explained and/or illustrated with practical examples.
  • Not to accumulate scientific references. The purpose is to choose some useful key opinion authors to better understand the topic, and not to show the completeness of the Academic literature. The scientific references must be exclusively mentioned in footnotes.

Each edition offers a very specific theme, which is used as a guideline for the reader. However, “ out of context” contributions remain welcomed for the review.

We are looking for contributions for a special edition to be published in March 2018.

Schedule:

Intention of communication (to give and confirm interest, summary of the topic within a few lines and the kind of contribution)End of June 2017
Submission of the textsAt the latest the 1st of October 2017.
Final selections of contributionsJanuary 2018
ReleaseMarch 2018

You can communicate your propositions/suggestions via e-mailing

– Marcus Drescher (Marcus.Drescher.AGER@Amway.com)

– Alain Fayolle (fayolle@em-lyon.com)

– Bernard Surlemont (b.surlemont@ulg.ac.be).

Kind of contributions

The contributions will be from different kind and are complementary.

  1. Research articles with a sharp managerial/entrepreneurial slant.
  2. Articles presenting studies results or key figures.
  3. Articles representing international benchmarks. The purpose is take advantage of the international nature of the redaction Committee to show and offer different experiences from different countries about a given topic.
  4. The summary of a recent publication for purpose of a reader’s digest.
  5. Substantive articles or analyses based on the experience or the authors.
  6. Iconoclasts or provocative articles that generate a debate with different points of views.
  7. Interviews
  8. Case studies
  9. Articles translated « in extenso » or summed up from the master copy articles published in some international professional reviews.

The authors are specifically asked to conclude their articles with a minimum 15-line section to present the practical implications (Entrepreneurial or policy) of their contribution and/or a concluding comment expressing a personal opinion from the author about the discussed topic.

Directives for authors

1° Articles format

Typeface

ARIAL – or equal

Size 12 preferred

Double interlining

Numbered pages (Function « insertion/pages numbers »)

2° Presentation

Articles Title

Always suggest at least one, even if it might be modified because for the purpose of balancing the table of contents. The title should not exceed six words.

Authors

To type after the title: names and surnames, duties, establishment or attachment organism, address, email and phone numbers.

Biography

A few lines about your background and your articles will help the editorial team to write a short biography.

Notes

Use the « Insertion/note » from Word. Notes and references, in « Entreprendre & Innover » are shown in the bottom of the pages, and not as a standard bibliography at the end.

Be careful to the length of notes: the review is designed for practitioners. It is not an academic review, be concise!

Diagrams, tables, graphs

Diagrams, tables, graphs are welcomed.

The PowerPoints will be send separately, together with the text.

Boxed texts

They enable to reduce the text and highlight some key elements. The boxed texts could be examples, good practices, testimonials, …

The boxed texts should not exceed 2,000 to 2,500 characters. They might be three or four by article.

Headings

The review editorial board is responsible for the “Headings” (subtitles, main points, …)

Nevertheless, you are more than welcome to suggest some.

3° Calibration

The respect of is essential to be edited. Calibration is calculated “including spaces” and covers all texts, boxed texts included.

Size of contribution should not exceed:

Editorial: 2 700 characters                        Articles: Between 18 000 and 28 000 characters

Interviews:12000 characters                      Books reviews: 12000 characters 

4° Style and visibility rules

Notes

The typographic code is the following Domenach (Jean-Luc) and Richer (Philippe), China, Paris, Le Seuil, 2008, p. 175-183.

Plan article announcements

Avoid introducing your text in this way: “In the first part of this article we will speak of this and secondly, we will explain that” …

In that vein, it is unnecessary to write “Introduction” and “Conclusion”. If the reasoning is limpid, the reader doesn’t need to be taken by the hand.

Headlines levels

Avoid paragraphs numbering like:

1.1.1a

1.1.1.b

However, it is strongly recommended to use styles to highlight the reading levels.

For example: Title (body of the text: 16 bold, centred)

Inter (body of the text 14, bold)

Inter 2 (body of the text 12, underline, indent)

  • Bullet point

Normally, three reading levels are enough/

Style of the review

Being designed for professionals, the review is intended to be simple, direct and concrete. That must be apparent with the style of the writing. Avoid repetitions of subordinates (“we use to think that… “we have found that…”), avoid spells and convoluted words too (especially when they do not figure in the dictionary).

5° Rereading and Rewriting

The submitted articles are valued by at least one member of the editorial board. They must fit with a readership composed of practitioners and are supposed to respect some editorial rules (layout, police, etc.). For those reasons, articles are likely to be rewrite, modified or shortened. These potential modifications are strictly form changes. The articles content will never be changed without prior consent of the authors.

[1] http://globalnews.amway.com/amway-global-entrepreneurship-report

 

Call For Paper: A special issue on entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial learning

ISBE 2017 in association with Industry and Higher Education

A special issue on entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial learning Guest Editors: Laura Galloway, David Higgins and Pauric McGowan

The international journal Industry and Higher Education, in association with the ISBE, will be publishing a special issue in 2018. Submissions are invited. The invitation is open to all ISBE 2017 participants, but other submissions will also be welcome.

Reflecting both the journal’s position at the interface between scholarship and practice and the conference’s concern with effective entrepreneurship education and development, the special issue will be concerned with the application and effectiveness of entrepreneurship education. The ISBE Conference Tracks ‘Enterprise education’ and ‘Entrepreneurial practitioner learning’ will therefore be especially relevant.

Papers should focus on the relationship between business/industry and universities (as, for example, in the evaluation of entrepreneurship education programmes, the practical application of entrepreneurship theory, or enterprise development through education). They should be between 4,000 and 8,000 words long and based on original research. An abstract of 150-200 words and 3 to 6 keywords should be included.

For further information about Industry and Higher Education, please click here.

Submitting your paper: In the first instance, please submit your paper by email to lg1 @ ebs.hw.ac.uk (Laura Galloway); dhiggins @ liv.ac.uk (David Higgins); and p.mcgowan @ ulster.ac.uk (Pauric McGowan). In the subject box of your email, please state: ‘Submission to IHE special issue’.

Submission deadline: Please submit your paper no later than 8 December 2017

Entrepreneurship education and Entrepreneurial Learning

Deadline June 30, 2017 2nd Developmental Workshop on Entrepreneurial Teams and Collective Entrepreneurship Research

2nd Developmental Workshop on Entrepreneurial Teams and

Collective Entrepreneurship Research

Call for Papers

IÉSEG School of Management, 18-19 September, 2017, Paris, France

Official website : http://www.ieseg.fr/en/faculty-and-research/ieseg-research/entrepreneurial-teams-workshop-2017/

While it has been 40 years since Jeffry A. Timmons wrote about entrepreneurial teams and wondered whether they were ‘an American dream or nightmare?’ (Timmons, 1975), research into this topic remains relatively recent. Indeed, it was the late 1980s-early 1990s before Reich (1987) urged us to “celebrate collective entrepreneurship” and Kamm and her colleagues published their seminal research agenda on entrepreneurial teams (Kamm et al. 1990). However, research relating to entrepreneurial teams is now picking up momentum, with journal special issues (International Small Business Journal, June 2005; Management Research News, 2009; Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, January 2013), literature reviews and conference tracks on the topic increasingly visible.

This pattern is consistent with the history of entrepreneurship research that has been long marked by the reification of the phenomenon in a deus ex machina entrepreneur or lone hero. However, the collective reality of entrepreneurship and, more specifically the importance of team entrepreneurship, could not be overlooked much longer. It has become increasingly difficult to keep neglecting the quantitative and qualitative importance of entrepreneurial teams as most new ventures are now team based (at least one-half and up to 79.1 per cent in a recent survey of European start-ups) (Aldrich et al. 2004; Kollmann et al. 2016; Lechler 2001; Ruef 2010; Watson et al. 1995), and some research has shown that they tend to register superior performance (e.g., growth) to their solo counterparts (Birley and Stockley 2000; OECD 2003).

What are the movements that are occurring in developing an understanding of entrepreneurial teams? In seeking to capture the signals of the current evolutions of entrepreneurial teams research, Ben-Hafaïedh (2017) identified three main trends. First, formation is key. By recognizing the specificities of entrepreneurial teams with regard to other organizational teams (e.g., the unique nature of the new venture context (Klotz et al. 2014), the fact that entrepreneurial teams are naturally occurring rather than constructed or imposed by others (Ruef 2010)), researchers are starting to begin to understand the criticality and uniqueness to entrepreneurial teams of the formation stage and the need to explore it.

  • Why and how do entrepreneurial teams form?
  • How do the two main currently identified approaches, resource-based and interpersonal, shed light on the process of entrepreneurial team formation? With which contingencies? And for what performance?
  • How do business opportunities (identification, refinement, etc.) and entrepreneurial team formation process interact? And how does this relationship relate to performance issues?
  • How is the work organized during the formation stage and with what effects on team outcomes?
  • How do possible formal functional roles interact with the more informal ones (e.g., Belbin team roles)?
  • How are rewards discussed and with what effects?

The second key lesson that is being learned in entrepreneurial teams research is that resources need to be leveraged. Entrepreneurial team composition and its relationship with performance have been, following the upper echelons research stream, investigated quite frequently. The main research question that has been explored has related to the benefits of diversity, with the results being mostly inconclusive (Zhou and Rosini 2015). Nevertheless, an overall effect of entrepreneurial team composition on new venture performance is found (Jin et al. 2016) and team composition is important to investors (professional or not, Franke et al. 2008; Vogel et al. 2014). Thus, without dismissing entrepreneurial team composition as a key factor for team and new venture performance, researchers are more attentive to the conceptualization and measurement of diversity (e.g., deeper-level diversity, and not just averaging individual characteristics). In alignment with the IMOI model (inputs-mediators-outputs-inputs), mediators are more and more considered and, in particular, process variables are distinguished from emergent states (de Mol et al. 2015; Klotz et al. 2014; Marks et al. 2001).

  • How can we better investigate entrepreneurial team composition effects? (e.g., personality, affective inputs, measurement)
  • What is the role of processes and emergent states? And how can we capture the emergent team properties?
  • How does learning impact the process of leveraging entrepreneurial team resources?
  • How does the composition evolve over time? And with what relation with team processes and emergent states? With what impact on the outcomes?

Finally, the importance of context is more and more acknowledged. The context can be seen from the perspective Welter (2011) develops in her research agenda on contextualizing entrepreneurship research, that is business (industry, market), social (networks, household and family), spatial (geographical environments, industry districts and clusters) and institutional (culture and society, political and economic system). The temporal dimension is an important context element as well, with the different development stages of an entrepreneurial team as well as temporal topics such as learning and turnover. This dimension also restates the importance of longitudinal studies in order to observe a team’s evolution over time. Furthermore, context can also be embedded so as to typify the entrepreneurial team. This is notably the case for family entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurship, academic entrepreneurship, women entrepreneurship, business groups, franchises, and so on.

  • The relevance in entrepreneurial teams research of not considering traditional context variables as simple controls. Why? And how?
  • The investigation of the temporal dimension in entrepreneurial teams research. What? And How?
  • The different types of entrepreneurial teams (social entrepreneurial teams, family entrepreneurial teams, etc.).

These trends offer non-limitative examples of the questions that would be interesting to address in this workshop.

Aims

The purpose of this workshop is twofold. First, it aims at creating an international community of researchers interested in the topics of entrepreneurial teams and collective entrepreneurship more generally. Second, it has a developmental objective, i.e. papers will be thoroughly reviewed and discussed by the peers in order to advance them on the path of publication. We thus welcome original research but also papers that have been presented before (or are scheduled to be) but that have not been submitted to an academic journal yet. For these reasons, this workshop will be limited to a small number of people in order to create the best conditions for constructive interaction. Each participant will be asked to review the work of two others. Participants who are not presenting may be allowed to register depending on space availability.

Deadlines and Submission Guidelines

Abstract deadline: June 30, 2017 [Notification of acceptance will be given shortly after this date]

The submission should contain, in a single document, a cover page and an abstract/body of the proposal. The cover page must include the title of the proposal, authors’ names, affiliations, address, telephone, and e-mail. The body of the proposal should contain an abstract of maximum 2 pages (cover page not included), single-spaced, times new roman 12. The abstract should clearly highlight the following issues: objectives, literature review, theories used, approach/method, results/findings, and contribution of the research. To be sent by e-mail to: c.benhafaiedh @ ieseg.fr and chabaud.iae @ univ-paris1.fr.

Full papers will be required by August 15, 2017.

Publishing Opportunities

A selection of the presented papers will be invited to submit a revised version for consideration to an upcoming special issue of an international academic journal. Other publishing opportunities are currently under consideration.

Venue and Dates

The workshop will be hosted by IESEG School of Management, Paris campus, France on the 18 and 19 of September 2017.

Co-chairs

Cyrine BEN-HAFAÏEDH, IÉSEG School of Management

Didier CHABAUD, IAE de Paris, Sorbonne Graduate School of Management

 Keynote speaker

Frédéric DELMAR is the associate vice dean of the School of Economics and Management at Lund University. He is also a professor in entrepreneurship at the Sten K. Johnson Centre for Entrepreneurship, at the same university.

Previous to his current appointment, he has hold positions at EMLYON Business School, France; Stockholm School of Economics and Stockholm University, Sweden.

He is recognized as an internationally leading scholar in entrepreneurship research. His main research interest lies in the early development of new ventures as well as new venture growth. His current interest is in new venture team dynamics. He has been researching entrepreneurship for twenty years and worked as an expert for the OECD and EU. He has also been active in several start-ups.

His work has been published in a number of journals like Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Journal of Business Venturing, Journal of Management, Management Science, Strategic Management Journal, and books. He is associate editor for Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, and former senior editor for Organization Studies. He is the member of the editorial board of Journal of Business Venturing, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice and Strategic Organization

Institutional Partners

The European Council for Small Business and Entrepreneurship (ECSB) is a non-profit organization whose main objective is to advance the understanding of entrepreneurship and to improve the competitiveness of SMEs in Europe. ECSB facilitates the creation and distribution of new knowledge through research, education and the open exchange of ideas between professions and across national and cultural boarders. The ECSB is an affiliation to the ICSB (International Council for Small Business).

More at: www.ecsb.org

Académie de l’Entrepreneuriat et de l’Innovation (AEI) is a non-profit organization whose main objective is to promote the development and the understanding of entrepreneurship in France. AEI is both involved in the development of research, of education, and of connections with French institutions and practitioners. AEI is member of the FNEGE (Fondation Nationale pour l’Enseignement de la Gestion des Entreprises, French Foundation for Management Education).

More at: http://www.entrepreneuriat.com/

Established in 1964, IÉSEG School of Management is one of the top business schools in France, with its Master in Management 17th in the 2016 Financial Times ranking. As a French Grande École and member of the Conférence des Grandes Écoles, IÉSEG is one of the most prestigious higher education institutions in the country. It has also been awarded the triple crown of international accreditations: AACSB, AMBA, and EQUIS.

The School currently has 4 800 students at it two campuses; the historic campus in Lille and at Paris at La Défense, Europe’s biggest business hub. Bachelor, Master of Science and Post-graduate Programs at IÉSEG are taught in English. IÉSEG collaborates closely with the largest institute of research in Europe, the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS). 84% of IÉSEG’s permanent faculty is international, and the school has a network of more than 260 partner universities in 66 countries

More at: http://www.ieseg.fr/en/

Established in 1956, Sorbonne Graduate Business School (IAE de Paris) is a non-profit organization associated with the public university Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne. SBS stands out for its focus on Executive Education – 80% of our students are business professionals seeking to gain an in-depth knowledge of management theory or to update their skills with the latest tools & techniques by studying part-time. SBS welcomes annually 2 200 students, including 850 international students. Programs are taught in Paris and thirteen other countries, thanks to the close network of partnerships we have developed with foreign universities.

More at: http://www.iae-paris.com/en

Fees

230 euros, including workshop material, two lunches and coffee breaks, one dinner (excluding any other expenses).

200 euros for ECSB members (this being an ECSB country event), as well as AEI members, and PhD students.

Practicalities

Forthcoming

 Contact: For any question, please e-mail Cyrine Ben-Hafaïedh, IÉSEG School of Management. c.benhafaiedh@ieseg.fr

Selected references

Ben-Hafaïedh, C. (2017). Entrepreneurial Teams Research in Movement. In C. Ben-Hafaïedh, & T. M. Cooney (Eds.), Research Handbook on Entrepreneurial Teams: Theory and Practice. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Cooney, T. M. (2005). Editorial: What is an Entrepreneurial Team? International Small Business Journal, 23(3), 226-235, doi:10.1177/0266242605052131.

de Mol, E., Khapova, S. N., & Elfring, T. (2015). Entrepreneurial Team Cognition: A Review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17(2), 232-255, doi:10.1111/ijmr.12055.

Jin, L., Madison, K., Kraiczy, N. D., Kellermanns, F. W., Crook, T. R., & Xi, J. (2016). Entrepreneurial Team Composition Characteristics and New Venture Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, n/a-n/a, doi:10.1111/etap.12232.

Kamm, J. B., Shuman, J. C., Seeger, J. A., & Nurick, A. J. (1990). Entrepreneurial teams in new venture creation: A research agenda. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 14(4), 7-17.

Klotz, A. C., Hmieleski, K. M., Bradley, B. H., & Busenitz, L. W. (2014). New venture teams: A review of the literature and roadmap for future research. Journal of Management, 40(1), 226-255, doi:10.1177/0149206313493325.

Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356-376.

Ruef, M. (2010). The Entrepreneurial Group: Social Identities, Relations, and Collective Action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Schjoedt, L., & Kraus, S. (2009). Entrepreneurial teams: definition and performance factors. Management Research News, 32(6), 513-524.

Schjoedt, L., Monsen, E., Pearson, A., Barnett, T., & Chrisman, J. J. (2013). New venture and family business teams: Understanding team formation, composition, behaviors, and performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(1), 1-15, doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2012.00549.x.

CfP-Entrepreneurial-Teams-Workshop-Sept2017-Paris_v1

Call For Paper Small Business Economics – Sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems

CALL FOR PAPERS

Special Issue of Small Business Economics: An Entrepreneurship Journal 

Sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems: How do contextual factors support and constrain sustainable entrepreneurial activities in a regional ecosystem?

Guest Editors

Christine Volkmann, University of Wuppertal, Germany
David B. Audretsch, Indiana University Bloomington, USA (Editor-in-Chief)

Klaus Fichter, University of Oldenburg, Germany,

Magnus Klofsten, Linköping University, Sweden

 

Overview

For decades, economic development and environmental protection have been viewed as a zero-sum game of social wealth (Cohen & Winn, 2007). In difference to this view, it has been realized for some time that entrepreneurship can contribute to social welfare as well as to an “ecologically sustainable economy” (Dean & McMullen, 2007, p. 69). In this sense, sustainable entrepreneurship has gained prominence as entrepreneurs increasingly place sustainability next to profitability at the core of their business models. Within the entrepreneurship literature sustainable entrepreneurship represents an emerging research stream (Binder & Belz, 2015). Sustainable entrepreneurship can be defined as “the discovery, creation and exploitation of opportunities to create future goods and services that sustain the natural and/or communal environment and provide development gain for others” (Patzelt and Shepherd, 2011, p. 632). These sustainable entrepreneurial activities are generally consistent with sustainable development goals (Pacheco, Dean & Payne, 2010) and are in turn relevant for tackling fundamental societal challenges such as climate change, the provision of potable water for a growing world population and the development of sustainable production and consumption patterns (United Nations General Assembly, 2015). Nevertheless, the field of sustainable entrepreneurship research is still in its infancy.

Past research has stressed that support from the entrepreneurial ecosystem is essential for entrepreneurial activities overall and for sustainable entrepreneurship in particular (e.g. Bull and Willard, 1993; Cohen, 2006; Gibbs, 2006; Hanlon & Saunders, 2007; Jain & Ali, 2013). Despite the relevance of the external environment and its stakeholder support for sustainable entrepreneurship, a lack of research can be observed with regard to the contextual factors of entrepreneurship. Such contextual factors might refer to specific legal, institutional and regulatory frameworks (Acs, Autio & Szerb, 2014) as well as to historical, cultural and socio-economic factors (e.g. Welter, 2011). In light of this the question arises if there are any specific contextual factors which support or constrain sustainable entrepreneurship. Research on sustainable entrepreneurship suggests that the recognition and implementation of sustainable development opportunities is more complex for the entrepreneur than the recognition of non-sustainable opportunities (Patzelt & Shepherd, 2011). Against this backdrop, it can be assumed that entrepreneurs creating, recognizing and taking advantage of sustainable opportunities require specific relations and support for successful innovations and entrepreneurial activities within an ecosystem (Schaltegger & Wagner, 2011; Kanda, Hjelm & Bienkowska, 2014).

An entrepreneurial ecosystem can be defined as “a dynamic community of inter-dependent actors (entrepreneurs, suppliers, buyer, government, etc.) and system-level institutional, informational and socioeconomic contexts” (Audretsch & Belitski, 2016, p. 4). In this regard, different stakeholder as support actors and initiatives, such as accelerator programs, incubators, business plan competitions, start-up awards or public funding schemes, unfold synergies. Entrepreneurial ecosystems play an important role for the foundation and growth of enterprises (Isenberg, 2010) and determine the long-term prospects of regional development (Etzkowitz & Klofsten, 2005; Simatupang, Schwab & Lantu, 2015) and sustainable urban development (Wirtz & Volkmann, 2015). According to Cohen (2006, p.3) a sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem is “an interconnected group of actors in a local geographic community committed to sustainable development through the support and facilitation of new sustainable ventures”. Recent research suggests for example that the success of green start-ups depends on appropriate public and private support systems (Klofsten, Bank & Bienkowska, 2015). First empirical investigations reveal that specific support systems for sustainable entrepreneurship are still scarce in practice and can, today, be considered as niche phenomena (Fichter et al., 2016). Such specific support systems and stakeholders as support actors are integral parts of sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems.

Based on the current state of the literature further research is needed to explore the multi-dimensional facets of sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems. For example, little is known about how sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems have to be composed in order to create environmental, social and economic value in a community or region. Accordingly, a variety of interesting research questions can be derived: What are determinants and key success factors of regional sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems? What is the role of universities and higher education institutions in sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems? How can sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems be created and developed? How do stakeholders facilitate the formation of sustainable enterprises? How do public and private support systems have to be designed to assist green or social start-ups effectively? How does digitalization influence the development of sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems? What role does financing play for the creation of sustainable ecosystems?

Research topics

Papers from all areas of entrepreneurship and innovation with a link to sustainable entrepreneurship and/or entrepreneurial ecosystems are welcome. Moreover, we appreciate submissions from inter- and transdisciplinary fields that contribute to the domain of sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems. The list of topics includes (but is not limited to):

  • Creation and development of sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems
  • Factors impacting regional sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems
  • Differences between conventional and sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems
  • Regional differences in sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems
  • Sustainable Entrepreneurial ecosystems in developed and developing economies
  • Sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy
  • Measurement of sustainable entrepreneurial activity/performance
  • Entrepreneurship and UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDG’s)
  • Ecosystem roles in empowering women and minority entrepreneurs
  • Sustainable innovation and ecosystems
  • Business model innovation and sustainability
  • Digitalization and sustainable development
  • Sustainability, innovation networks and communities
  • Creative and cultural sustainable entrepreneurship
  • Sustainable entrepreneurship and innovation policy
  • Sustainable entrepreneurship education
  • Psychology and sustainable entrepreneurship
  • Sociology and sustainable entrepreneurship

Paper submission procedure

There are two ways to submit papers

  1. Submissions intended for the G-Forum 2017 presentation and the special issue

The G-Forum 2017, the oldest and largest entrepreneurship and innovation conference in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, is dedicated to the same theme as the Special Issue of SBEJ, which this call refers to. Full papers submitted and invited to the G-Forum 2017 – the 21th Annual Interdisciplinary Conference on Entrepreneurship and Innovation, October 5th – 6th, 2017, University of Wuppertal (Germany

(http://www.fgf-ev.de/en/g-forum-wuppertal-germany/) – can also be considered for the special issue if indicated to the conference organizers when submitting to submission-gforum2017@fgf-ev.de for the G-Forum. The deadline for submission of papers for the G-Forum 2017 conference is May 24th, 2017 (Call for Papers).

  1. Submissions intended only for the special issue

Submissions exclusively for the special issue should be submitted to sbej@wiwi.uni-wuppertal.de by September 30th, 2017. All submissions will be subject to the standard review process followed by Small Business Economics: An Entrepreneurship Journal. All manuscripts must be original, unpublished works that are not concurrently under review for publication elsewhere. All submissions should conform to the SBEJ manuscript submission guidelines available at: http://www.springer.com/new+%26+forthcoming+titles+%28default%29/journal/11187

 

The deadline for submission of papers to the special issue is September 30 th, 2017.

 

The publication of the special issue is expected by 2019.

 

 

References
Ács, Z. J., Autio, E., & Szerb, L. (2014).
National systems of entrepreneurship: Measurement issues and policy implications. Research Policy, 43(3), 476-494.
Audretsch, D.B., & Belitski, M. J. (2016).
Entrepreneurial ecosystems in cities: establishing the framework conditions. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 1-22.
Binder, J.K., & Belz, F.M. (2015).
Sustainable entrepreneurship: What it is., in: Kyrö, P. (Ed.), Handbook of Entrepreneurship and Sustainable Development Research. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, 30–75.
Bull, I., & Willard, G. E. (1993).
Towards a theory of entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(3), 183-195.
Cohen, B. (2006).
Sustainable valley entrepreneurial ecosystems. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(1), 1-14
Cohen, B., & Winn, M. (2007).
Market imperfections, opportunity and sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1), 29–49.
Dean, T. J., & McMullen, J. S. (2007).
Toward a theory of sustainable entrepreneurship:Reducing environmental degradation through entrepreneurial action. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1), 50-76.
Etzkowitz, H., & Klofsten, M. (2005).
The innovating region: toward a theory of knowledge-based regional development. R&D Management, 35(3), 243–255.
Fichter, K., Fuad-Luke, A., Hjelm, O., Klofsten, M., Backmann, M., Bergset, L., Bienkowska, D., Clausen, J., Geier, J., Hirscher, A.L., Kanda, W. & Kuisma, M. (2016).
SHIFTing the support of entrepreneurship in eco-innovation. Summary of results and recommendations from the Eco-Innovera project SHIFT. SHIFT Consortium, Berlin, Helsinki, Linköping.
Gibbs, D. (2006).
Sustainability entrepreneurs, ecopreneurs and the development of a sustainable economy, Greener Management International, ’55, 63-78.
Hanlon, D., & Saunders, C. (2007).
Marshaling resources to form small new ventures: Toward a more holistic understanding of entrepreneurial support. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(4), 19-641.
Isenberg, D. J. (2010).
How to start an entrepreneurial revolution? Harvard Business Review, 88(6), 40–50.
Jain, R., & Ali, S. W. (2013).
A review of facilitators, barriers and gateways to entrepreneurship: directions for future research. South Asian Journal of Management, 20(3), 122-163.
Kanda, W., Hjelm, O., & Bienkowska, D. (2014).
Boosting eco-innovation: The role of public support organizations. Presented at the XXV ISPIM Conference on Innovation for sustainable Economy and Society.
Klofsten, M., Bank, N., & Bienkowska, D. (2015).
The role of incubators in supporting sustainable entrepreneurship, summary of results and recommendations from the Eco-Innovera project SHIFT. Berlin, Helsinki, Linköping: SHIFT Consortium.
Pacheco, D.F., Dean, T.J. & Payne, D.S. (2010).
Escaping the green prison: entrepreneurship and the creation of opportunities for sustainable development. Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 464–480.
Patzelt, H., & Shepherd, D. A. (2011).
Recognizing opportunities for sustainable development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(4), 631-652.
Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2011).
Sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainability innovation: categories and interactions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(4), 222–237.
Simatupang, T. M., Schwab, A., & Lantu, D. C. (2015).
Building Sustainable Entrepreneurship Ecosystems. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 26(4), 389-398. United Nations General Assembly (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. United Nations.
Welter, F. (2011).
Contextualizing entrepreneurship—conceptual challenges and ways forward.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 165-184.
Wirtz, M. & Volkmann, C. (2015).
Social Entrepreneurial Ecosystems as a Means for Sustainable Urban Development. In: Condy, J. & Cooper, A. M. (Ed.): Dialogues of Sustainable Urbanisation.

Special issue call for papers from Journal of Organizational Change Management

Organizational Change In Open Innovation

Full Paper Submission Deadline: December 30, 2017

 Guest Editors:

Marta Peris-Ortiz, Universitat Politècnica de València, Spain (mperis@doe.upv.es)

Francisco Liñan , Universidad de Sevilla, Spain (flinan@us.es)

Julia Vincent-Ponroy, IPAG Lab, Ipag Business School, Paris, France (j.vincent@ipag.fr)

 Beginning with the pioneering work by Burns and Stalker (1961) up to the almost classic work by Teece, Pisano and Shuen (1997), researchers have tried to understand the logic of forms developed by different organization in order to re-combine their resources in face of innovation. They asked what happens when a company adopts a strategy of open innovation which allows it to go beyond their internal organizational capacities (Carroll and Helfert, 2015; Chesbrough, 2003)? What happens when this new combination of internal and external resources, expected to modify or enhance innovative projects requires changes in managing and organizing?

What organizational changes occur in innovative companies of different productive and service sectors, when they open up to innovation by cooperating with other companies or external professionals? This is a central issue – the central topic of the present call for papers. What changes should take place in the different hierarchical mechanisms or the coordination of the organization when an open innovation strategy emerges? In what way are cooperation and different organizational changes managed in different productive sectors and with the diverse forms of innovation?

Another phenomenon in which the company’s organization and open innovation manifest their elective affinities is the outsourcing of the R&D activities. Several companies outsource their R&D by means of spin-offs or other forms of cooperation. Based on the theory of transaction costs (Williamson, 1985, 2002), this outsourcing can be explained by difficulties in overall management of specific project work. High level of specificity linked to open innovation work makes it difficult to measure and control. The researchers who came up with the agency theory (Jensen and Meckling, 1992) claim that knowledge distributed in the organization among different agents reaches its highest levels of specificity and consequently hinders its measurement by managers who supervise jobs linked to innovation. Due to the reasons mentioned above, both theories explain the outsourcing of several innovation activities and the subsequent cooperation – but they fall short of explaining these organizational changes which are triggered by open innovation.

Finally, most researchers agree that specific cultural climates created by small or medium firms (SME) encourag the processes of internal cooperation and innovation, which encounter greater obstacles in larger and more bureaucratic companies. Smaller organizational nestles and hubs may give rise to unknown forms of open innovation and cooperation between small innovative companies and large corporations, and may pioneer required adjustments of an organizational nature. One of these adjustments (Williamson, 1985) is the creation of intermediate forms of governance between the innovator company and the company which is the customer of the innovation safeguarding the stability and continuity of the relation.

This call for papers is open to research projects which explore the relation between open innovation strategies and organizational changes required for the successful implementation of such strategy. Invited research reports may refer to issues indicated in the above paragraphs or address other related phenomena.

 Suggested topics:

  • New combination of internal and external resources needed to implement a strategy of open innovation
  • Organizational changes that occur in innovative companies of different productive sectors
  • Outsorcing of R&D activities by means of spin-offs or other forms of cooperation
  • The role of transaction cost theory or agency theory in explaining collaboration in open innovation
  • The effect of managing different types of work in open innovation
  • The cooperation between small innovative companies and large corporations as in open innovation
  • The creation of intermediate forms of governance between cooperating organizations
  • State of the art research on open innovation and critical literature review
  • A bibliometric study

The deadline for submissions to the special issue is December 30, 2017. Submissions to Journal of Organizational Change Management are made using ScholarOne Manuscripts, the online submission and peer review system. Registration and access is available at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jocm.

Organizational Change in Open Innovation

 References:

Burns, T. and Stalker, G. M. (1961): The management of innovation, London: Tavistock.

Carroll, N. and Helfert, M. (2015): Service capabilities within open innovation: Revisiting the applicability of capability maturity models, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 28, 2, 275-303.

Jensen, M. C. and Meckling, W. H. (1992): Specific and general knowledge and organizational structure. In Contract economics, edited by, L. Werin and H. Wijkander, Oxford UK: Blackwell Publishers.

Johnson, G., Melin, L. and Whittington, R. (2003): Micro strategy and strategizing: Towards an activity-based view. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1: 3-22.

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997): Dynamic capabilities and strategic management, Strategic Management Journal, 18, 7, 509-533.

Williamson, O. E. (1985): The economic institutions of capitalism. Firms, markets, relational contracting, New York: The Free Press.

Williamson, O. E. (2002): The theory of the firm as a governance structure: from choice to contract, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16, 3, 171-195.

Call for papers – ERD – Locality and internationalization of family firms

Call for Paper in Entrepreneurship and Regional Development Journal (ABS 3; IF 1.629).

Locality and internationalization of family firms

Guest editors: Massimo Baù, Joern H. Block, Allan Discua Cruz and Lucia Naldi

 Family firms are often torn between their local roots and their desire and need for growth and internationalization (Graves and Thomas 2008). This special issue seeks to understand, among different topics, how (whether) local growth and internationalization impacts both the family and the firm and to understand how (whether) family firms balance their identity and local character while venturing in the global marketplace. The challenge posed by this call of papers is obviously to bring diverse perspectives and encourage multidisciplinary approaches to (1) advance our understanding of the distinctive opportunities and challenges prompted by the duality between being deeply rooted in local communities, cultures, and networks while exploring new opportunities for expansion and entrepreneurship in the global marketplace; and to (2) help family owners and managers, as well as policy makers and professionals engaged with family firms to effectively manage the nexus between locality and internationalization to build competitive advantages and sustain firm growth and performance across generations. We invite authors to investigate the paradox faced by family firms of being deeply rooted to their origins, tradition and local communities, while, at the same time, exploiting inter- national opportunities in the global marketplace to stay competitive, along three avenues:

  1. Family  firms’ local roots and how they impact the local economy
  2. Family  firms’ local roots and how they influence firm strategy
  3. Family  firms and their development from local to global firms                                                                                                                                          

 Dates and deadlines

The Special Issue is scheduled to be published in early 2020. The following timetable/deadline dates are given for your information:

  1. (Submission of the full papers – by 30 October 2018.
  2. First feedback from reviewers – by February 2019.
  3. Submission of the revised papers – by May 2019.
  4. Second feedback from reviewers – by July 2019.
  5. Submission of the revised papers – by September 2019.
  6. Notifcation of acceptance – by November 2019.
  7. Publication of the special issue – January 2020.

Please find the full call for papers here: http://rsa.tandfonline.com/eprint/KEpZIsVpwMKsrQ9CvWes/full

Locality and internationalization of family firms

Feel free to contact the guest editors any question regarding this special issues.

Special issue call for papers from International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research

Innovations in Entrepreneurship Support: Alternatives, Opportunities and Future Agendas

Guest editors:
Oliver Mallett (Newcastle University) oliver.mallett@newcastle.ac.uk
Norin Arshed (Heriot-Watt University)
Robert Wapshott (University of Sheffield)

Aims and Scope
Entrepreneurship support for start-ups and growing businesses represents a booming industry in terms of public and private sector provision as innovative solutions are sought to unlock the potential of entrepreneurship to address a range of economic and social challenges. Seeking to contribute to ongoing debates about how to best achieve these aims, this special issue will bring together internationally-relevant empirical evidence and theoretical considerations on new and innovative forms of entrepreneurship support.
Policymakers across continents and contexts seek economic regeneration and vitality through entrepreneurship (Audretsch et al., 2007). A wide range of interventions have been made by governments, and associated agencies, to encourage and support enterprise, business start-up and growth (Bennett, 2014). Such interventions have sought to address challenges around social exclusion (Blackburn and Ram, 2006; Mallett and Wapshott, 2015; OECD/EC, 2015) in addition to economic under-performance within industries (Storey, 2003) and geographical areas (Greene et al, 2007; Huggins et al, 2015). Despite the significant scale of many such efforts (Richard, 2008), persistent concerns have questioned the ability of politicians and civil servants to intervene effectively in the support of entrepreneurs (Arshed et al., 2014; Bridge, 2010; Shane, 2009; Smallbone et al., 2002).
However, the significance of apparent shortcomings in effective entrepreneurship support from government must be assessed in relation to the wide range of non-governmental provision available in many markets (Gibb, 2000; Mallett, 2016). Everyday business information and advice can be accessed through membership organisations (Bennett, 1995), personal networks (Ceci and Iubatti, 2012), universities (Pugh et al, 2016; Smallbone et al, 2015) and professional business services such as accountants (Jarvis and Rigby, 2012; Marriott and Marriott, 2000). The scale of non-governmental provision in some contexts has led to the emergence of an ‘enterprise industry’ (Greene et al, 2007; Mallett, 2016) comprising advisers ready to offer guidance and support on how to start, grow and sustain successful businesses.
Among the volume of support, advice and guidance available, it can be difficult to identify instances where innovations in entrepreneurship support are proving effective and to which businesses. Such examples are likely to be rooted in a specific context and attuned to the needs of particular stakeholders (Dennis 2011a, 2011b) rather than a one-size-fits-all approach (Bennett, 2014; Zahra and Wright, 2011). This relates to the need to consider new ways of considering how to develop or facilitate these forms of support, for example through anchor institutions (Smallbone et al, 2015) or as entrepreneurial ecosystems (Spigel, 2015) and this raises important questions about the ease of transplanting innovations from one context for implementation in another. There is a vital role for robust academic assessment, evaluation and engagement to identify productive ways forward.
The special issue seeks to gather together insights into the supports for entrepreneurship located in a range of contexts. It invites submissions that consider international examples of innovations in entrepreneurship support with a view to establishing fresh ideas and insights that may be of wider application.

We invite empirical and theoretical articles that engage with any of the following (or related) areas of interest to better understanding entrepreneurship support:
–    Key actors and stakeholders in entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship support and entrepreneurial ecosystems
–    Examinations of the key resources, contexts, capabilities and activities for the innovative support of entrepreneurship
–    Supporting entrepreneurs facing exclusion, discrimination and other forms of disadvantage
–    Alternative forms of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship support, including but not limited to social entrepreneurship and collective entrepreneurship
–    International comparative studies
–    Effective evaluation of innovations in entrepreneurship support
–    Critical perspectives that question underlying assumptions in entrepreneurship support

For initial enquires and expressions of interest please contact:
Oliver Mallett oliver.mallett@newcastle.ac.uk

Timeline

1 April 2017: Call for Papers / 30 April 2018: Submission Deadline / 2019: Publication

To Submit

For author guidelines, please visit http://emeraldgrouppublishing.com/products/journals/author_guidelines.htm?id=ijebr. All submissions must be made via the ScholarOne submission portal:  http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijebr.

References
Arshed, N., Carter, S. and Mason, C. (2014). The ineffectiveness of entrepreneurship policy: is policy formulation to blame? Small Business Economics, 43(3), 639-659.
Audretsch, D.B., Grilo, I. and Thurik, A.R. (2007). Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurship Policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Bennett, R.J. (1995). The logic of local business associations: an analysis of voluntary chambers of commerce. Journal of Public Policy, 15(3), 251-279.
Bennett, R.J. (2014) Entrepreneurship, small business and public policy: Evolution and revolution. London: Routledge.
Blackburn, R. and Ram, M. (2006) Fix or fixation? The contributions and limitations of entrepreneurship and small firms to combating social exclusion, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 18: 73–89.
Bridge, S. (2010). Rethinking Enterprise Policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Ceci, F. and Iubatti, D. (2012). Personal relationships and innovation diffusion in SME networks: A content analysis approach. Research Policy, 41(3), 565-579.
Dennis Jr, W.J. (2011a). Entrepreneurship, small business and public policy levers. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 92-106.
Dennis Jr, W.J. (2011b). Entrepreneurship, small business and public policy levers. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(2), 149-162.
Gibb, A. (2000). SME policy, academic research and the growth of ignorance, mythical concepts, myths, assumptions, rituals and confusions. International Small Business Journal, 18(3), 13-35.
Greene, F.J., Mole, K.F. and Storey, D.J. (2007). Three decades of enterprise culture: Entrepreneurship, economic regeneration and public policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Huggins, R., Morgan, B. and Williams, N. (2015). Regional entrepreneurship and the evolution of public policy and governance: Evidence from three regions. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 22(3), 473-511.
Jarvis, R. and Rigby, M. (2012). The provision of human resources and employment advice to small and medium-sized enterprises: the role of small and medium-sized practices of accountants. International Small Business Journal, 30(8), 944-956.
Mallett, O. (2016). Business support as regulation: exploring the interactions of external influences on SMEs. 39th Institute for Small Business and Entrepreneurship Conference, Paris on 27-28 October, 2016.
Mallett, O. and Wapshott, R. (2015). Making sense of self-employment in late career: understanding the identity work of olderpreneurs. Work, Employment and Society, 29(2), 250-266.
Marriott, N. and Marriott, P. (2000). Professional accountants and the development of a management accounting service for the small firm: barriers and possibilities. Management Accounting Research, 11(4), 475-492.
OECD/EC (2015) The Missing Entrepreneurs 2015: Policies for Self-employment and Entrepreneurship, OECD Publishing, Paris (in Association with the European Commission) DOI:10.1787/9789264226418-en
Pugh, R., Hamilton, E., Jack, S. and Gibbons, A. (2016). A step into the unknown: universities and the governance of regional economic development. European Planning Studies, 24(7), 1357-1373.
Richard, D. (2008). Small Business and Government: The Richard Report. Available at: www.conservatives.com/pdf/document-richardreport-2008.pdf Accessed 27/09/2016
Shane, S. (2009) Why encouraging more people to become entrepreneurs is bad public policy. Small Business Economics, 33(2), 141-149.
Smallbone, D., Baldock, R. and Burgess, S. (2002). Targeted support for high-growth start-ups: some policy issues. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 20(2), 195-209.
Smallbone, D., Kitching, J., Blackburn, R. and Mosavi, S. (2015). Anchor institutions and small firms in the UK. UK Commission for Employment and Skills.  https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/414390/Anchor_institutions_and_small_firms.pdf [Accessed 23/02/2017]
Storey, D.J. (2003). Entrepreneurship, small and medium sized enterprises and public policies. In Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research, Acs, Z.J. and Audretsch, D.B (Eds). New York: Springer, pp. 473-511.
Spigel, B. (2015). The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. EarlyView
Zahra, S.A. and Wright, M. (2011). Entrepreneurship’s next act. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(4), 67-83.

Oliver Mallett, Newcastle University
Oliver is currently conducting research into the interactions between different forms of small business support. His broader research interests relate to employment relationships in SMEs and enterprise policy. He has previously published research on the challenges faced by discriminated against and excluded entrepreneurs.
Norin Arshed, Heriot-Watt University
Norin’s research focuses on enterprise policy, entrepreneurship, SMEs and policy-making. Institutional theory is the theoretical lens used to frame her work both at the macro and micro-levels. She is involved with a number of stakeholders in undertaking her research: UK government departments, numerous prominent think thanks in London; Rio de Janeiro University, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (Japan); Industry Canada and many others.
Robert Wapshott, University of Sheffield
Robert’s research interests centre on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and entrepreneurs. His research interest in SMEs focuses employment relationships and practices. He is also engaged in the area of entrepreneurship education through funded projects including STARTIFY7 and OpenMind.

80 ans de Gestion 2000

A l’occasion de son 80ème anniversaire, la revue Gestion 2000 lance un appel à contributions pour un numéro spécial sur le thème Innovation en Gestion, lequel intègre l’innovation au sein de la gestion des entreprises au travers notamment des innovations produit, des évolutions des pratiques de management, mais aussi les transformations des organisations.

Née des Annales des Sciences économiques appliquées qui ont vu le jour en 1936, la revue s’appelle Gestion 2000 depuis 1985. Forum de rencontres entre le monde universitaire et celui des entreprises, la Revue Gestion 2000 publie des articles originaux de recherche en gestion où les implications managériales sont centrales.
Etant donné le caractère généraliste de la revue, ce numéro double sur l’Innovation en Gestion, laquelle est la source de la performance des firmes, concerne donc tous les domaines de la gestion, dont le marketing, la stratégie, la comptabilité, la finance, l’entrepreneuriat, les ressources humaines, le management, les systèmes d’information, etc.

Editeurs invités
Didier Chabaud, Professeur à l’IAE de Paris, GREGOR, Université Paris 1.
Frank Janssen, Professeur, Louvain School of Management, Université Catholique de Louvain.
Pascal Corbel, Professeur, Vice-président de l’Université Paris-Sud, RITM.

Dates importantes
1er Mai, 2017: Date limite de soumission des articles.
Publication dans un numéro double prévu pour Décembre 2017.

Soumission
Les auteurs sont invités à soumettre leur article en Français ou Anglais (au format word ou pdf files) par e-mail à : jmsahut@gmail.com, rédacteur en chef La mise en page doit suivre les normes de la revue : http://gestion2000.ichec.be/publier/soumettre_un_article.html

Call for papers – Small Business Economics

“The age of digital entrepreneurship: digital tools and online
collaboration to support knowledge sharing and opportunity
recognition”.

Les auteurs potentiels sont encouragés à présenter leur communication
lors de la 8ème International Research Meeting in Business and
Management (IRMBAM-2017) qui aura lieu les 5 et 6 juillet 2017 à Nice.
La date limite de soumission est le 2 Avril 2017.
https://ipag-irm.sciencesconf.org

Journée entreprendre dans la culture

      

3ème FORUM ENTREPRENDRE DANS LA CULTURE – 22-24 Mai 2017 – PARIS

Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication

Journée de recherche 23 mai 2017

Dans le cadre du numéro spécial de la Revue de l’Entrepreneuriat

« Entrepreneuriat créatif et culturel : réalités et enjeux »

Inscription gratuite

Programme et appel à contribution

N°RE Spécial Entrepreneuriat et parentalité

“La parentalité en entrepreneuriat : une dimension oubliée ?”

Call for papers Revue de l’Entrepreneuriat

Special Issue “Entrepreneurship and parenthood”

“Parenthood: A forgotten dimension in entrepreneurship?”

 

Rédactrices invitées :  Aude d’ANDRIA, Université d’Evry Val d’Essonne, Marine BOURGAIN, ESC Management School Clermont-Ferrand, Inès GABARRET, EDC Paris Business School, Luca GNAN, Université de Rome “Tor Vergata”, Séverine LE LOARNE – LEMAIRE, Grenoble Ecole de Management

Click here :    version française         version anglaise

Call for paper Revue de l’Entrepreneuriat (1/7/2016)

Appel à contributions : numéro spécial  “Entrepreneuriat et parentalité”

“La parentalité en entrepreneuriat : une dimension oubliée ?”

 

Call for papers Revue de l’Entrepreneuriat

Special Issue “Entrepreneurship and parenthood”

“Parenthood: A forgotten dimension in entrepreneurship?”

 

Rédactrices invitées :  Aude d’ANDRIA, Université d’Evry Val d’Essonne, Marine BOURGAIN, ESC Management School Clermont-Ferrand, Inès GABARRET, EDC Paris Business School, Luca GNAN, Université de Rome “Tor Vergata”, Séverine LE LOARNE – LEMAIRE, Grenoble Ecole de Management

CALL_RE_parenthood_english_V_DEF

CALL_RE_parentalite___franc__ais_V_DEF_oct_2016 (1)

Call for paper (échéance 30 avril 2017)

Special Edition call for papers: Emerging themes in Entrepreneurial Behaviours, Identities and Contexts

Guest Editors : Professor Paul Jones (Coventry University, UK), Dr Rita Klapper (Abertay University, UK and Leuphana University, Germany),  Associate Professor Vanessa Ratten (La Trobe University, Australia), Professor Alain Fayolle (EM Lyon Business School, France)

IJEI_Entrepreneurial_Behaviours_CFP

Call for papers

Call for Paper

Entrepreneurship & Regional Development

The Institutionalization of entrepreneurship

Questioning the status quo and Re-gaining hope for entrepreneurship research

Issue Editors: Alain Fayolle, Philippe Riot, Hans Landström, Karin Berglund and William B. Gartner

The editors intend to bring with this Special Issue a significant value to entrepreneurship researchers, policy-makers and practitioners. Full papers should be submitted by Email Word attachment to Alain Fayolle ( fayolle @ em-lyon.com) or one of the other Guest Editors of the special issue. First page must contain the title, author(s) and contact information for the corresponding author.

Download the ERD_Call_for_Paper

Workshop and Special Issue

Workshop and Special Issue on International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business (IJESB)

AEI et ECSB

Research Lab at ESG Management School, University Parthenope of Naples, Grenoble Ecole de Management, & Institute For Entrepreneurship & SME at HEG de Fribourg & Centre de Recherche en Entrepreneuriat at EM Lyon

2nd Research Day in “Social Entrepreneurship »

Aix-Marseille, Friday 23 mai2014

« An alternative way for innovation:
Re-Questioning the tradition within the Social Economy and social entrepreneurship »

 

Articles should be submitted to the organizers of the conference: amaalaoui @ esg.fr

 

Download the workshop_and_CFP_Aix-Marseille_2th_social_entrepreneurship

Appel à communications

Appel à contributions Entreprendre et Innover n°21

L’accompagnement: Quels enjeux aujourd’hui?

Date limite de soumission: 29 novembre 2013

Rédacteurs invités :

Fabienne Bornard (INSEEC Alpes-Savoie),

Didier Chabaud (Université d’Avignon),

Etienne St-Jean (Université du Québec à Trois Rivières),

Caroline Verzat (Novancia)

 De nombreux thèmes sont possibles, parmi lesquels ceux relatifs :

– au(x) métier(s) de l’accompagnement : quelles compétences, et incitations pour les accompagnateurs ? Quels outils de gestion utiliser ? Quelles méthodes développer qui tiennent mieux compte des processus de décision et d’action propres aux entrepreneurs (bricolage, effectuation, apprentissage expérientiel, etc.) ? Quelles formations et/ou dispositifs de supervision proposer aux accompagnateurs pour progresser ?

– aux formes et structures d’accompagnement : quelles performances dans l’accompagnement ? Quelle diversité de pratiques ? Quels modèles d’affaires ?

– aux politiques publiques, à la gouvernance et d’éco-système de l’accompagnement : quelle articulation entre politique locale et nationale, mais aussi quelle coordination dans l’intervention des divers acteurs de l’accompagnement ? Quelles politiques publiques ? Quelles leçons tirer des expériences internationales ?

– à l’information et à la communication avec les créateurs, repreneurs ou intrapreneurs, afin de permettre à chacun d’accéder à des formes d’accompagnement et à des structures idoines en fonction de la variété de leurs besoins, et de vaincre les réticences.

Conformément à l’esprit de la revue, le dossier se veut un espace de débat et de dialogue entre chercheurs et praticiens. Les contributions attendues devront présenter dans un style clair et lisible des analyses stimulantes et des points de vue originaux, solidement étayés, susceptibles d’être utiles à toutes les parties prenantes. Il est impératif de conclure par des implications pratiques.

Téléchargez Appel_a_com_Dossier_Accompagnement_n21_EI

2nd Research Day in “Social Entrepreneurship”

2nd Research Day in “Social Entrepreneurship”

Fribourg, January30th and 31th 2014

Workshop and Special Issue on International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business (IJESB)

« An alternative way for innovation:
Re-Questioning the tradition within the Social Economy and social entrepreneurship »

Research Lab at ESG Management School, University Parthenope of Naples, Grenoble Ecole de Management, & Institute For Entrepreneurship & SME at HEG de Fribourg & Centre de Recherche en Entrepreneuriat at EM Lyon

We mostly welcome papers that could answer these two generic questions by proposing any contribution on the following topics:

– New Organization form for creating and running a business in social economy;

– Social Innovation;

– Link between innovation and tradition in the Social Economy and Social Entrepreneurship;

– Innovative Business Models in the Social Economy;

– Professionalization of the Social Economy and Social Entrepreneurship.

 

We also welcome other articles with topics directly linked to Social Entrepreneurship and the Social Economy:

– Nascent Entrepreneurship and motivation for creating a business within the Social Economy;

– Institutions within the Social Economy;

– Profiles of the Social Entrepreneur;

– Business Models within the Third Sector and Social Entrepreneurship;

– Education in and for Social Entrepreneurship and the Third Sector;

– Coaching and financing social Entrepreneurship;

– Business Opportunity in the Social Economy and Social Entrepreneurship.

 

Articles should be submitted to the organizers of the conference: amaalaoui  @ esg.fr

 

social_entre_IJESB (1)

 

Call for papers

IJESB – Call for paper

International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business

« Reshaping research on Innovation and gender issues:
Is innovation gendered ?»

 

Séverine LE LOARNE – LEMAIRE, Grenoble Ecole de Management, France

Severine.le-loarne @ grenoble-em.com

Luca GNAN, Université de Rome, Italy

luca.gnan @ uniroma2.it

 

Téléchargez Inno_gender_IJESB_call-may2013__2_

APPEL A CONTRIBUTIONS

ENTREPRENDRE ET INNOVER

Appel à contributions – n° 20  – Dossier spécial

Entreprendre dans la diversité

 

L’entrepreneuriat peut être conçu comme un ensemble de  processus créateurs de valeur aussi bien économique que sociale. Les acteurs au cœur de  cette dynamique vivent des parcours singuliers, et disposent de profils ambivalents et multiples. Ils ont des caractéristiques qui leur sont propres et évoluent dans des environnements composites.  La richesse de leur personnalité et la nature des écosystèmes dans lesquels ils évoluent en font des entrepreneurs atypiques et porteurs de sens. L’émergence d’acteurs qui entreprennent dans la diversité et souvent la difficulté ne fait plus aucun doute et leur place dans le paysage entrepreneurial apparaît de plus en plus marquée. Qu’il s’agisse des  femmes (Scott, 1986 ;  Hisrich et Brush, 1987 ; Birley et Moss, 1987 ; Hisrich, et Brush, 2009), des immigrés (Levy, 2004), des étudiants (Gasse, 2003 ; Emin, 2004 ; Fayolle, 2004, 2009 ; Tounès, 2006 ; Boissin, 2008, 2009), des seniors (Kautonen et al. 2010, 2011 ; Maâlaoui, et al. 2013), des personnes handicapées (Maâlaoui, 2013) ou des demandeurs d’emploi (Nakara et Fayolle, 2012), nul ne peut ignorer l’importance économique et sociale de ces entrepreneurs de la diversité.

Entreprendre & Innover, revue trimestrielle, va publier dans son numéro 20 au quatrième trimestre 2013 un dossier spécial sur l’entrepreneuriat de diversité et lance à cet effet un appel à contribution sur cette thématique. L’ambition de ce numéro est de faire le point des recherches et réflexions sur ces types d’entrepreneuriat développés par des individus appartenant à des groupes soit sous-représentés (comme les femmes, qui ne représentent que 30% de l’entrepreneuriat en France), soit défavorisés (comme les chômeurs, les seniors, les personnes handicapées, les minorités ethniques, les personnes vivant dans la précarité et/ou la pauvreté…).

Les propositions doivent parvenir par voie électronique avant le 30 août2013 aux éditeurs invités :

–          fayolle @ em-lyon.com

–          Severine.le-loarne @ grenoble-em.com

–          amaalaoui @ esg.fr

Les dates principales à retenir sont :

–          30/08/2013 :         Soumission des textes originaux

–          20/09/2013 :         Retour vers les auteurs

–          18/10/2013 :         Date limite d’envoi des textes révisés

–          20/12/2013 :         Publication du numéro

 

Téléchargez CfP_Diversite_2013-Revue_EEI_Version_Finale

Revue Communication et Management

Revue Communication & Management (Edition ESKA)

La revue Communication & Management (anciennement Marketing et communication) aux Editions ESKA, est spécialisée en sciences de l’information et de la communication et en sciences de gestion.

Elle a pour objectif de publier des articles en communication ou en gestion orientés communication, de chercheurs ou de responsables d’organisation.

Le comité scientifique est composé à la fois de chercheurs en sciences de l’information et de la communication et en sciences de gestion.

Elle publie des articles indépendants et des cahiers spéciaux sur les thèmes suivants :

– Communication, innovation et changement

– Communication d’influence et persuasive

– Communication culturelle, publique et sociale

– Ethique en information et communication

– Communication et management du spectacle

– Analyse des médias

– Analyse des réseaux

– Marketing

– Stratégie

– Management Public

– Finance

– Ressources humaines

– Gouvernance

– Développement durable

– Systèmes d’informations

 

Elle sera présente dans la base CAIRN.

2 Rédacteurs en chefs : Denis BENOIT (Université Montpellier III)/Erick LEROUX (Université de Paris 13)

Revue-CommunicationManagement-2013

Revue de l’Entrepreneuriat

Revue de l’entrepreneuriat

N° spécial « Entrepreneuriat féminin »

(Automne 2013)

Editeurs invités : Catherine Léger-Jarniou, Teresa Nelson, Annie Cornet, Stéphanie Chasserio

Ce numéro spécial de la Revue de l’Entrepreneuriat a pour objectif de faire, pour la première fois, l’état de la recherche sur les femmes entrepreneurs de la communauté francophone. Nous invitons les chercheurs du monde entier qui s’intéressent aux femmes entrepreneurs à développer et présenter des travaux d’enquête, des études comparatives, empiriques et théoriques. Nous cherchons à repousser les limites de ce qui a été présenté principalement dans la recherche de tradition anglo-saxonne pour inclure la position historique et prospective des femmes chefs d’entreprise dans la communauté francophone, en se concentrant sur l’entrepreneuriat commercial. Les soumissions en français et en anglais sont acceptées.

Les auteurs intéressés à soumettre un article pour publication dans ce numéro spécial doivent transmettre leur manuscrit au plus tard le 15 mai 2013, en l’adressant directement à la revue soumission@ entrepreneuriat.com, sans oublier de mentionner qu’il s’agit d’une soumission pour le numéro spécial « Entrepreneuriat Féminin ».

Autres informations

–        Les articles pourront être rédigés en français ou en anglais.

–        Tous les auteurs sont chaudement invités à faire connaître leur intention de soumettre un papier avant le 15 janvier 2013.

Pour tout renseignement complémentaire concernant le présent appel à communication, contactez Catherine Léger-Jarniou par courriel à catherine.leger-jarniou @ dauphine.fr

Calendrier prévisionnel

Soumission des manuscrits originaux : 15 mai 2013

Retour aux auteurs :  15 novembre 2013

Manuscrits révisés :15 avril 2014

Notification des acceptations :   30 juin 2014

Publication du numéro spécial : Automne 2014

RE_WomenEntrepreneurship_v3

2nd rsearch day in ‘Social Entrepreneurship’

2nd Research Day in “Social Entrepreneurship » Fribourg, January30th and 31th 2014

« An alternative way for innovation: Re-Questioning the tradition within the Social Economy and social entrepreneurship »

Workshop and Special Issue on International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business (IJESB)

Research Lab at ESG Management School, University Parthenope of Naples, Grenoble Ecole de Management, & Institute For Entrepreneurship & SME at HEG de Fribourg & Centre de Recherche en Entrepreneuriat at EM Lyon

After a blind referee process the authors of best papers will be invited to submit enriched versions for a special issue of International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business (IJESB).

social_entre_IJESB

Special Issue

International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business

Special Issue on: “30 years of Research in Entrepreneurial Support”

Guest Editors:

Karim Messeghem, Professor, University of Montpellier 1 – MRM

Sylvie Sammut, Lecturer, University of Montpellier 1 – MRM

There are two aims for this special issue of the International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business. The first is to propose a review of current research on entrepreneurial support; how this theme has become, in the last 30 years, a major research field in entrepreneurship. What theories have been put forward? What are the future perspectives for research? The second aim is to offer readers a cross-referencing of entrepreneurial support, taking into account geographical and cultural specificities. The question of entrepreneurial support is effectively raised differently from one country and culture to another. In this case, can we – should we – give a universalist reading of entrepreneurial support? On the contrary, is support only contextualised? What tools and methods should be focused on?

Subject Coverage

Suitable topics include but are not limited to: – Incubation – business incubators
– Managing incubators
– Skill management and incubator

– Learning and entrepreneurial support – Performance of business incubators

– Networks and entrepreneurial support
– Innovation and entrepreneurial support – Genre and entrepreneurial support
– Entrepreneurial policy and evaluation
– Revenue models for business incubators

Timetable

Deadline for papers: 15 March 2013
Papers returned to authors: 15 June 2013 Deadline for revised version: 15 September 2013 Publication: 2014

 

Download the IJESB_Call_for_papers_-_Entrepreneurial_Support-1

Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice



Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice

CALL FOR PAPERS

Seeding Entrepreneurship with Microfinance

Guest Editors:
Garry Bruton, Texas Christian University 
Susanna Khavul, University of Texas at Arlington
Donald Siegel, University at Albany, SUNY
Mike Wright, Imperial College Business School

Microfinance is stimulating entrepreneurial activity in developing and developed countries. Although microfinance grew as a means of providing uncollateralized start-up loans to groups or individuals living in poverty, today, it reflects a range of financial services including debt and equity financing, insurance, savings, and retirement plans. Denominated in relatively small amounts, microfinance instruments provide entrepreneurs with financial services that are difficult for them to acquire otherwise. 

As its popularity has grown, the provision of microfinance has become a contested terrain. Banks, savings and loan organizations, for-profit investment funds, insurance companies, and mobile network operators are all vying for a share of the microfinance market. In addition, individuals have new opportunities to participate in microfinance as microangels and microlenders. Revolutionary developments in technology are also changing the landscape of entrepreneurial financing, and, in the case of new technology and media ventures, may be superseding the traditional role of seed venture capital. Specifically, mobile technologies, social networking tools, and crowdfunding mechanisms make it easier to pool and distribute small amounts of seed capital from individuals who want to invest in or lend to entrepreneurial ventures. The evolution of microfinance is accelerating, yet our understanding of the effects that it has on entrepreneurs starting and growing new ventures remains in its infancy.

In this special issue, we ask how is the expanding role of microfinance changing the nature of entrepreneurship? To answer this question, we encourage researchers to draw broadly from theoretical traditions across the social sciences (e.g. economics, sociology, psychology, and public policy) and consider multiple levels of analysis. The literature on microfinance so far has employed agency theory to explain the classic group lending processes, prospect theory to explain the risk preferences of entrepreneurs, and social capital theories to explain networks on which entrepreneurs rely. 

Likewise, researchers have drawn on institutional theory to explain the emergence and evolution of different microfinancing instruments. We welcome research that builds on existing literature and asks nuanced questions. However, as microfinance moves beyond its origins, we also see opportunities for researchers to use many other theoretical perspectives such as social network theories, behavioral economics approaches, among others, to extend our understanding of the phenomenon.

We welcome rigorous empirical and conceptual papers that develop and test theory. Longitudinal, qualitative, and experimental field studies are encouraged, as are studies using large sample, network, focused case studies, or meta-analysis. Papers set in emerging or developed economies as well as across multiple countries are of high interest. Given the prominence of poverty alleviation and entrepreneurial emergence in the conversation about microfinance, researchers should address the policy implications of their findings.

Submissions should be prepared in accordance with ET&P’s style guide and submitted to http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/etp by January 31, 2013. Be sure to indicate that your submission is for the Seeding Entrepreneurship with Microfinance special issue. 

After the initial round of reviews, the authors of short-listed papers will be invited to an ET&P special issue conference at the SUNY Global Center in New York City on October 3-4, 2013. At this conference, authors will receive developmental feedback from the guest editors and invited discussants. The special issue will be published in 2015. 

Questions regarding the special issue can be addressed to: Garry Bruton (g.bruton @ tcu.edu ), Susanna Khavul (skhavul @ uta.edu), Donald Siegel (dsiegel @ albany.edu), and Mike Wright (mike.wright @ imperial.ac.uk).

Appel à contributions

Appel à contributions – n° 17

Entreprendre & Innover

Entrepreneuriat social : les mots et les choses (Expériences, limites, perspectives)

Entreprendre & Innover, revue trimestrielle, va publier dans son numéro 17 en date du premier trimestre 2013 un dossier sur l’entrepreneuriat social et lance à cet effet un appel à contribution sur le thème.

Ce numéro d’Entreprendre & Innover coordonné par Elen Riot, Dominique Michel et Jacques-Henri Coste se veut tout particulièrement un espace de débat et de dialogue entre chercheurs et praticiens. Les contributions attendues devront présenter dans un style clair et lisible des analyses stimulantes et des points de vue originaux susceptibles d’être utiles à toutes les parties prenantes. Les propositions d’articles, d’une longueur maximum de 28 000 signes, espaces compris, doivent parvenir par voie électronique avant le 14 novembre 2012 aux éditeurs invités :jacques-henri.coste @univ-paris3.fr; dominiquanne@ gmail.com; elensoaz @ yahoo.fr

appel_n__17_EI

 

Prochains numéros prévus:

–16 : start-up technologique (parution dec 2012)

–17 : entrepreneuriat social (parution mars 2013, deadline soumission 14 nov jacques-henri.coste  @ univ-paris3.fr

–18 : open innovation (parution juin 2013, deadline mi fev)

–19 : seniors entrepreneurs (parution sept 2013, deadline mi mai)

Call for papers

Call for Papers

The Johns Hopkins Carey Business School and the New York University Stern Business and Society Program are pleased to invite contributions to a volume in the JHU Research Series on Entrepreneurship and Innovation (published by Edward Elgar) entitled, Theory and Empirical Research in Social Entrepreneurship.  This volume seeks to publish the latest empirical and theoretical research on the phenomenon. We are particularly interested in papers that focus on the social entrepreneurship process as it relates to opportunity recognition and assessment; organizational forms and typologies of social enterprises; the cultural, legal, industrial, and political economic forces that give rise to or impede social enterprises; strategic, resource, and organizational issues related to scaling up social start-ups; performance and impact measurement; challenges of scaling and measuring social impact; and research methods in social enterprise research.  We are particularly interested in papers that attempt to offer generalize theoretical models from multiple case studies and discussions about future research from such models.

The editors for this volume are Phillip Phan, Johns Hopkins University, Jill Kickul, New York University, Mattias Nordqvist, Jönköping International Business School, and Sophie Bacq, Northeastern University.

Inquires should be sent to Phillip Phan (pphan@ jhu.edu) or Jill Kickul (jkickul@ stern.nyu.edu).

Dateline for submission of first drafts is Dec 1, 2012.

Initial editorial reviews will be provided by Jan 1, 2013. The volume will be published late 2013.

Entrepreneurship and Regional Development

Proposal for a Special Issue to the journal

ENTREPRENEURSHIP and REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Topic: Entrepreneurial Process and Social Networks: A Dynamic Perspective

Guest Editors:

Didier Chabaud, University of Avignon – France (didier.chabaud @ univ-avignon.fr)

Alain Fayolle, EMLyon Business School – France (fayolle @ em-lyon.com)

Sarah Jack, IEED, LUMS, Lancaster University – UK (s.l.jack @ lancaster.ac.uk)

Wadid Lamine, Champagne School of Management – France (wadid.lamine @ get-mail.fr)

Possible topics include, but are not limited to:

– Conceptualization / theorization of networking dynamics

– Evolution of the entrepreneurial network configuration over time

– Change of the entrepreneurial network content and structure during the various entrepreneurial process stages

– Entrepreneurial network evolution and learning dynamic of the entrepreneur

– The impact of entrepreneur’s social skills on the networking process

– The role of social capital on the entrepreneurial networking processes

– The impact of entrepreneurial project nature on the entrepreneurial network structure

– The role of Science and Technology Parks on the entrepreneurial networking process

– The role of technical artifacts in the entrepreneurial networking process.

– Skills and competences of enroll and mobilize new actors and shareholders

– The different types of strategies and stages of the entrepreneurial network development

-The impact of government policies/programmes on the entrepreneurial network development

 

The editors intend to bring with this Special Issue a significant value to entrepreneurship researchers, policy-makers and practitioners. Scholars interested in submitting a research work to the Special Issue should, in the first instance, submit a 2-3 pages abstract to Wadid Lamine (wadid.lamine @ get-mail.fr).

Full papers should be submitted by Email Word attachment to the Special Issue Editors. First page must contain the title, author(s) and contact information for the corresponding author. For additional guidelines, please see ‘Instructions for Authors’ from a recent issue of Entrepreneurship and Regional Development or visit:http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/authors/tepnauth.asp.

Papers suitable for publication in the Special Issue will be double-blind reviewed following the ERD’s review process guidelines.

Timetable

The Special Issue is scheduled to be published in 2014 or 2015. The following timetable/deadline dates are given for your information:

1. Submission of the abstract – by 1st October 2012. Feedback will be send to the authors by 15 November 2012 at the latest.

2. Submission of the full papers – by 30 April 2013.

2. First Feedback from reviewers – by 31 July 2013.

3. Expected delivery date to E&RD – by 31 March 2014.

ERD_Proposal_Final

 

Numéro spécial JBV

Journal of Business Venturing – Special Issue

Entrepreneurship Through a Qualitative Lens

Guest Editors:

Garry Bruton, Texas Christian University (USA)

Steven Si, Tongji University (China)

Roy Suddaby, Unversity of Alberta (Canada)

 

Qualitative research has a long history in entrepreneurship scholarship.  However, in recent years the use and development of quantitative methods have far outpaced the use and development of qualitative investigations.  Entrepreneurship is not unique in this regard.  Today there has been rapid progress towards sophisticated empirical methods throughout the social sciences.  However, too often the sophisticated methods themselves have become the focus of research with the complexity of the methods seen as a correlate of the potential insights generated.  Unfortunately this has led to a setting in which often large scale investigations are too often occurring before a solid understanding of a given field has been developed to ensure that scholars are asking the right question.

While journals and reviewers continue to argue they are open to rich sets of methods the numbers of qualitative article continue to decline.  Such a decline is troubling for a field such as entrepreneurship in which new domains are constantly being opened up to investigation. Particularly, as scholars increasingly investigate international institutional settings too often scholars are repeating questions asked in mature economies without establishing through qualitative foundation studies to establish what questions should be asked.

There are a rich range of qualitative methodologies that are available.  These methodologies range from in depth understanding of single cases as the authors develop grounded theory to larger scale investigations employing software in order to analyze large numbers of qualitative interviews.  In large measure these methods are tied together by the ability of authors to interpret the results while establishing the validity and reliability of their findings.

In this special issue we are open to a rich range of qualitative methodologies.  We encourage scholars to draw broadly from theoretical traditions across the social sciences (e.g. economics, sociology, psychology, and public policy) and consider multiple levels of analysis.  We welcome research that builds on existing literature and asks nuanced questions.  However, we also see opportunities for researchers to use many other theoretical perspectives and open new fields and domains of entrepreneurship to investigation. Our hope is that this Special Issue will highlight the insights and value of qualitative methods to entrepreneurship and serve as a platform to encourage their use in the discipline.

Our hope is that the papers in this special issue will demonstrate the richness of theoretical and empirical insight that can be generated from methods of open inquiry. Specifically we are interested in manuscripts that:

·         Demonstrate how grounded theory methods can be used to create new and enrich existing theoretical constructs in entrepreneurship.

·         Use subjective-interpretive methods to gain insight into the unique cognition and judgment decision making of individual entrepreneurs.

·         Adopt ethnographic and related methods of rich description to analyze unique manifestations of entrepreneurship in international settings.

·         Construct detailed case studies and organizational histories to better understand entrepreneurship as a process rather than an outcome.

·         Challenge the current ideological assumptions of entrepreneurship theory by exploring empirical contexts of entrepreneurship in non-traditional economies (i.e. China, Brazil, India).

·         Use content analysis to demonstrate shifting macro-level understandings of and attitudes toward entrepreneurship.

The topics above are seen by the editors as suggestions not limitations.  The editors are any manuscript that creatively applies qualitative methods to entrepreneurship.  We encourage a rich range of submissions from authors from a wide range of nations.

In May 2014 a conference associated with the special issue will be occur in which those authors who have received a revise and resubmit will be asked to attend if possible to further develop their papers.  While conference participation is not required it is encouraged.  Partial travel support will be offered to authors.  The conference will take place at Tongji University, Shanghai China.   Associated with this conference will be also a full day seminar to introduce how to employ qualitative methods and publish them to a wider audience.  It is hoped that the paper authors will also participate in this effort.

Submissions should be prepared in accordance with JBV’s style guide and submitted between December 2012 – January, 2013 to manuscript central.   Be sure to indicate that your submission is for the Entrepreneurship Through a Qualitative Lens special issue. The special issue will be published in 2015.

Questions regarding the special issue can be addressed to: Garry Bruton (g.bruton  @tcu.edu), Steven Si (sixiaof u@ tongji.edu.cn) or Roy Suddaby (roy.suddaby @ business.ualberta.ca).

Numéro spécial RFG

APPEL A CONTRIBUTIONS Revue Française de Gestion

Quels systèmes et dispositifs de GRH pour soutenir la dynamique entrepreneuriale des firmes ?

Rédacteurs invités :

Christian DEFELIX, IAE-CERAG, Université de Grenoble Alain FAYOLLE, EM Lyon Business School
Kathleen RANDERSON, IUT2-CERAG Université de Grenoble

Date de soumission : 1er septembre 2012

Thématiques (liste indicative) :

En résonance avec  les  éléments  de  contexte  et  de  problématique  que  nous venons  d’exposer,   les propositions de contribution à ce dossier spécial pourront notamment traiter des thématiques suivantes :

•    Comment la GRH peut-elle   soutenir   l’effort   d’identification, de poursuite, et d’exploitation  d’opportunités  visant  à  la  création  de  nouveaux  produits  et  services ?

•    Comment la GRH contribue-t-elle   à   l’ambidextrie comportementale ? (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004)

•    Segmentation de la force de travail et architecture des RH (Lepak & Snell, 2000)

•    Influence de la GRH sur le réseautage (Kang et al., 2007; Collins & Clark, 2006)

•    Contingences structurelles (e.g. Wolcott & Lippitz, 2007)

•    Motivation intrinsèque à entreprendre (Ryan & Deci, 2000)

•    Rôles du recrutement, formation, et rétribution

•  Motivations et intentions appliquées aux rôles et actions entrepreneuriaux

•  Rôle des variables médiatrices (ex: le management entrepreneurial joue-t-il un rôle 
médiateur dans le lien orientation entrepreneuriale – performance ?)

•  Aspects culturels: rôle de la culture organisationnelle et influence de la culture 
nationale  sur  le  type  d’entrepreneuriat  organisationnel

•  Est-ce que les compétences diffèrent selon  le  type  d’entrepreneuriat  organisationnel ?

•  Comment  transformer  l’apprentissage  en action, et l’action  en  apprentissage ?

•  L’entrepreneuriat organisationnel est un phénomène collectif, mais issu de comportements individuels qui  s’agrègent, s’intègrent, se percutent, se concurrencent. Comment  s’articulent  ces  différents  niveaux  et  les  logiques des acteurs?

Les articles doivent être envoyés avant le 1er septembre 2012 aux adresses suivantes :

fayolle@em-lyon.com et kathleenranderson@yahoo.fr en mentionnant le titre du dossier
« RFG – Quels systèmes et dispositifs de GRH pour soutenir la dynamique entrepreneuriale des firmes ? »

Ils devront respecter les consignes de la revue (disponibles sur le serveur http://rfg.revueonline.com) et feront  l’objet  d’une  évaluation  en  «  double  aveugle  ».

RFG_-_Quels_systemes_et_dispositifs_de_GRH_-_copie

Appel à contributions

Appel à Contributions “Humanisme et Entreprise”

N° 305 – Novembre-Décembre 2011

Déviance et Management – Régulations, stigmatisations, émergences créatives

Rédacteur en chef occasionnel : Pierre Louart

Nouvelle date d’envoi des contributions au 29 août 2011

La revue Humanisme & Entreprise est une revue académique multidisciplinaire, dont l’objectif est de favoriser la réflexion et la diffusion des connaissances sur le management des organisations et leur place dans la société et le monde économique et sociale, par la publication de revues de littérature, de résultats empiriques ou d’analyse des pratiques professionnelles. Une rubrique est réservée à la présentation de points de vue pluriels permettant de questionner les sujets et d’ouvrir la réflexion, dont elle s’attache à discuter les éventuelles contradictions. Une table ronde est également organisée pour chaque numéro afin de présenter le traitement par des experts d’une problématique actuelle. Nous proposons enfin un recensement des travaux de recherche complété par une revue des revues sur le thème de chaque numéro.

Si nous sélectionnons les articles pour leur qualité et leur pertinence par rapport au thème du numéro, la notion d’humanisme reste implicitement présente en cohérence avec la ligne éditoriale de la revue que son fondateur, Charles-Pierre Guillebeau, a nommée dès 1959 « Humanisme et Entreprise ». Elle doit être comprise en référence à la philosophie humaniste et reste indissociable d’une conception de l’homme en quête de savoir, de liberté, tout autant que de moralité. Ce sont le choix et la nature du thème des numéros par le comité de rédaction qui correspondent à la ligne éditoriale, hors de toute nécessité pour les auteurs d’aborder et de traiter de l’humanisme. L’article soumis doit être conceptuellement rigoureux et être écrit à l’intention d’un public multidisciplinaire et composé à la fois d’universitaires et de praticiens. Nous ne publions que des travaux et des textes originaux, n’ayant jamais été soumis à une autre revue.

Toute soumission qui ne permettrait pas une relecture en aveugle et ne suivrait pas les normes académiques de présentation sera refusée. L’article doit donc être rendu complètement anonyme par les auteurs. Le nom des auteurs ne doit figurer que sur la 1ère page et toutes références internes à l’article permettant de reconnaître les auteurs doivent être provisoirement éliminées.

TéléchargezAppel__a_contributions_N_305_-_novembre-decembre__2011_-_Humanisme_et_Entreprise

 

Appel à contributions RFG

APPEL A CONTRIBUTIONS

Revue Française de Gestion

Fraude et gestion

Rédacteur invité :

Julien LE MAUX, HEC Montréal

Date de soumission : 15 juillet 2012

Le présent appel à communication a pour objectif de réunir différents types de contributions sur le thème de la fraude. Des travaux issus des différents domaines des sciences de gestion (finance, comptabilité, ressources humaines, stratégie) peuvent être proposés. Des articles issus d’autres disciplines, telles que le droit, la sociologie ou la psychologie, présentent également un intérêt certain. Il s’agit en effet d’aborder les différentes facettes de la fraudes afin d’en connaître de manière plus précise toutes ses caractéristiques.

Les propositions de contribution à ce dossier spécial sur la fraude pourront notamment des questions suivantes :

  • Problématiques relatives aux processus de fraude
  • Problématiques relatives aux fraudeurs
  • Problématiques relatives aux victimes de la fraude
  • Problématiques relatives aux moyens de lutte contre la fraude

Les articles doivent être envoyés avant le 15 juillet 2012 à l’adresse suivante : julien.lemaux @ hec.ca en mentionnant le titre du dossier « RFG – Fraude et gestion ».

Appel_a_contributions_-_RFG_-_Fraude_et_Gestion

Appel à communications

APPEL A CONTRIBUTIONS

Revue Française de Gestion

Les entrepreneurs seniors : Enjeux & Perspectives

Rédacteurs invités:

Adnane Maâlaoui – ESG Management School

Alain Fayolle – EM Lyon Business School

Mathias Rossi – HEG Fribourg

Sylvaine Castellano – ESG Management School

Date de soumission : 1 Juillet 2012

Les propositions de contribution à ce dossier spécial pourront notamment traiter des thématiques suivantes :

– Existe-il un modèle spécifique d‟intention pour les entrepreneurs seniors ? Quel impact la santé eut-elle avoir sur l‟intention entrepreneuriale des entrepreneurs seniors ?

– Existe-t-il un accompagnement spécifique des entrepreneurs seniors? Dans l‟affirmatives, quelles en sont les formes et les acteurs? Peut-on préconiser l‟instauration de nouvelles structures qui leur serait dédiées ?

– Quel rôle peut jouer le capital social et les réseaux sur l‟intention entrepreneuriale des entrepreneurs seniors ? Quel est rôle de l‟expérience et des connaissances dans la détection et le développement des opportunités d‟affaire ? Quels risques peuvent être associés à l‟entrepreneuriat des seniors ?

– Existe-il des équipes entrepreneuriales composées exclusivement de seniors ou associant ces derniers avec des partenaires plus jeunes ? Comment fonctionnent ces équipes mixtes ? Quels sont les objectifs poursuivis par les entrepreneurs seniors ?

– Quelles sont les stratégies qu‟ils privilégient ? Comment aborder la notion de performance dans le domaine de l‟entrepreneuriat senior ?

Cette liste non exhaustive peut être enrichie par des contributions traitant de la thématique au sein d‟autres disciplines ou permettant d‟accroître les connaissances relatives à ce nouveau type d‟entrepreneuriat.

Les articles doivent être envoyés avant le 1 Juillet 2012 à l‟adresse suivante : amaalaoui@esg.fr, scastellano@esg.fr, Mathias.Rossi@hefr.ch ou fayolle@em-lyon.com en mentionnant le titre du dossier « RFG – Les entrepreneurs seniors ».

call_for_paper_RFG_senior

Call for Papers

Journal of Small Business Management Special Issue on Understanding entrepreneurship: challenging dominant perspectives and theorising entrepreneurship through new post-positivist epistemologies

Possible questions and areas to be addressed in papers include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Paradigmatic debates:

• What is the contribution of post-positivist paradigms and traditions to entrepreneurship research?

• Is the issue of paradigm commensurability resolved in entrepreneurship research?

• What are the philosophical foundations of different research traditions in entrepreneurship research and how do such philosophical underpinnings inform the formulation of research questions, the design of research and of course, the findings?

• What does critical realism offer to enhance our understanding of entrepreneurship, for example how does it differ from social constructionism and postmodernism?

2. Implications for research:

• What are the gaps and omissions in entrepreneurship research that are yet to addressed, and how can they be better addressed by studies that take qualitative perspectives?

• What are the methodological challenges of designing and conducting post-positivist research in entrepreneurship?

• How can we evaluate and judge the ‘quality’ of post-positivist and qualitative research in entrepreneurship?

• Which levels of analysis are taken into consideration in such research taking postpositivistic approach? Which approaches are more tuned with layered ontology of entrepreneurship that focuses on multi-level analysis (i.e. individual, organisational and macro-environmental levels)?

• How well do such studies transcend the structure and agency dichotomy in entrepreneurship research?

3. Implications for theory:

• Which disciplinary do debates prevail in entrepreneurship research? What is the value of inter-disciplinary work in post-positivist understandings of entrepreneurship?

• Does such entrepreneurship research generate insights that are applicable to other areas of management and organization studies?

• How well do those insights bridge the gap between entrepreneurship theory, practice and policy?

Special Issue Guest Editors:

Alistair Anderson, Robert Gordon University, UK (a.r.anderson @ rgu.ac.uk)

Alain Fayolle, EM Lyon Business School, France (fayolle @ em-lyon.com)

Jeremy Howells, University of Southampton, UK mailto:j.howells @ soton.ac.uk)

Mine Karatas-zkan, University of Southampton, UK (mko @ soton.ac.uk)

Roland Condor, EM Normandie Business School, France (r.condor @ em-normandie.fr)

Paper submission: June, 1 2012

JSBM_SI_Call_for_papers_Jan_2012

 

Le rôle des entrepreneurs dans le luxe

Appel à communications

Numéro spécial – Management International

Printemps 2013

Le rôle des entrepreneurs dans le luxe : quelles stratégies de création, d’appropriation et de transmission de savoir-faire dans un contexte international ?

Rédacteurs en chef invités :

Cécile Fonrouge, Maitre de conférences Université Paris Est Marne la Vallée, IRG, Master Innovation Design Luxe Email: cecile.fonrouge @ univ-paris-est.fr

Émile-Michel Hernandez, Professeur des Universités, Université de Reims Champagne Ardennes Email : e-m.hernandez @ wanadoo.fr

Sophie Reboud, Professeur, Groupe ESC Dijon Bourgogne, CEREN, Email : Sophie.Reboud @ escdijon.eu

Franck Vigneron, Professeur, Northridge University, Californie (USA), Email : franck.vigneron @ csun.edu

Les travaux s’articuleront autour des deux thématiques suivantes :

1- Le rôle des entrepreneurs dans les stratégies de création et d’appropriation d’entreprises de luxe

Comment une nouvelle entreprise peut-elle intégrer des savoirs faire traditionnels qui lui préexistaient? Comment créer sui generis une marque de luxe ? Quels rôles tiennent certains « créateurs-démiurges » dans la personnalisation des activités de luxe ?

Quelles valeurs accorder aux savoirs créés et comment les protéger autrement que par le secret, l’apprentissage ou le tour de main ? Comment les associer (ou les dissocier) de la personne de l’entrepreneur, des maîtres artisans et des équipes créatives ? Quelles sont les variétés de pratiques en la matière selon les zones géographiques avec des cultures asiatiques ayant une perception différente du luxe et des pratiques fortes de valorisation de la tradition?

Quels rôles ont les réseaux territorialisés, les communautés de pratiques et autres aristocraties de métiers dans l’émergence des entreprises du luxe ? Comment une dynamique entrepreneuriale permet de capter certaines compétences rares et des process historiques qui risquaient de se perdre dans le temps et dans l’espace (Fréry et Law-Kheng 2007, Hernandez et Marchesnay, 2008). A l’inverse comment la mondialisation des systèmes de production et de distribution participe à l’éparpillement des actifs spécifiques du luxe ? Quels regards les firmes implantées portent sur les nouvelles venues du luxe dans un contexte mondialisé ?

2-Le rôle des entrepreneurs dans la stratégie de rétention et de transmission des savoirs tacites du luxe

Les spécificités de ces entreprises reposent sur des savoirs indissociables d’un certain nombre de pratiques manuelles fondées sur des connaissances peu formalisées. Or ces savoirs ne sont pas toujours faciles à protéger, à entretenir et à transmettre.

Quels rôles ont les entrepreneurs dans la transmission patrimoniale des actifs spécifiques ? Les labels et réseaux permettent-ils de formaliser ces savoirs au risque de perdre la singularité de l’entrepreneur? Comment faire évoluer une marque éponyme attachée au nom de l’entrepreneur ?

Quelles sont les pratiques de mise en valeur des maîtres artisans et autre équipe créative et quelle cohabitation avec la figure de l’entrepreneur ?  Sur quelles dialogiques reposent la relation entrepreneur – entreprise au moment du départ du fondateur et comment les savoirs faire associés sont-ils transmis aux générations entrepreneuriales suivantes (Fonrouge 2002).

http://managementinternational.ca/appels-a-contributions

 

Les parties prenantes dans la succession des entreprises familiales

Management International
International Management
Gestión Internacional

Numéro spécial : Les parties prenantes dans la succession des entreprises familiales :
rôle, implications, enjeux

Appel à contributions

Date de soumission : 30 juin 2012

Ce numéro spécial de la revue Management International s’inscrit dans le cadre de la conférence annuelle sur les entreprises familiales [8th annual Family Enterprise Research Conference (FERC)] et des journées Georges Doriot qui se tiendront à Montréal du 11 au 13 mai 2012.

Proposition

Les manuscrits doivent être soumis (en français, anglais ou espagnol) pour le 30 juin 2012 au plus tard (soit un mois suivant les conférences citées plus haut).

Les manuscrits devront être envoyés par courrier électronique à la revue Management International (management.international@hec.ca). Les articles devront respecter les normes énoncées dans la politique rédactionnelle de Management International (http://managementinternational.ca/ onglet MI en Bref). Les manuscrits retenus pour une éventuelle publication seront évalués par un comité de lecture selon le principe du double anonymat.

 

Rédacteurs en chef invités:

Bérangère Deschamps, IAE Grenoble, France

Luis Cisneros, HEC Montréal, Canada

Francesco Chirico, Jönköping International Business School, Suède

 

Numéro spécial – Revue de l’Entrepreneuriat

Revue de l’entrepreneuriat

Numéro spécial sur « L’entrepreneuriat et la pérennité de l’entreprise familiale : faire face aux risques et infortunes des environnements turbulents »

Coéditeurs: : Lucie Bégin, Maria BonnafousBoucher, Didier Chabaud, Alain Fayolle

Les auteurs sont invités à tirer partie des travaux issus d’autres disciplines telles que la gestion des risques, la gestion de crise, l’innovation et la stratégie, la sociologie de la famille. Les thèmes suivants sont proposés mais d’autres aspects peuvent être abordés.

• Quels risques menacent les entreprises familiales sur la longue période et comment l’entrepreneuriat peut‐il permettre d’ faire face?

• Sous quelles conditions, les entreprises familiales peuvent‐elles êre considéés comme des organisations hautement fiables (HRO) ?

• Comment l’entrepreneuriat et l’innovation, ouvrent‐ils les voies du renouvellement  stratégique de l’ntreprise familiale ?

• Comment les risques financiers peuvent‐ils êre adressé via l’ntrepreneuriat familial ?

Comment les approches de la gestion des risques dans les entreprises familiales favorisentelles ou nuisent‐elles àl’ntrepreneuriat ?

• Quelles sont les pratiques permettant la transmission et le maintien de l’esprit entrepreneurial au fil des générations ? Quelles sont les valeurs familiales et entrepreneuriales permettant de préparer les générations futures à faire face aux environnements de plus en plus turbulents ?

• Quel est le rôle de l’orientation entrepreneuriale dans la régénération stratégique des entreprises familiales et comment celle‐ci peut‐elle favoriser la péennité?

• Y a‐t‐il des attributs de l’ntreprise familiale susceptibles de la rendre moins vulnéable que les entreprises non‐familiales face aux turbulences et aux risques ? En quoi les valeurs et la culture familiales contribuent‐elles au déeloppement des préispositions àla réilience ?

Consignes pour soumettre un article:

Les auteurs intéressés à soumettre un article pour publication dans ce numéro spécial doivent transmettre leur manuscrit au plus tard le 31 août 2012, en l’adressant directement à la revue soumission@entrepreneuriat.com, sans oublier de mentionner qu’il s’agit d’une soumission pour le numéro spécial sur « L’entrepreneuriat et la pérennité de l’entreprise familiale : faire face aux risques et infortunes des environnements turbulents ». Se référer au site de la revue pour les normes éditoriales.

Calendrier prévisionnel:

Soumission des manuscrits originaux : 31 août 2012

Retour aux auteurs : 15 novembre 2012

Manuscrits révisés : 30 avril 2013

Notification des acceptations : 30 juin 2013

Publication du numéro spécial : automne 2013

 

Téléchargez l’appel: Special_issue_Revue_de_l_entrepreneuriat_-

Appel à Contributions

Appel à Contributions “Humanisme et Entreprise”

N° 307 – Mars-Avril 2012

L’entrepreneuriat social

Pour ce numéro nous souhaitons rassembler des articles abordant la question de l’entrepreneuriat social et/ou solidaire. Sans que cela soit limitatif des soumissions attendues, les différentes formes d’entrepreneuriat concernées pourront être abordées, leur impact et leur fonction sociétale, ainsi que l’étude des dynamiques correspondantes ou associées, comme les modes d’accompagnement spécifiques ou les dispositifs mis en place par les pouvoirs publics.

En quoi l’entrepreneuriat social est-il novateur et l’est-il réellement ? A quels besoins répond-il ? Quels enseignements tirés pour l’entrepreneuriat en général des expériences menées ?

Beaucoup de questions sont soulevées par ce qui aurait été désigné encore à la fin du siècle dernier comme un oxymoron. Au final, qu’indique le développement d’un entrepreneuriat social et solidaire ? Peut-on envisager un phénomène de mutation de l’entrepreneuriat, voire du management vers la prise en compte conjointe de l’économique et du social, ou bien s’agit-il d’une juxtaposition à l’économie classique, d’une économie parallèle répondant à des impératifs différents ?

Téléchargez Appel__a_contributions_N_307_-_mars-avril_2012_-_Humanisme_et_Entreprise

Appel à Contributions

Revue de l’entrepreneuriat

Appel à contributions pour un numéro thématique: L’entrepreneuriat international

 

Rédacteurs en chef invités : Hanane BEDDI (EM Normandie), Pascale BUENO MERINO (EM Normandie), Régis COEURDEROY (Université Catholique de Louvain)

Pour ce numéro thématique, l’internationalisation de l’entreprise est considérée selon une perspective entrepreneuriale afin de mieux cerner les opportunités et les défis que ce champ ouvre. L’entrepreneuriat international a été initialement appréhendé dans le cadre des entreprises « Born Global » (Knight et Cavusgil, 2004 ; Rialp, Rialp, Urbano et Vaillant, 2005 ; Sharma et Blomstermo, 2003) ou « International New Ventures » (McDougall et Oviatt, 1994, 2005 ; McDougall, Shane et Oviatt, 1994). La croissance internationale rapide des entreprises dès leur naissance conduit en effet ces dernières à adopter un comportement décrit comme entrepreneurial. Depuis, le champ de l’entrepreneuriat international s’est élargi pour intégrer différents domaines et types d’entreprises. L’entrepreneuriat international se définit alors comme la « combinaison de comportement innovateur et de prise de risque qui franchit les frontières nationales et est prévu pour créer de la valeur aux organisations » (McDougall et Oviatt, 2000). Ainsi, l’innovation est au cœur de l’entrepreneuriat international. L’EI s’oriente alors vers l’étude de la découverte, l’enactment, l’évaluation et l’exploitation d’opportunités au-delà des frontières (McDougall et Oviatt, 2005) par des firmes souvent de taille petite ou moyenne, nouvelles ou existantes, sous la direction de leur entrepreneur. Dans ce numéro thématique, sont attendues des contributions questionnant notamment la nature et le rôle de l’entrepreneur et du processus entrepreneurial de découverte et d’exploitation d’une opportunité de création d’un produit ou service (Shane et Venkatraman, 2000) au-delà des contextes domestiques traditionnellement considérés.

La jeunesse du champ et sa nature multi-disciplinaire laissent la recherche ouverte à des perspectives variées et appelle des contributions autant conceptuelles qu’empiriques. La liste suivante (non exhaustive) propose quelques thématiques :

–          Caractéristiques, rôles et profils de l’entrepreneur international

–          Place de l’innovation dans les stratégies d’internationalisation des PME

–          Réseaux, capital social et EI – rôles des « réseaux » organisationnels et/ou personnels sur la découverte et/ou l’exploitation de l’opportunité internationale

–          Born Global ou Nouvelles Firmes Internationales : Évolutions et perspectives de vingt ans de recherche

–          Relations entre l’entrepreneur international et les différents acteurs internationaux (grandes entreprises, pouvoirs publics, consultants, autres PME)

–          Etudes comparatives et confrontation de l’EI aux autres approches (notamment par étapes) (complémentarité, coexistence…)

–          Formation de la stratégie dans le cadre de l’EI

–          Prise en compte de multiples niveaux d’analyse (individuel, organisationnel et/ou inter-organisationnel) dans l’étude de l’EI

–          EI et temporalités dans le cadre du processus d’internationalisation

–          Influence de la localisation dans le cadre de l’EI, spécificité des pays émergents en EI

–          Épistémologie et méthodologies de recherche en EI

–          Etc.

 

Téléchargez l’appel à communications:Call_for_papers_IE

Call for papers – EMNet 2011

CALL FOR PAPERS – EMNet 2011

Program Committee Procedures for Submitting Papers NEW Deadlines

The fifth international conference on ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT OF NETWORKS will be held at the Frederick University, from December 1 to December 3, 2011, in LIMASSOL, Cyprus. The purpose of the conference is to provide an international discussion forum for research in economics and management of networks. Theoretical, conceptual and empirical papers from all areas in economics and management of franchising, cooperatives, joint ventures, licensing, strategic alliances, venture capital relations, virtual networks and other hybrids are invited.

Call for papers

Numéro spécial

APPEL A CONTRIBUTIONS POUR UN NUMERO THEMATIQUE DE LA REVUE TRAVAIL ET EMPLOI

Diriger une PME

 

Les intentions sont à envoyer par courriel, en pièce jointe, à la rédaction de la revue travail.emploi @ dares.travail.gouv.fr et, en copie, à eric.pezet @ u-paris10.fr, thomas.amoss @ ceerecherche.fr pour le 20 juin 2011 au plus tard.

Les auteurs dont les projets seront susceptibles de s’intégrer dans ce dossier thématique devront ensuite envoyer leur article complet pour le 1er décembre 2011.

Télécharger l’appel à coDirigeantPMEAppel-a-contributions

Appel à contributions Revue de l’Entrepreneuriat

Revue
de l’Entrepreneuriat 
Revue Scientifique dédiée à la publication de travaux de recherche sur l’entrepreneuriat

Opportunité, vision et synchronicité

Invitation à publier – Numéro thématique

La pratique entrepreneuriale est la résultante d’un processus cognitif. Elle résulte de l’expression d’un mode de penser. Ce mode de penser s’organise autour de nombreux concepts dont deux se situent au coeur de l’activité entrepreneuriale : l’opportunité et la vision. Plusieurs dimensions restent à explorer quant aux modes de conception et d’application de ces deux concepts ainsi qu’aux façons de les inter-relier. Les questions suggérées dans cette invitation à publier portent sur des façons de mieux relier et de mieux préparer les conceptions ainsi que les applications de ces deux concepts qui sont à la base de la pratique entrepreneuriale. Ce numéro thématique vise à ouvrir de nouvelles pistes de réflexions sur les mécanismes à développer pour mieux les concevoir, les arrimer et les mettre en oeuvre.

En entrepreneuriat, nous avons souvent utilisé de façon simpliste certains concepts dont ceux de l’opportunité et de la vision, mais le travail de recherche sur le terrain nous a appris à raffiner la compréhension de ces concepts à la base de la pratique entrepreneuriale. Ainsi, il apparaît plus approprié de nos jours de référer à des processus complexes lorsque nous discutons d’opportunité et de vision. Les écrits en entrepreneuriat mentionnent souvent l’identification d’opportunité comme étant un phénomène simple qui consiste à trouver en un instant une belle occasion d’affaires, mais l’étude attentive et répétée de diverses catégories d’acteurs entrepreneuriaux nous enseigne que le processus opportun nécessite du temps pour que tout acteur entrepreneurial arrive à concevoir et créer l’opportunité qui sera à la base de son activité entrepreneuriale. De plus, peu d’écrits de recherche ont vraiment relié le processus opportun au processus visionniste.

Voici quelques autres questions soulevées en relation de ces réflexions : quels sont les éléments qui composent un processus opportun? Quels sont les niveaux d’adéquation qui doivent exister entre l’acteur entrepreneurial et son opportunité pour augmenter les probabilités de réussite d’un projet entrepreneurial? Qu’est-ce qu’un moment opportun ? Quels sont les éléments qui font qu’un moment est propice pour démarrer un projet entrepreneurial? Comment définir les conditions de synchronicité, c’est-à-dire le moment où l’entrepreneur se sent confiant pour passer à l’action? Une réflexion insuffisante peut être autant porteuse d’échec qu’une tergiversation exagérée.

Cette invitation à publier porte tant sur des articles de nature conceptuelle que ceux basés sur des données empiriques. Les articles soumis doivent proposer des avenues réflexives pour éclairer la compréhension des processus mentionnés ci-dessus. Les articles devront être conformes aux exigences de la

Revue de l’entrepreneuriat et être soumis au plus tard à la fin de 2011. La publication du numéro thématique «Opportunité, vision et synchronicité» est prévue en 2013.

louisjacques.filion @ hec.ca

Appel à contributions de la revue Gestion 2000

Dossier thématique : Innovation, TIC et entrepreneuriat

Les enjeux liés à l’innovation sont cruciaux car elle permet aux entreprises de créer ou renforcer leurs
avantages compétitifs en se différenciant de leurs concurrents et gagnant ainsi des parts de marché.
L’innovation constitue donc le coeur des stratégies concurrentielles des entreprises. Elle est la source
la pérennité de la plupart des firmes centenaires  et un facteur essentiel de la croissance économique
des nations.

Soumission des articles complets pour le 4/4/2011

Revue Gestion2000 – Appel à contribution

La revue GESTION 2000 vous invite à soumettre une proposition d’article en vue d’une publication dans le numéro spécial (03/2010) qui a pour titre :

Accompagnement entrepreneurial

Echéancier :

  • Envoi des propositions : 20 octobre 2009
  • Retour des évaluations : 30 novembre 2009
  • Version finale : 1ier février 2010

Envoi des communications :
Didier.Chabaud @ u-cergy.fr
Karim.messeghem @ univ-montp1.fr
Sylvie.sammut @ univ-montp1.fr

Revue de l’entrepreneuriat : Appel à contribution

Appel à contributions pour un numéro thématique:  Le projet entrepreneurial

Rédacteurs en chef invités : Alain ASQUIN ( Maître de Conférences à l’Université Lyon III), Roland CONDOR ( Professeur à l’EM Normandie), Christophe SCHMITT ( Maître de  Conférences, Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Agronomie et des Industries Alimentaires / Institut  National Polytechnique de Lorraine)

Cet appel à contributions vise à rapprocher le domaine de recherche en entrepreneuriat de celui du  management de projet qui, finalement, se côtoient peu alors que la pratique, l’enseignement et la  recherche pourraient bénéficier de ce qu’on qualifie parfois de fertilisation croisée.

Pour ce numéro  spécial, l’entrepreneuriat sera considéré comme pouvant être étudié selon une perspective de  management de projet. C’est principalement cette lecture qui est attendue ( sans pour autant écarter  les contributions où le projet est étudié selon une perspective entrepreneuriale). Il s’agit de travailler  certaines singularités du « projet entrepreneurial » .

Autrement dit, l’entrepreneuriat sera vu comme  un type particulier de projet, a priori non répétitif, créant de la valeur nouvelle à partir d’une  opportunité saisie, éventuellement innovant et donnant naissance à une organisation nouvellement  créée pour atteindre le but poursuivi par l’entrepreneur.

Les propositions sont envoyées à l’adresse suivante:

Les évaluations sont réalisées anonymement.

Echéancier 

  • 31 mars 2010 : date limite de soumission des propositions
  • 31 mai 2010 : retour aux auteurs des évaluations
  • 30 juin 2010 : date limite de réception des propositions révisées
  • 1er septembre 2010 : retour aux auteurs de la décision finale
  •  Décembre 2010 : mise en ligne du numéro thématique

Cet échéancier peut être amendé, notamment en fin de processus lorsque plusieurs révisions  s’avèrent nécessaires pour un texte initialement non rejeté.

Call for papers : Corporate Entrepreneurship

Challenges and new perspectives.

International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation

Corporate entrepreneurship or Intrapreneurship lies at the core of large organizations facing drastic environment change at the political, economic, demographic or social levels.  The never-ending quest for excellence, or at least for survival, prompt the management of companies to question their own best practices and reinvent themselves.  Pressures for continuous change are everywhere, be they the fierce new competition emerging from Asia with giant companies (such as PetroChina, China Mobile, Lenovo, Tata Consultancy Services, Infosys Technologies…), or the ongoing deregulation at work in the EEC.

At the same time, the boundaries and structure of organizations seem to evolve in a relentless way: reorganization, projects, networks.are the many forms that companies adopt along the continuous attempt at maintaining or gaining a competitive advantage. As a consequence many companies are at odds to exploit true capabilities to innovate, to adopt more proactive ways of doing business and develop entrepreneurial orientation.

Deadline for abstract: 15 avril 2008 

Expressions of interest to the Guest Editors

  • Alain Fayolle, EM Lyon :  fayolle [a]em-lyon.com
  • Olivier Basso, Singleton Institute : singleton-institute [a]skynet.be
  • Véronique Bouchard, EM Lyon : vbouchard [a]em-lyon.com