CfP ISBJ – Entrepreneurship as collective action: the next frontier – Deadline 31 May 2022


Call for Papers

Entrepreneurship as collective action: the next frontier

Guest Editors

Cyrine Ben-Hafaïedh, IESEG School of Management, Paris, France;

Claire Champenois, Audencia Business School, Nantes, France;

Thomas M. Cooney, Technological University Dublin, Ireland;

Leon Schjoedt, Copenhagen Business School;

Entrepreneurship research is moving away from the concept of a heroic individual (Drakopoulou Dodd & Anderson, 2007; Ogbor, 2000) towards a more collective endeavour. Over the last two decades, a strong stream of research has developed highlighting the importance of entrepreneurial teams and of their collective dynamics (Ben-Hafaïedh, 2017; Cooney, 2005; Piva & Rossi-Lamastra, 2017; Preller, Patzelt, & Breugst, 2020; Schjoedt & Kraus, 2009). More recently, as entrepreneurship scholars expand the boundaries of entrepreneurship research (Johnson & Schaltegger, 2019; Wiklund, Wright, & Zahra, 2019), the collective perspective is gaining traction through prosocial organising research (Branzei, Parker, Moroz, & Gamble, 2018; Castellanza, 2020; Doh, Tashman, & Benischke, 2019; Hertel, Binder, & Fauchart, 2021; Wigger & Shepherd, 2020). Under widely different labels such as ‘social entrepreneurship’ (Chatterjee, Cornelissen, & Wincent, 2021; Kimmitt & Muñoz, 2018), ‘community-based entrepreneurship’ (Murphy, Danis, Mack, & Sayers, 2020; Seyb, Shepherd, & Williams, 2019), ‘activist entrepreneuring’ (Dey & Mason, 2018), ‘collective entrepreneurship’ (Dufays & Huybrechts, 2016; Meyer, 2020) and ‘impact entrepreneurship’ (Markman, Waldron, Gianiodis, & Espina, 2019), an emerging array of contributions are challenging the existing understanding of entrepreneurship and arguing that it can also be considered as a social force of change instigated by a group of people in collective action.

Some vibrant, yet disconnected, conversations about entrepreneurship as a collective action have begun. Still, questions remain about how to conceive entrepreneurial collective action, if there are any common features in heterogeneous entrepreneurial collective endeavours, and why entrepreneurship as a phenomenon requires collectives to happen. Furthermore, entrepreneurship theory in general still holds strongly to normative individualistic assumptions. When entrepreneurship theories or paradigms consider the different stakeholders (Sarasvathy, 2001; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000), they still commonly position individual agentic behaviour as the basis for their work. Even when collective action is explicitly mentioned, the individual remains the key unit of analysis (e.g., Sarasvathy & Ramesh, 2019). Ultimately, scholars have yet to absorb the full potential of considering entrepreneurship as a collective action and few contributions adopt a collective stance on key entrepreneurship concepts, such as discovery / construction of opportunity, entrepreneurial alertness, or effectuation.

This Special Issue seeks to establish ‘entrepreneurship as collective action’ as the next frontier. The goal of the Special Issue is to stimulate theory building on entrepreneurship as a collective endeavour by conceptualising and empirically documenting it. We invite contributions that depart from an individualistic perspective (Dimov, 2007), focus on a collective dimension of the entrepreneurial phenomenon, and show how this collective conception challenges, renews and enriches entrepreneurship theorising. The papers of this Special issue will offer an exciting opportunity to begin a profound, maybe even paradigmatic, change within entrepreneurship literature.

The Guest Editors are seeking contributions that embrace both centripetal and centrifugal forces to theory development on collective entrepreneurship (Schad, Lewis, & Smith, 2019). Centripetal forces will contribute to define a conceptual core, by unfolding the multiple meanings of the term ‘collective entrepreneurship’ and by questioning the premises and assumptions regarding entrepreneurship as collective. Centrifugal forces aimed at “challenging the core and extending its boundaries” (Schad et al., 2019, p. 107) will enable researchers to rethink many key current entrepreneurship theories, concepts, and topics by applying a collective action perspective (Alvarez, Audretsch, & Link, 2016). For example, focusing on entrepreneurship as collective action (Champenois, Lefebvre, & Ronteau, 2020) offers the potential to advance the literature and one’s understanding of the collective interpersonal dynamics that facilitate entrepreneurship contexts (Bradley, Kim, Klein, McMullen, & Wennberg, 2021; Welter & Baker, 2020). Such a perspective also highlights how collective action may contribute to shaping or even creating entrepreneurial spheres (Lee, Struben, & Bingham, 2018; Pinkse & Groot, 2015).

In order to achieve such ambitions, the Guest Editors are interested in contributions that explore different forms of entrepreneurship as collective action and their underlying practices and processes. Submissions may fit under one of the following broad headings that are meant to be generative rather than exhaustive. We are open to theoretical and empirical papers, using a variety of methodologies.

  • Theoretical contributions revisiting and enriching dominant assumptions or theories in entrepreneurship by adopting a collective lens.
  • Conceptualisation of entrepreneurial collective action, entrepreneurial collective agency, collective entrepreneurial opportunity, collective effectuation (e.g., drawing from literatures and concepts in other disciplines such as social movements, theories of collective agency and collective action).
  • Collective dimension of entrepreneurship across prevailing empirical objects (entrepreneurial teams, collective enterprises, etc.).
  • Collective entrepreneurial actions/behaviours/practices.
  • What stabilised patterns or institutionalised forms emerge from collective entrepreneurial actions? How are they maintained or challenged over time?
  • How do the most recent collective entrepreneurial practices relate to incumbent identified practices (e.g., maker movement, digital entrepreneurship, etc.)?
  • Interactions among entrepreneurs and their stakeholders or context as part of collective entrepreneurial process.
  • Links between collective entrepreneurship and existing structures/institutions/norms/values
  • Unfolding of collective entrepreneurial processes and impacts on performance.
  • Contextualisation in collective entrepreneurship.
  • Paradoxes and tensions in collective entrepreneurship (e.g., self-interest and the collective).
  • Dark sides of collective entrepreneurship.
  • Methodological contributions to study collective entrepreneurship and/or entrepreneurial collective action.


The deadline for submission of papers is 31 May 2022. The journal submission site will be open for submissions from 20 May 2022. The Special Issue is scheduled to be published in September 2023. Papers must be original and comply with ISBJ submission guidelines. Please refer to for submission guidelines and the link to the online submission system. In the online system please ensure you submit your paper within Manuscript Type: ‘Special Issue: Entrepreneurship as Collective Action’.

Questions and informal enquiries should be directed to any of the Guest Editors.

Call for Papers ISBJ_FINAL_Entrepreneurship as Collective Action

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

 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

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



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.


“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.


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 For any further information, please visit the Journal website or contact the special issue guest editors.


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.

R&D Management Conference – 2019 June, 17–21- Paris – Track 3.2 – Digital Platforms : Opportunities and Challenges for Research, Practices, and Society

Track 3.2 – Digital Platforms : Opportunities and Challenges for Research, Practices, and Society

Tommaso BUGANZA, Prof., Politecnico di Milano
Laurent MUZELLEC, Prof., Trinity College Dublin
Sébastien RONTEAU, Prof, Audencia Business School
Daniel TRABUCCHI, Politecnico di Milano


Track’s Contacts : 


Over the last years, digital platforms gained significant momentum in the business environment, having a significant impact on the market (e.g., Libert et al., 2016; Choudary et al., 2016).
Companies like AirBnb, Uber and so on challenged existing businesses and the status-quo of their industries, challenging the rules of the game.
Those companies operate according two(or multi)-sided business models, known as “Two-Sided Market” in Economics, where “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 different groups of customers: travelers and hosts for Airbnb or riders and drivers for Uber, creating indirect network effects (Katz and Shapiro, 1985).

This concept gained initial attention in the economic literature (Rochet and Tirole, 2006; Parker and Van Alstyne, 2005; Rysman, 2009), while similar phenomena – such as business ecosystems and industry-wide platforms (Iansiti and Levien, 2004; Gawer and Cusuman, 2014) – were being studied in the management field. Recently, also management scholars started digging in the specificities of these Two or Multi-Sided Platforms (e.g., Muzellec et al., 2015; Trabucchi et al., 2017; 2018; Perks et al., 2017; Täuscher and Laudien, 2018).

These platforms have several peculiarities: starting from interconnecting two different (or more) groups of customers that need to be both on board to perform the service itself (Stummer et al., 2018); they need to design a double value proposition (Muzellec et al., 2015) and they need to orchestrate complex networks where value is created and captured by many players at the same time (Perks et al., 2017).

Business models based on this structure are being boosted by digital technologies (such as mobile apps or the blockchain) and cultural trends (such as sharing or gig economy). Furthermore, there is still 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). Therefore, this track aims to enlarge the discussion on the topic, welcoming submissions which take different perspectives on this phenomenon enclosed in a digital context. On the one hand, these platforms are challenging traditional models in the management literature (Amit and Zott, 2015), getting on board different kinds of customers at the same time, and relying on peculiar kinds of network externalities. On the other, they offer important challenges to entrepreneurs and managers that work on this structure, having, for example, different barriers regarding the launch phase, but also different opportunities to be exploited, such as a lean scale-up and technology standards behind business ecosystems. Furthermore, from the society perspective, these models may enable different forms of consumption (e.g., sharing economy) or even of work (e.g., gig economy). This track aims to get together fresh contributions in these three perspectives, in order to enlarge the knowledge on how the Two or Multi-Sided Business Model can unveil opportunities and overcome challenges for research, practices, and society.


Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2015). Crafting business architecture: The antecedents of business model design. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9(4), 331-350.
Choudary, S. P., Parker, G. G., & Van Alstyne, M. W. (2016). Platform Revolution: How Networked Markets Are Transforming the Economy and How to Make Them Work for You. WW Norton & Company.
Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2014). Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(3), 417-433.
Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004). The keystone advantage: what the new dynamics of business ecosystems mean for strategy, innovation, and sustainability. Harvard Business Press.
Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. (1985). Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. The American economic review, 75(3), 424-440.
Libert, B., Beck, M., & Wind, J. (2016). The network imperative: how to survive and grow in the age of digital business models. Harvard Business Review Press.
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.
Perks, H., Kowalkowski, C., Witell, L., & Gustafsson, A. (2017). Network orchestration for value platform development. Industrial marketing management, 67, 106-121.
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. (2018). Data-driven innovation: switching the perspective on Big Data. European Journal of Innovation Management.

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

« Entrepreneurship Education, rethinking connections: Opportunities and Challenges »
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.



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



Dag Håkon Haneberg NTNU
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
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
Sandrine LE PONTOIS IUT de Roanne
Saulo DUBARD BARBOSA, EM-Lyon Business School
Stéphane FOLIARD IUT de Roanne
Torgeir Aadland NTNU


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

Peter BAUR – DG Education and Culture – European Commission


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:


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

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.

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.

Registration fee: 160 Euros (including material, coffee breaks, meals), 80 Euros for PhD students.
City informations of Roanne:

CONTACTS 0033 6 08 73 51 16

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.

NEW DEADLINE, “Cognitive perspective in Entrepreneurship Research” workshop – 25 july 2018

NEW DEADLINE, “Cognitive perspective in Entrepreneurship Research” workshop

IPAG Business School, Grenoble Ecole de Management & Pôle Universitaire Léonard de Vinci are delighted to host the Workshop Cognitive perspective in Entrepreneurship Research: Past, Present & Future, 24-25th September 2018, Paris , France.

The Cognitive perspective in Entrepreneurship Research will be the core subject of this two-day meeting. Many world-renowned researchers will take part in the event and will share their experience in this research field : Icek Ajzen, Kelly Shaver, Francesco Linan, Marco Van Gelderen, Alan Carsrud, Norris Krueger, Robert Blackburn, George Salomon, Didier Chabaud …etc

Link to the event :

If you are interested by the workshop and would like to submit your contributions, you can send them to Professor Adnane Maalaoui: ; or

Journals-Partners : International Small Business Journal (ISBJ), Journal of Small Business Management (JSBM), Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Long Range Planning (LRP), Revue de l’entrepreneuriat (RE)


1 – Submission of extended abstract : NEW DEADLINE : July 25th, 2018
2 – Acceptance Notification: 5th August, 2018
3 – Workshop: September 24-25th, 2018
4 – Doctoral Workshop: September 25th, 2018

Do not hesitate to contact us if you need further information.

Best Regard’s,

Adnane Maalaoui, IPAG Business School, France
Erno Tornikoski, EM Grenoble, France
Francesco Appio, Pôle Universitaire Léonard de Vinci, France
Veronica Scuotto, EMLV Ecole de commerce et management, Paris, France

Cognitive perspective in Entrepreneurship Research

IPAG Business School, EM Grenoble & Pôle Universitaire Léonard de Vinci are delighted to host the Workshop Cognitive perspective in Entrepreneurship Research: Past, Present & Future, 24-25th September 2018, Paris , France.

The Cognitive perspective in Entrepreneurship Research will be the core subject of this two-day meeting. Many world-renowned researchers will take part in the event and will share their experience in this research field : Icek Ajzen, Kelly Shaver, Francesco Linan, Marco Van Gelderen, Alan Carsrud, Norris Krueger, Robert Blackburn, George Salomon, Didier Chabaud …etc

Link to the event :

If you are interested by the workshop and would like to submit your contributions, you can send them to Professor Adnane Maalaoui: ; or

Journals-Partners : International Small Business Journal (ISBJ), Journal of Small Business Management (JSBM), Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Long Range Planning (LRP), Revue de l’entrepreneuriat (RE)


1 – Submission of extended abstract (main workshop and doctoral students): June 15th, 2018
2 – Acceptance Notification: 1st July, 2018
3 – Workshop: September 24-25th, 2018
4 – Doctoral Workshop: September 25th, 2018

Call for papers – Special Issue of the Journal of Business Venturing Insights

Call for papers – Special Issue of the Journal of Business Venturing Insights

Large-scale Replication Initiative in Entrepreneurship (deadline for proposals is September 1, 2018)

Guest Editors

Arjen van Witteloostuijn (VU Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and University of Antwerp / Antwerp Management School, Belgium)

Marcus Dejardin (University of Namur and Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium)

Jeffrey M. Pollack (North Carolina State University, USA)


The lack of replication, or the replicability crisis, is a challenge across a growing number of disciplines (e.g., Aguinis, Cascio, & Ramani, 2017; Świątkowski & Dompnier, 2017). For some, this is even a reason to refer to a “credibility crisis” in science in general (Gall, Ioannidis, & Maniadis, 2017).

With this call for papers, the Journal of Business Venturing Insights explicitly solicits replication studies. Put simply, with the current initiative, our aim is to launch an ambitious replication movement in entrepreneurship. Our goal is to initiate a large-scale movement within the entrepreneurship community involving (a) replicating multiple studies, in (b) different countries across the world, by (c) a large number of teams.


We invite all colleagues to submit by email to us (the guest editors), before September 1, 2018, proposals regarding which entrepreneurship studies to replicate. Each proposal will (a) suggest a specific study (or set of studies) for replication, (b) specify the type of replication to be conducted, and (c) provide a replication plan (including issues such as minimum power, required budget, as well as decision rules about data collection and relevant methodological protocols).

A Virtual Special Issue

This initiative will operate as a virtual special issue (VSI). This means that submitted papers will be handled as part of the normal submission flow of the journal, but will be designated as belonging to the special issue. Accepted articles will be published in the first available regular issue and will simultaneously appear in a special section dedicated to VSIs. In this way, the content of the special issue can be called up at any time and it will be continuously expanding. The implication of this VSI format is that it operates on an open deadline, making the publication process dynamic and timely.

For more information, see:

For questions, please email the guest editors:

Arjen van Witteloostuijn,  

Marcus Dejardin,

Jeffrey M. Pollack,

Congrès AEI 2019 – Montpellier – Appel à TRACKS

Nous vous prions de trouver ci-joint l’appel à tracks pour le prochain congrès de l’Académie de l’Entrepreneuriat et de l’Innovation (AEI) qui se tiendra à l’Institut Montpellier Management (Université de Montpellier) du 3 au 5 juin 2019 en partenariat avec l’Université de Montpellier, l’I-SITE MUSE, le laboratoire Montpellier Recherche en Management, le Labex Entreprendre, Montpellier Business School, et l’IAE de Montpellier.

La thématique du congrès est la suivante : “Repenser l’entrepreneuriat : des racines et des rêves”

Les documents joints sont à remplir par les enseignants-chercheurs souhaitant soumettre un track à l’adresse :

Cet appel à tracks sera clôturé le 31 mai 2018. Un appel à communications sera lancé sur les tracks retenus.

Pour plus d’infos :

AEI 2019 – 1. Appel à tracks.docx AEI 2019 –

2. Soumission appel à track chair AEI 2019 Montpellier AEI 2019 –

3. appel à communications dans track AEI 2019 Montpellier

Entrepreneurship, alternative practices, and the (dis)organization of cultural and institutional arrangements 11th CERI annual colloquium

Entrepreneurship, alternative practices, and the (dis)organization of cultural and institutional arrangements 11th CERI (Centre d’Etudes et de Recherche de l’ISTEC) annual colloquium

CERI Colloquium 2018 – Call for papers VA MAJ 09.03.18

Over the last few years, we have witnessed a regained interest in the study of individuals or groups who purposefully or unintendedly open-up potentialities by organizing differently, at the margins of widely accepted cultural and institutional arrangements (Barin Cruz, Alves, & Delbridge, 2017; Cheney, Cruz, Peredo, & Nazareno, 2014; Swann & Stoborod, 2014).

Researchers working on different disciplines of management and organization theory have shed light on a large diversity of initiatives and innovations that disrupt, subvert or simply avoid prevailing institutional arrangements and, by the same token, create new organizational forms and possibilities. Such initiatives are to be found for instance in democratic organizations (Leach, 2016; Rothschild & Leach, 2008), pirate organizations (Durand & Vergne, 2012; Parker, 2009), makers and hackers spaces (Lallement, 2015), anarchist groups (Riot, 2014), feminist organizations (D’Enbeau & Buzzanell, 2013; Martin, 1990; Springer, 2005), etc.

Very often, a deliberate, purposeful intention is implied in such practices, in which participants actively engage in the production of alternative cultural, political, and institutional arrangements that challenge dominant paradigms (Farias, 2017; Kokkinidis, 2014) and/or in the prefiguration of alternative socio-political landscapes in the here-and-now (Leach, 2013; Maeckelbergh, 2011; Yates, 2015). But in some cases, individual and collective practices taking place “below the radar” within or around organizations are not meant to disrupt existing institutional arrangements. They might however participate in creating “moral gray zones” (Anteby, 2008) in which alternative meanings and practices are produced and sustained and even social and political change in the case of mundane, infra-political forms of actions (Fernández, Martí, & Farchi, 2017; Scott, 2008). Such endeavors – be they intentionally driven towards institutional change or not – can be seen as entrepreneurial (Bureau, 2013, 2014; Courpasson, Dany, & Martí, 2016) in the sense that they shape new organizational and cultural practices which depart from accepted institutional arrangements (Courpasson, 2016; Courpasson, Dany, & Clegg, 2012; Hjorth & Holt, 2016).

This leads us to consider the motivations stemming behind entrepreneurial actions that could be qualified as “subversive” as they produce new meanings and cultural practices. To which extend intended or unintended alternative practices taking place below the radar open-up potentialities for social and institutional change? What kind of change are we talking about? How can we assess the desirability and legitimacy of such changes? Do subversive activities engender institutional uncertainty (Bylund & McCaffrey, 2017) detrimental to their legitimacy? What forms of organizing do they produce, and on which cultural meanings and moral underpinning do they rest on? Does technology impact the nature, size, and strength of subversive networks? How do innovations at the fringe of existing institutional arrangements might become normalized? Do decentralization and denationalization enabled by IT promote institutional and cultural change?

If some scholars claim for a definition of alternative organizations as inherently positive attempts at producing more personal autonomy, solidarity and responsibility (Parker, Cheney, Fournier, & Land, 2014), and consider such organizational forms as necessary for social justice within democratic societies (Parker, 2017), we ask here for unpacking and questioning the cultural practices and moral underpinning that are produced in the making and organizing of such entrepreneurial practices. Since the productive, unproductive, or destructive character of entrepreneurship largely depends on the existing institutional arrangements (Baumol, 1996), the same concerns apply even more so when entrepreneurs aim at subverting the rules of the game (Douhan & Henrekson, 2010; Garud, Hardy, & Maguire, 2007; Sobel, 2008).

In this colloquium, we invite papers that question and challenge the ethical, moral, economic, and cultural aspects of organizations and entrepreneurial actions and innovations emerging at the margins of accepted institutional arrangements, and their potential (positive and negative) impacts.

Some possible perspectives and topics might include:

  • What kind of organizational and cultural practices emerge from attempts at challenging, subverting or simply avoiding existing institutions?
  • How do such practices materially translate into their environment?
  • How can we unveil and make sense of the potential “dark side” of alternative organizations and entrepreneurship?
  • What kinds of epistemologies could help us understanding the unfolding of “subversive” entrepreneurial actions?
  • How can we make sense of individual and collective actions that produce organizational changes unintentionally?



Professor of sociology at EMLYON Business School and Director of OCE- EMLYON Research Center; he is also Professor at Cardiff University (UK). He has published numerous articles on political dynamics in organization, resistance and new forms of work and management in journals such as Organization Science, Organization Studies, Journal of Management Studies, Journal of Business Venturing, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice and Organization. He has also published several books. He has recently edited (with Steven Vallas) the SAGE Handbook of Resistance. He was editor-in-chief of the journal Organization Studies between 2008 and 2013.


Ignasi MARTI

Professor of organization theory and entrepreneurship at the EMLYON Business School and permanent visiting professor at ESADE-Ramon Llull University. He received his PhD from the IESE Business School at the University of Navarra. His research focuses on dignity, resistance, entrepreneurship, power and politics, and other institutional processes. He has published articles in journals such as Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Business Venturing, Organization Studies, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, and Journal of Management Inquiry.



  • Deadline for abstract submission (from 500 to 1000 words in English or in French): May 15th, 2018
  • Notification to the authors: June 15th, 2018
  • Deadline for full paper submission: September 15th, 2018
  • Reviewers’ feedbacks to authors: Mid-November 2018


The scientific committee will gather a selection of the most promising full papers presented at the colloquium for consideration for a Special Issue in Society and Business Review.

(for more information about this journal, please visit the website:

Abstracts and full papers must be addressed to the following mail address:

For further information, please contact:

Carine Farias,

Loïc Sauce,



BENCHERQUI Dominique, Head of Research, ISTEC, Prism-Sorbonne

DARMON Véronique, Head of Pedagogy, ISTEC




REY FERRER Anne, Head of Communication, ISTEC



ACQUIER Aurélien, ESCP Europe, Paris

ALOUI Adel, ISTEC, Paris

BAZIN Yoann, EM Normandie, London

BEAU Gaëlle, ISTEC, Paris

BECHE Jérôme, ISTEC, Paris

BENCHERQUI Dominique, Head of Research, ISTEC, Prism-Sorbonne, Paris

BEZES Christophe, ISTEC, Paris

BOUCHER Ronald, ISTEC, Paris

BOTHELLO Joël, Concordia University, Montreal

BUREAU Sylvain, ESCP Europe, Paris

BYLUND Per, Oklahoma State University, Oklahoma

BYRNE Janice, IESEG, Paris


CHABOUD Mathieu-Claude, Burgundy School of Business, Dijon



FARIAS Carine, ISTEC, Paris

FERNANDEZ Pablo, IAE Business School, Buenos Aires

GIACOMONI Gilbert, Agro Paris-Tech and ISTEC, Paris

GIMENEZ-ROCHE Gabriel, NEOMA Business School

HUDSON Bryant, IESEG, Paris

ISLAM Gazi, Grenoble Ecole de Management, Grenoble

KEFI Mohamed Karim, ISTEC, Paris

PESQUEUX Yvon, Lirsa, CNAM, Paris

PICARD Hélène, Grenoble Ecole de Management, Grenoble

SAUCE Loïc, ISTEC, Paris



Anteby, M. (2008). Moral gray zones : side productions, identity, and regulation in an aeronautic plant. Princeton University Press.

Barin Cruz, L., Alves, M. A. ;, & Delbridge, R. (2017). Next steps in organizing alternatives to capitalism: toward a relational research agenda. M@n@gement, 20, 322–335.

Baumol, W. (1996). Entrepreneurship: productive, unproductive, and destructive. Journal of Business Venturing, 11, 3–22.

Bureau, S. (2013). Entrepreneurship as a subversive activity: How can entrepreneurs destroy in the process of creative destruction? M@n@gement, 16, 204–235.

Bureau, S. (2014). Piracy as an avant-gardist deviance: how do entrepreneurial pirates contribute to the wealth or misery of nations? International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 22, 426.

Bylund, P., & McCaffrey, M. (2017). A theory of entrepreneurship and institutional uncertainty. Journal of Business Venturing, 3, 461–475.

Cheney, G., Cruz, I. S., Peredo, A. M., & Nazareno, E. (2014). Worker cooperatives as an organizational alternative: Challenges, achievements and promise in business governance and ownership. Organization, 21, 591–603.

Courpasson, D. (2016). Impactful Resistance: The Persistence of Recognition Politics in the Workplace. Journal of Management Inquiry, 25, 96–100.

Courpasson, D., Dany, F., & Clegg, S. (2012). Resisters at Work: Generating Productive Resistance in the Workplace. Organization Science, 23, 801–819.

Courpasson, D., Dany, F., & Martí, I. (2016). Organizational Entrepreneurship as Active Resistance: A Struggle Against Outsourcing. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40, 131–160.

D’Enbeau, S., & Buzzanell, P. M. (2013). Constructing a feminist organization’s identity in a competitive marketplace: The intersection of ideology, image, and culture. Human Relations, 66, 1447–1470.

Douhan, R., & Henrekson, M. (2010). Entrepreneurship and second-best institutions: going beyond Baumol’s typology. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 20, 629–643.

Durand, R., & Vergne, J.-P. (2012). No territory, no profit: The pirate organization and capitalism in the making. M@n@gement, 3, 265–272.

Farias, C. (2017). Money is the Root of All Evil – Or Is It? Recreating Culture through Everyday Neutralizing Practices. Organization Studies, 38, 775–793.

Fernández, P. D., Martí, I., & Farchi, T. (2017). Mundane and Everyday Politics for and from the Neighborhood. Organization Studies, 38, 201–223.

Garud, R., Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. (2007). Institutional entrepreneurship as embedded agency: An introduction to the Special Issue. Organization Studies, 28, 957–969.

Hjorth, D., & Holt, R. (2016). It’s entrepreneurship, not enterprise: Ai Weiwei as entrepreneur. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 5, 50–54.

Kokkinidis, G. (2014). Spaces of possibilities: workers’ self-management in Greece. Organization, 1–25.

Lallement, M. (2015). L’Âge du faire: Hacking, travail, anarchie.

Leach, D. K. (2013). Prefigurative Politics. In D. A. Snow, D. della Porta, B. Klandermans, & D. McAdam (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social and Political Movements. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Leach, D. K. (2016). When Freedom is Not an Endless Meeting: A New Look at Efficiency in Consensus‐Based Decision Making. The Sociological Quarterly, 57, 36–70.

Maeckelbergh, M. (2011). Doing is Believing: Prefiguration as Strategic Practice in the Alterglobalization Movement. Social Movement Studies, 10, 1–20.

Martin, P. Y. (1990). Rethinking Feminist Organizations. Gender & Society, 4, 182–206.

Parker, M. (2009). Pirates, merchants and anarchists: Representations of international business. Management & Organizational History, 4, 167–185.

Parker, M. (2017). Alternative enterprises, local economies, and social justice: why smaller is still more beautiful. M@n@gement, 20, 418–434.

Parker, M., Cheney, G., Fournier, V., & Land, C. (2014). The question of organization: A manifesto for alternatives. Ephemera, 14, 623–638.

Riot, E. (2014). “Anarchy by the book? Forget about it!”: The role of collective memory in shaping workers’ relations to anarchism and work today. Ephemera, 14, 811–834.

Rothschild, J., & Leach, D. (2008). Avoid, Talk, or Fight: Alternative Cultural Strategies in the Battle Against Oligarchy in Collectivist-Democratic Organizations (pp. 346–361). Springer US.

Scott, J. C. (2008). Weapons of the Weak : Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. Yale University Press.

Sobel, R. (2008). Testing Baumol: Institutional quality and the productivity of entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 23, 641–655.

Springer, K. (2005). Living for the revolution : Black feminist organizations, 1968-1980. Duke University Press.

Swann, T., & Stoborod, K. (2014). Did you hear the one about the anarchist manager? Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization, 14, 591–609.

Yates, L. (2015). Rethinking Prefiguration: Alternatives, Micropolitics and Goals in Social Movements. Social Movement Studies, 14, 1–21.

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, et en copie à,

– 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).


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 :
Télécharger l’appel à communication : 3ème Colloque Interdisciplinaire sur la Défaillance d’Entreprise

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.
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.

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


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 (« 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 :

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



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.

ACFAS 2018 – Écosystèmes entrepreneuriaux innovants : quels paradigmes, quelle gouvernance, quels soutiens et quelles retombées?

Appel à communications

Écosystèmes entrepreneuriaux innovants : quels paradigmes, quelle gouvernance, quels soutiens et quelles retombées?

Colloque ACFAS 2018 – no 405

Mercredi 9 mai et jeudi 10 mai 2018

Université du Québec à Chicoutimi

Appel à communications


Ce colloque d’une durée d’une journée (ou deux selon la réponse à cet appel) organisé par l’Institut de Recherche sur les PME (INRPME; vise à rassembler chercheurs, acteurs de terrain et utilisateurs des connaissances liées au sujet des écosystèmes entrepreneuriaux innovants pour partager leurs savoirs, leurs réflexions et leurs expériences.

  • Suite au colloque, les conférenciers intéressés pourront soumettre pour évaluation un texte de leur communication pour une diffusion dans un numéro spécial de la Revue Organisations et Territoires (ISSN 1493-8871), une revue orientée vers la vulgarisation scientifique.
  • Le colloque sera également l’occasion de rassembler des propositions de texte pour un projet de numéro spécial sur le sujet dans une revue référencée par le CNRS et l’AERES.


Sujet du colloque

La combinaison des effets de la mondialisation, de la tertiairisation de l’économie, de l’évolution de plus en plus rapide et complexe de l’innovation, de l’apparition de nouvelles technologies et du développement de nouveaux modèles de production recentre le fait territorial au coeur du champ d’analyse portant sur le développement socio-économique. Qu’il s’agisse des modèles de la nouvelle économie géographique, des études sur les concepts de systèmes productifs locaux, de milieux novateurs, de clusters industriels et pôles de compétitivité ou de spécialisation intelligente, ces développements incitent à recentrer la réflexion et les actions sur des initiatives économiques qui sont ancrées territorialement.

L’entrepreneuriat constitue un aspect particulièrement important du développement socio-économique territorial. Afin d’étudier ce phénomène, le concept d’écosystème entrepreneurial offre un cadre d’analyse multivarié et holistique permettant d’intégrer les choix, les agissements et l’influence des entrepreneurs dans un système territorial complexe dont les composantes sont interreliées. L’écosystème entrepreneurial est notamment constitué d’entrepreneurs et d’actions institutionnelles visant par exemple le démarrage et l’accompagnement d’entreprise, l’innovation et le développement de marché, actions généralement appuyées par des logiques de collaboration, de réseautage et de partage entre les acteurs de cet écosystème. En particulier, on voit apparaitre de multiples initiatives en matière de structures collaboratives qui émergent à la fois des institutions publiques et des acteurs entreprenants. « Dans une approche écosystémique, les interactions entre acteurs encastrés dans une infrastructure contribuent donc à cultiver l’entrepreneuriat » (GermainOn pense notamment aux FabLabs et Livinglabs, aux Hubs innovants, aux espaces de coworking, aux incubateurs, etc., ceux-ci se greffant aux stratégies territoriales plus anciennes de types grappe industrielle et cluster. Ainsi se côtoient dans un même écosystème des initiatives de type plutôt déterministe (top-down) ou volontaire (bottom-up) dans un espace territorialement délimité, mais virtuellement non limité. 1, p. 23, 2016).

1 Germain, O., 2017. « Les théories en entrepreneuriat : pour que les fruits passent la promesse des fleurs », pp.17-58, dans St-Pierre, J. et F. Labelle. (2017). Les PME d’hier à demain : Bilan et perspectives. Presses de l’Université du Québec, Collection Entrepreneuriat & PME, 685 p.

2 Rampa, R., 2015. FabLabs: Les Dynamiques de Connaissances Globales et Locales des Nouveaux Tiers Lieux du Faire. Mémoire de maîtrise, HEC Montréal, 136 p. (

3 Ferchaud, F. et M. Dumont, « Les espaces de fabrication et d’expérimentation numérique sont-ils des tiers-lieux ? Une analyse du cas des Fablabs à Rennes et Toulouse », Territoire en mouvement, Revue de géographie et aménagement [En ligne], 34 | 2017, mis en ligne le 19 juin 2017, consulté le 20 septembre 2017. URL : ; DOI : 10.4000/tem.4203

Bien que les particularités des diverses initiatives puissent être distinguées, ce qu’il conviendra de faire en début de colloque, elles contribuent à une même mission, soit celle de favoriser la construction d’une économie collaborative et interconnectée entre de multiples acteurs, la plupart des PME ancrées territorialement. Depuis quelques années, nous assistions à une multiplication d’initiatives de cette nature. Par exemple, entre 2014 et 2015, le nombre de Fablabs a presque doublé dans le monde, passant de 266 à près de 500 (Rampa, 20152; Ferchaud et Dumont, 20173). Au Québec, nous assistons également à cette effervescence. Un manifeste signé par 19 signataires pour la « Création de Réseaux régionaux de Hubs innovants pour promouvoir et soutenir l’entrepreneuriat au sein de chacune des régions du Québec » en témoigne.

Propositions de communication :

Dans ce contexte, le portrait d’ensemble des écosystèmes régionaux innovants devient complexe et les acteurs de terrain et les chercheurs soulèvent des questions face à ce phénomène de prolifération des initiatives volontaires ou déterminées. C’est pour réfléchir à ce phénomène que nous lançons un appel à communications aux chercheurs, étudiants et acteurs de terrain sur les trois thèmes suivants :

  • Thème 1 : Selon quels paradigmes, ou cadrages théoriques et méthodologiques, peut-on distinguer l’ensemble de ces initiatives qui visent à stimuler l’entrepreneuriat, le développement socio-économique et la revitalisation des territoires ?
  • Thème 2 : Quelle gouvernance et quels soutiens pour ces initiatives situées à divers niveaux d’action?
  • Thème 3 : Comment évaluer la pertinence, l’efficacité et les retombées liées à ces initiatives dédiées au support de l’écosystème entrepreneurial?


Contenu de l’intention de communication

L’intention de communication comprend une page titre et une page pour le résumé.

  • La page titre comprendra : o Les nom et prénom du ou des auteurs
  • Les titres, fonctions, institutions de chaque auteur
  • oes coordonnées de chaque auteur : adresse postale, téléphone, courriel
  • Le titre de la communication
  • La page « résumé de la communication » comprendra o Le thème choisi Pour les communications de nature plus scientifique, une description succincte des éléments suivants : 1) la problématique, 2) les objectifs 3) le cadre conceptuel, 4) la méthodologie et 5) les principaux résultats
  • Pour les communications de nature conceptuelle, les points 4 et 5 pourront être remplacés par la proposition d’un modèle de recherche
  • Pour les communications de nature davantage expérientielle, une description succincte des éléments suivants 1) l’enjeu identifié, 2) les objectifs de la communication, 3) la présentation du cas discuté, 4) les principaux enseignements retenus
  • 300 mots maximum



Format des présentations lors du colloque :

Communication orale d’une durée de 15 minutes + 5 minutes de questions et discussion


  • 15 février : date limite de soumission des propositions et envoi au comité scientifique
  • 25 février : retour des évaluations aux auteurs
  • 9 mai : date du colloque (toute la journée)
  • 10 mai (date possible pour des communications supplémentaires répondant à cet appel)

L’intention de communication doit être envoyée à l’adresse courriel suivante, en indiquant dans l’objet « ACFAS 2018 – INRPME » :


Critères d’évaluation :

Le comité organisateur agit également à titre de comité scientifique et a le mandat d’évaluer les propositions de communication reçues en fonction des critères suivants :

  • Clarté de la problématique, des enjeux identifiés et des objectifs présentés ;
  • Clarté de la méthodologie de recherche (communication scientifique) ;
  • Présence de résultats théoriques, empiriques ou méthodologiques ou d’expériences pratiques ;
  • Qualité, originalité, nouveauté.


Marc Duhamel

Département de finance et économique, École de gestion

Institut de recherche sur les PME

Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières


Marc.Duhamel @

Téléphone : 819 376-5011, poste 3179

Cécile Fonrouge

Département de management, École de gestion

Institut de recherche sur les PME

Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières


Cecile.Fonrouge @

Téléphone : 819 376-5011, poste 4296

François Labelle

Département de management, École de gestion

Directeur | Institut de recherche sur les PME Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières

Francois.Labelle @

Téléphone : 819 376-5011, poste 4050

Frédéric Laurin

Département de finance et économique, École de gestion

Institut de recherche sur les PME

Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières


Frederic.Laurin @

Téléphone : 819 376-5011, poste 3118


G-Forum 2018 – Call for Papers

The 22nd Annual Interdisciplinary Conference on Entrepreneurship, Innovation and SMEs will be held in Stuttgart from October 10th to 12th, 2018. Lead partners of the FGF e.V. are the University of Hohenheim and the Stuttgart Media University. President of the conference is Prof. Dr. Andreas Kuckertz, Chair in Entrepreneurship at the University of Hohenheim. The program of the conference will be enriched by renowned keynote speakers.

The guiding theme of the G-Forum 2018 in Stuttgart is:

„Mastering the Digital Transformation: Corporate Entrepreneurship as a Fast Track to Innovation”


Digital technologies are currently causing a dramatic transformation of established industries. Entrepreneurs exploit the resulting manifold opportunities to test new business solutions and new business models. As a consequence, established firms such as medium-sized companies need to react to the potentially disruptive competition through entrepreneurial and innovative initiatives. Against this background, the G-Forum 2018 consequently addresses the numerous questions, opportunities and approaches that arise from this challenge for entrepreneurs, established companies and entrepreneurship research.


In addition to submissions addressing the guiding theme of the conference, the conference organizers expressly welcome any submission that corresponds to the three main thematic fields of the FGF e.V. These are the topics

  • Entrepreneurship
  • Innovation
  • SMEs

In this way, the G-Forum will fulfill its role as a central platform for the scientific community to exchange views on the current state of scientific discussion.

The conference languages are German and English.

To enhance the exchange between science and practice, submissions “from both worlds” are expressly desired. Topic-specific sessions are offered which are either based on submissions from science or practice. There are two independent review processes to meet the different requirements for submissions from both realms.

It is possible to submit full papers to the G-Forum. Authors of full paper submissions receive two developmental reviews from members of the G-Forum Review Board and qualify themselves for a 20-minute presentation plus 10-minute discussion.

However, proposals for presentations can also be submitted as an abstract. An abstract should not exceed 1.000 words. Abstracts qualify for poster presentations, round-table discussions or short presentations (elevator pitches).

Please submit your full papers and abstracts in two versions (with and without author details) as a pdf document until May 24th, 2018 via e-mail to

Details of the conference and submission guidelines can be found in the detailed Call for Papers. More information about the conference is also available on the Internet at

We are looking forward to your submissions and participation at the G-Forum 2018 in Stuttgart!

Förderkreis Gründungs-Forschung e.V. (FGF)
c/o Ulrich Knaup
Gartenstrasse 86
47798 Krefeld
Amtsgericht Köln VR 9718

Tel.: +49 (0)2151-777-508
Email: knaup @

Internet: www.fgf-ev.deFGF auf Twitter:


Wichtiger Hinweis:

G-Forum 2018 vom 10.-12. Oktober in Stuttgart

Call for Papers (deutsch/englisch)



Cross Cultural & Strategic Management

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 (, Johanna Vanderstraeten (, Ellen Loots (, and Anaïs Hamelin (
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.


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,


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


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 @; malin.brannback @ and v.ratten @

All submissions should conform to EMR style guidelines detailed:



 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

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 by October 1, 2018. Submissions should be prepared according to the IJEBR Author Guidelines found at
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:
Richard Tunstall:
Claire Champenois:
William B. Gartner: or

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 :

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 :

Invited editor:

– Marcus Drescher (AGER Consultant)


– Alain Fayolle (EM-Lyon business school) fayolle @

– Bernard Surlemont (HEC-Liège Business school from Liège University) b.surlemont @

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.


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 (

– Alain Fayolle (

– Bernard Surlemont (

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


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.


To type after the title: names and surnames, duties, establishment or attachment organism, address, email and phone numbers.


A few lines about your background and your articles will help the editorial team to write a short biography.


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.


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


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:



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.