Colloque Internationale – L’impact de la culture sur les dynamiques entrepreneuriales : une mise en perspective internationale – 28 et 29 mai 2020 – Avignon

Dans quelle mesure les dynamiques entrepreneuriales s’expliquent-elles par des variables culturelles ? Loin d’être nouvelle, la question taraude les sciences sociales depuis au moins la révolution industrielle qu’a connue l’Europe à la fin du XIXème siècle et le développement du commerce et des affaires qui en a découlé. Dans une analyse aujourd’hui bien connue, parue pour la première fois en 1904, Max Weber est l’un des premiers à s’être intéressé aux liens entre croyance religieuse et développement du capitalisme. Il montre ainsi comment les protestants et en particulier les calvinistes privilégient plutôt la réussite sur terre, ici et maintenant, ce qui les amène à valoriser le travail, les affaires et l’ascétisme dans le monde, alors que les catholiques sont davantage sensibles à la question du rachat de leur âme et du salut par la rédemption, ce qui tend à les situer « hors monde » et donc à les détourner de leurs accomplissements professionnels (Weber, 1991).

Dans cette perspective, le lien entre histoire et développement économique a fait l’objet de nombreuses recherches. Pour Weber, le développement économique renvoie directement et de manière causale à un fait culturel, religieux en l’occurrence. Loin d’être abandonnée, l’idée a fait florès et reste très répandue. Ainsi, pour le célèbre historien américain David Landes (2010), la richesse et la pauvreté des nations s’explique essentiellement par l’existence de systèmes culturels qui déterminent leur niveau de performance économique.

En attribuant ouvertement des traits de caractères aux pays qu’il étudie, il assume même une interprétation que l’on peut qualifier de « culturaliste », puisqu’elle tend à réduire des phénomènes politiques, institutionnels ou économiques à des questions de croyances, de représentations et de valeurs quasi-naturalisées. Pour séduisantes et stimulantes qu’elles soient, ces explications ont suscité beaucoup de critiques en raison de leur simplicité et de leur caractère systématique, en particulier lorsqu’elles prétendent expliquer les phénomènes de développement (Petiteville, 1995).

Appel à communication:
Lieu du colloque :

«Le Petit Louvre» – 23, rue Saint-Agricol, 84000 Avignon

Date à retenir :
  • 29 février 2020 : dépôt des propositions
  • 27 mars 2020 : notifications aux auteurs
  • 30 avril 2020 : remise des textes définitifs et inscription obligatoire pour les personnes dont les travaux ont été acceptés
  • 28/29 mai 2020 : colloque à Avignon

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

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

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

Echéance : Les articles sont attendus pour mi mai 2020.

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

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

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

IJESB CFP_Business Transfer

Call for Papers Digital, Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Financing December 2-3, 2019, Valencia, Spain

Submission deadline: July 15, 2019

Conference’s Official Website

You are cordially invited to submit your research papers for presentation at the International Conference on Digital, Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Financing (DIF-2019) that will take place on December 2-3, 2019 in Valencia. Valencia has a mix of old and new buildings, giving it a real special feel of its own. From medieval castles and towers to modernist and art deco architecture, from nice little shops to big shopping centres, Valencia has it all.

 

The DIF-2019, organized by Universitat Politècnica de València (ES), John Molson School of Business, (Concordia University, CA), University of Jilin (CN), will be an excellent networking opportunity for academics, doctoral students and practitioners to present new research results, and discuss current and challenging issues in their disciplines.

 

The main tracks of the conference are the following (non-exhaustive):

– Digital transformation, Strategy and Competitiveness of firms
– Digital Marketing
– Management of digital innovation and Organizational impacts
– Protection and development of digital innovations, Patents, Open innovation
– Digital Technologies
– Business model and Innovation
– Entrepreneurship / Intrapreneurship and Innovation
– Digital innovation and Knowledge management
– Dynamics and growth strategy of digital firms
– Human Resources and Digital
– E-learning, e-education and e-pedagogy
– Financing of digital innovations
– Electronic markets and Trading platforms
– FinTech and Alternative Finance (crowdfunding, P2P lending)
– Governance and Financing of High Tech firms
– Digital finance, money, banking, and insurance: Bitcoin, cryptocurrency, Blockchain, future of payments, e-banking, e-finance, AssurTech…
-Sustainability

 

Paper Submission Procedure

Interested contributors should submit preferably full papers in PDF files (in English or French), but extended abstracts (1,000 to 1,500 words) may also be considered if they show considerable promise, no later than July 15, 2019 through the conference website.

 

Important Date

  • Submission deadline: July 15, 2019
  • Notification of review results: 3 weeks after submission
  • Registration deadline: October 1, 2019
  • Conference event: December 2-3, 2019

Please visit our website for detailed information:  https://dif2019.sciencesconf.org

 

Publication Opportunities

We have established agreements with several academic journals. Authors wishing to submit their articles to these journals can do under the special issues or sections related to the DIF conference:

 

Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier (JCR Impact Factor (2017): 3.131; ISI, 5-Year Impact Factor: 3.226, Fnege & CNRS cat. 2)

Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, Taylor & Francis (JCR Impact Factor (2017): 1.419, ISI 5-Year Impact Factor:0.654, Scopus, Fnege cat. 3)

Journal of Organizational Change Management, Emerald insight (JCR Impact Factor (2017): 1.262, ISI 5-Year Impact Factor:1.491, Scopus, Fnege cat. 3)

International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Inderscience Publishers (Scopus, Fnege cat. 4)

Gestion 2000 (Fnege, Cat. 4)

– A scientific book will be also published

 

Best paper award

 

The “Best Paper Award” will be given to the studies which will be selected by the committee among the papers presented in DIF 2019 and applied for the award. The “Best Paper Awards” will be send to the European Journal of International Management, Inderscience Publishers (JCR Impact Factor (2017): 0,672, ISI 5-Year Impact Factor: 0.905) for evaluation.

Further Information

For queries, please contact the organizers at mperis@doe.upv.es

 

 

 

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

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

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

 Guest Editors:

 Norris Krueger, Boise School of Advanced Studies, USA

Jean-Pierre Boissin, University of Grenoble Alpes, France

Adnane Maalaoui, IPAG Business School, France

Erno Tornikoski, University of Exeter Business School, UK

Jean Michel Sahut, IDRAC Business School, France

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– Gap between intention and action for student entrepreneurs;

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

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

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

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

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

Calendar:

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

References :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appel à communications – Écosystèmes entrepreneuriaux innovants : quelle gouvernance, quels soutiens et quelles retombées? – Colloque ACFAS 2019 – no 459 – 28 et 29 mai 2019 – Université du Québec en Outaouais

https://www.acfas.ca/evenements/congres/programme-preliminaire/400/459

Appel à communications Acfas – no. 459

Présentation

Ce colloque d’une durée de deux journées organisé par l’Institut de recherche sur les PME (INRPME; www.inrpme.ca) 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.

  • Les conférenciers intéressés pourront soumettre pour évaluation une proposition de texte en lien avec 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. Les détails concernant cet appel à texte sont présentés à la suite de l’appel à communication.

 

Sujet du colloque

La combinaison des effets de la mondialisation, de la tertiarisation de l’économie, de l’accélération et de la complexification de l’innovation, de l’apparition de nouvelles technologies et du développement de nouveaux modèles de production replace le fait territorial au coeur du champ d’analyse portant sur le développement socio-économique et sur l’un de ses moteurs, l’entrepreneuriat. 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 favorisent l’émergence d’une diversité d’initiatives territoriales ayant pour objectif de stimuler ou de soutenir l’entrepreneuriat (Stam et Spigel, 2016-1).

Le concept d’écosystème entrepreneurial offre un cadre d’analyse holistique qui contribue à structurer cette réflexion en intégrant les choix, les agissements et l’influence de plusieurs acteurs liés au phénomène entrepreneurial sur un territoire (Borissenko et Boshma, 2017-2). L’écosystème entrepreneurial est notamment constitué des entrepreneurs émergents et des entrepreneurs seniors, des institutions d’enseignement et de recherche, des instances gouvernementales locales, des mentors, des investisseurs et institutions de financement, des fournisseurs de services professionnels, des consommateurs d’un territoire donné (Stam and Spigel, 2016; Stam et Van de Ven, 2018-3; Scaringella et Radziwon, 2018-4). La présence d’un écosystème entrepreneurial renvoie aussi à la question de la culture entrepreneuriale locale qui peut la renforcer ou contribuer à l’initier (Davidsson, 1995-5).

Depuis une dizaine d’années, on voit apparaître de multiples initiatives qui émergent à la fois des institutions publiques et des acteurs visant à favoriser le développement entrepreneurial dans un espace territorialement délimité. On pense notamment aux FabLabs et Livinglabs, aux Hubs innovants, aux espaces de Coworking qui, au-delà de leur diversité, s’appuient tous sur la même idée voulant que les interactions entre les acteurs encastrés sur un territoire, dans un espace physique ou virtuel, vont contribuer à cultiver l’entrepreneuriat (Germain, 20166). Ainsi, ces initiatives contribuent au renforcement ou à l’amorce d’écosystèmes régionaux. Depuis quelques années, nous assistons 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, 2015-7; Ferchaud et Dumont, 2017-8; Fonrouge, 2018-9). Au Québec, nous observons également 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 – 10» en témoigne. Ces initiatives s’ajoutent aux activités déjà en place sur un territoire, tels les incubateurs, les clusters et les grappes industrielles. Ainsi se côtoient dans un même écosystème des initiatives de type déterministe, mises en place par les instances publiques (top-down), et volontaire (bottom-up), émanant des initiatives d’acteurs de terrain, dans un espace circonscrit, mais virtuellement non limité.

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, centrée sur le développement territorial de l’entrepreneuriat. Cela dit, cette profusion d’initiatives favorise-t-elle véritablement l’entrepreneuriat territorialisé?

Sème-t-elle davantage de confusion et de tensions chez les acteurs ?

Ces initiatives sont-elles agencées de manière cohérente pour maximiser les retombées?

Pour mieux appréhender ce phénomène de multiplication des initiatives qui participent au dynamisme des écosystèmes entrepreneuriaux, gouvernance, pertinence, soutien et retombées liées à ces nouveaux projets constituent les sujets principaux de ce colloque.

 

Références

 

1 Stam, E. et Spigel, B. (2016). « Entrepreneurial Ecosystem ». Discussion Paper Series 16-13. Utrecht School of Economics Tjalling C. Koopmans Research Institute.

2 Borissenko, J. et Boshma, R. (2017). « A critical review of entrepreneurial ecosystems research: Towards a future research agenda ». Papers in Innovation Studies Paper no. 2017/03. Centre for Innovation, Research and Competence in the Learning Economy.

3 Stam, A. et Van de Ven, A. (2018) « Entrepreneurial Ecosystem: A Systems Perspective ». Working Paper Series 18-06. Utrecht University School of Economics Research Institute.

4 Scaringella, L. et Radziwon, A. (2018). « Innovation, entrepreneurial, knowledge, and business ecosystems: old wine in new bottles?” Technological Forescating et Social Change, (136) 59-87.

5 Davidsson, Per. 1995. “Culture, Structure and Regional Levels of Entrepreneurship.” Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 7(1), 41-62.

6 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.

7 Rampa, R. (2015) « FabLabs: Les dynamiques de connaissances globales et locales des nouveaux tiers lieux du faire. Mémoire de maîtrise, HEC Montréal, 136 p. (http://biblos.hec.ca/biblio/memoires/2015NO20.PDF).

8 Ferchaud, F. et Dumont, M. (2017) « 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 |. URL : http://tem.revues.org/4203 ; DOI : 10.4000/tem.4203.

9 Fonrouge, C. (2018). Les fablabs et l’émergence de figures alternatives de l’entrepreneur. Projectics / Proyectica / Projectique, (1), 41-55.

10 5e Forum des Idées pour le Québec, De l’ambition pour nos régions, Saint-Hyacinthe, 8-9-10 septembre 2017.

Propositions de communication :

Dans ce contexte, le portrait d’ensemble des écosystèmes régionaux innovants devient difficile étant donné la prolifération et la diversité des initiatives, qu’elles soient volontaires ou « forcées ».

C’est pour réfléchir à ce phénomène que nous lançons un appel à communications aux chercheurs, étudiants et acteurs de terrain sur les deux thèmes suivants* :

  • Thème 1 : Quelle gouvernance et quels soutiens pour ces initiatives situées à divers niveaux d’action?
  • Thème 2 : Comment évaluer la pertinence, l’efficacité et les retombées liées à ces initiatives dédiées au support de l’écosystème entrepreneurial?

* Il est à noter que ces deux thèmes feront également l’objet de discussion lors de deux tables rondes qui se tiendront pendant le colloque

 Contenu de l’intention de communication

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

  • La page titre comprendra :
    • Le nom et prénom de chaque auteur
    • Les titres, fonctions, institutions de chaque auteur
    • Les 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
    • 1500 caractères espaces compris maximum (environ 200 mots)

Format des présentations lors du colloque :

Communication orale (de préférence avec support visuel) d’une durée de 15-20 minutes (selon le nombre de participants) + 5 minutes de questions et discussion

Calendrier

  • 25 février 2019 : date limite pour soumettre les propositions de communication
  • 5 mars 2019: retour des évaluations aux auteurs
  • 28 mai 2019 : date du colloque (toute la journée)
  • 29 mai 2019 : date du colloque (toute la journée)

Les propositions de communication doivent être envoyées à l’adresse courriel suivante, en indiquant dans l’objet « ACFAS 2019 – INRPME » : Lucette.Marcotte.Beebe@uqtr.ca

Critères d’évaluation :

Le comité organisateur du colloque 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.

 

ISCB Paris Conference – The Future of Entrepreneurship: Policy and Practice – Paris – France – April 8-9, 2019

INTRODUCTION

Entrepreneurship is the ability to combine creativity and innovation as it relates to the economy. A strong and sustainable economy should seek to bring out the talents of individuals and institutions in society. The challenge, however, is how do policymakers work within their respective government systems to put in place practical measures that will be embraced and understood by the people, especially those individuals and groups who may feel stuck on the margins of their society.

To continue this dialog and progress made, ICSB recognizes that Entrepreneurship is not a one-size fit all policy or viewpoint.

ICSB supports the work that the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) which promotes “policies that improve the economic and social well-being of people around the world.” This is done through ICSB’s association as a member of the Working Party for Small and Medium Enterprises (WPSME).

ICSB in collaboration with OECD and ICSB Global Gateway Partners, IPAG and ESSCA, will be holding a high-level meeting on April 8 and 9, 2019 in Paris, France. This two-day conference in Paris will bring together global experts for this timely discussion on what is the future of entrepreneurship and what should be research has shown to advocate for effective policy.

Policy, research, and practice are on the table for discussion with the goal of building a common narrative to help entrepreneurs and small business owners in Europe that face unique challenges. The format for this meeting will allow for a dynamic debate with those presenting and those who plan on attending the sessions. ICSB, IPAG, and ESSCA are pleased that the OECD April meeting will take place following this conference. We expect that many of the OECD delegates will also join us as invited guests and some as participants in the discussions.

Topics on entrepreneurship policy and the role of the state will address government attempts to shape the climate for small business starts and their growth. Access to capital financing, which is a cornerstone of every small business, will be a focus of discussion. Representatives from financial institutions will share their views and processes that entrepreneurs should consider when seeking access to capital.

ICSB brings the perspective of working with partners at the World Bank, International Finance Corporation, The United Nations, The United States Small Business Administration, and the European Union. The convening of this major conference in Europe will enable ICSB to partner with IPAG’s Business School and ESSCA School of Management.

CALL FOR PAPERS

Policy, research, and practice are on the table for discussion with the goal of building a common narrative to help entrepreneurs and small business owners in Europe that face unique challenges. The format for this meeting will allow for a dynamic debate with those presenting and those who plan on attending the sessions.

What are the lessons that can be learned from this? Where should Policymakers focus their attention to create a sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem? What collaborations to give hope to those in the margins of society? These are many other topics are welcomed for discussion.

Following this point of view, we invite authors to submit abstracts reflecting the multiple aspects, actors, levels, and complexity on what can be done to get a more accurate view of entrepreneurship. What should be the Future of Entrepreneurship: Policy and Practice?

READ MORE

SUBMISSIONS

We invite researchers to submit an abstract for discussion (except for entrepreneurs who should provide a letter stating why they would like to attend). The first page of an academic submission must contain the title, author(s) and contact information of the corresponding author. The organizers expect extended abstracts of no more than 3-pages 1, 5-space, maximum 1500-words. All submissions must be written in English. An abstract should inform explicitly about the following five issues: Research objective/question; Conceptual development; Methodology; Results (if not a conceptual paper); and Contribution. Please exclude tables, figures and references.

SUBMIT HERE

KEY DATES

Submission of extended abstract (main workshop): February 15, 2019
Acceptance Notification: February 22, 2019
Conference: April 8th, 2019 – IPAG Business School– Day 1
Conference: April 9th, 2019 – OECD – Day 2

PUBLICATION OPPORTUNITIES

Editors and/or Associate editors from leading entrepreneurship and small business journals including the Journal for Small Business Management will participate in the event and be available to discuss with the submitting authors about the potential of their manuscripts for their respective journals.

ORGANIZING COMMITTEE

Professor Adnane Maalaoui, IPAG Business School, France
Professor Inés Gabarret, ESSCA School of Management, France
Professor Ayman El Tarabishy, ICSB Executive Director
Professor George Solomon, Editor of the ICSB Journal from Small Business Management
Mme Lucia Cusmano, OECD, Acting Head of Division, SME and Entrepreneurship
Professor Andrea Calabro, IPAG Business School, France
Professor Julia Vincent, IPAG Business School, France

INFORMATION CONTACT

Please feel free to contact Professor Adnane Maalaoui, a.maalaoui@ipag.fr and Professor Inés Gabarret , ines.gabarret@essca.fr if you have any queries about the workshop.

 

References:

DePillis, Lydia, “The are fewer gig jobs than you think. Economists walk back study that showed huge increase”, CNN Business, January 10, 2019.

Sherman, Erik, “The Gig Economy Never Really Happened, Say the Economists Who Predicted it”, Fortune.com, January 7, 2019

Source: https://icsb.org/paris-conference/ 

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

CALL FOR PAPERS_IJEV_FINAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Notes for Prospective Authors

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

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

 

Voluntary submission to the RENT Conference 2019

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

 

Important Dates

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

ISSN Print: 1742-5360

Indexed in Scopus and the Emerging Sources Citation Index

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

VHB-JOURQUAL 3 Ranking: B

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

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

Guest Editors:

Adnane Maalaoui (IPAG Business School, France)

Mustafa Ozbilgin (Brunel University, UK)

Tania Saba (University of Montreal, Canada)

Erhan Aydin (Usak University, Turkey)

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

Changes and their consequences on behaviors

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

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

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

References

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

Deadlines

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

and author guidelines must be followed, see here.

Workshop on Fintech in Strasbourg – 1 & 2 april 2019

CALL FOR PAPERS
Fintech adoption and economic behavior: where do we stand?
Workshop
April 1-2, 2019, EM Strasbourg Business School, University of Strasbourg
Organized by LaRGE research center (University of Strasbourg), the workshop organizers invite researchers to submit papers covering management (Finance, Entrepreneurship, Information System) and economic implications regarding Fintech adoption and/or users behavior
Possible topics include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:
• Digital Financing / Crowdfunding / Crowdlending
• Digital Investment / Digital Financial Advice / Digital Payment
• Fintech adoption and users’ behaviors
• Acceptance, adoption and post-adoption of Fintech technologies
Academic keynote speaker: Pr.Dr. Lars HORNUF, University of Bremen
Professional keynote speaker: Adina GRIGORIU, Actuary, Co-founder & CEO of Active Asset Allocation, Paris
Those interested in presenting a paper at the workshop should send a copy in Word or pdf format via email at the address FAEB@em-strasbourg.eu by January, 25, 2019. Complete papers or extended abstract will be considered. Authors of accepted papers will be notified by February, 15, 2019. There is no conference fee.
Organization committee (University of Strasbourg):
Maxime Merli (Professor of Finance), Jessie Pallud (Professor of Information System), Patrick Roger (Professor of Finance), Laurent Weill (Professor of Economics)
Scientific committee:
Marie-Hélène Broihanne (LaRGE Research Center), Anaïs Hamelin (LaRGE Research Center), Maxime Merli (LaRGE Research Center), Patrick Roger (LaRGE Research Center), Jessie Pallud (Humanis), Daria Plotkina (Humanis), Laurent Weill (LaRGE Research Center)

Call for Papers – 4th Annual Entrepreneurship as Practice Conference and PhD Symposium – 3-5 April 2019 – Audencia Business School, Nantes, France

Call for Papers – 4th Annual Entrepreneurship as Practice Conference and PhD Symposium – 3-5 April 2019 – Audencia Business School, Nantes, France

Call for Papers – 4th Annual Entrepreneurship as Practice

Conference and PhD Symposium – 3-5 April 2019

Audencia Business School, Nantes, France

About the Conference

The 4th version of this conference aims to advance understanding of entrepreneurship-as-practice, foster network ties, facilitate collaborative writing relationships, and build a strong community of practice scholars. To do so, we have developed a Research Conference and PhD Symposium that educates interested scholars as well as develops empirical and conceptual papers regarding the ‘practice turn’ taking place in entrepreneurship studies.

Building on the first (February 2016 at VU Amsterdam), second (February 2017 at University College Dublin Quinn School of Business) and third (April 2018 at Linnaeus University) Entrepreneurship as Practice conferences, this conference and PhD symposium bring together the growing community of researchers who embrace the “practice turn”. Initiated by such calls as Steyaert (2007) and Johannisson (2011), the entrepreneurship-as-practice movement is now gaining traction, witnessed by such contributions as De Clercq & Voronov (2009), Tatli et al. (2014), Goss et al. (2011), Keating et al. (2013), Chalmers and Shaw (2017), Dimov (2018) and Matthews et al. (2018).

Practice theorists of entrepreneurship studies share a number of common assumptions. First, instead of thoughts and ideas hidden inside individual entrepreneurial minds, the central focus of inquiry are the spontaneously expressed, living, responsive, relational practices occurring out in the world between us for all to see. Second, practices are seen as the relevant unit of analysis for the exploration of entrepreneurial phenomena. Although there is no one definition of practice possible, they are fundamentally collaborative and relational activities, not solely reducible to the agents who carry them out. As they are defined by Schatzki, practices are organized by the enactment of sequential bodily activities, mediated by ‘things’ and their use, and drawing upon practical knowledge. Practices bring together actors, activities and contexts, thus interrelating social structures and human agency (Dodd et al., 2016; Hill, 2018; Tatli et al., 2014). Consequently, EaP research aims to observe, theorize and unfold the practices―as ways of doing and saying things―carried out by practitioners (entrepreneurs and their partners).

Drawing on these shared assumptions, recent scholarship has advanced entrepreneurship research in several ways. First, entrepreneurship as practice continues to move away from understanding ‘who’ an entrepreneur is towards the importance of collaborative activity, performance, and work in the creation and perpetuation of entrepreneuring (Gartner et al., 2016; Keating et al., 2013; Matthews et al., 2018). Second, theories of practice help us understand the critical role of the body, practical know-how and material objects in organizing entrepreneurship. Third, theories of practice help us perceive and better understand the reproduction and transformation of practices and practical knowledge related to entrepreneurial phenomena across time and space.

However, emphasizing the intricate socially-situated nature of practices comes with considerable ontological, theoretical and methodological implications. These will be addressed during the Conference and PhD Symposium.

For background and information on EaP literature, prior conferences and other pertinent materials, please go to:

https://www.entrepreneurshipaspractice.com/

Structure of the Conference and PhD Symposium

The Conference will be held over three full days: Registration & welcoming will take place on April 2nd late afternoon. April 3rd will focus on theoretical issues, April 4th on methodological issues and April 5th on a paper development workshop. The conference will include keynote lectures and workshops, a panel session on publishing entrepreneurship as practice research and a working paper development session.

Participating scholars are welcome to choose one or more days of the conference when registering.

PhD candidates who want ECTS credits for their participation are required to attend all three days of the conference, as well as generate additional work beyond what is required by other participants in the conference.

We welcome papers addressing theories of practice and creative organizing from a variety of disciplinary and methodological perspectives. Entrepreneurship, management, strategy, social sciences, humanities studies are all welcomed.

Potential although not exclusive topics that may be addressed include:

Theoretical challenges:

  • What are the differences between the individualism, structuralism and practice traditions of entrepreneurship research and how can they be combined?
  • How is the process approach to entrepreneurship (entrepreneuring) similar and different from practice approach?
  • How can we carve out insights and theories without the traditional aim of reification and generalization, given practice theories’ phenomenological roots?
  • How can we theoretically cope with the enormous diversity of practices in which entrepreneurship is implicated?
  • How can entrepreneurship studies help to theorize the reproduction and transformation of practical knowledge?
  • How can we incorporate embodiment and sociomateriality into our understanding of practices related to entrepreneurship?
  • How can an EaP perspective rejuvenate our thinking about traditional entrepreneurship related topics of innovating, creating opportunities, networking, venturing, strategizing, financing and organizing?
  • What is the value of existing theoretical frameworks of practice for entrepreneurship research, and when should we employ or go beyond them?
  • How can EaP be used as a platform for critical studies of entrepreneurship?

Methodological and Empirical Challenges:

  • How does one begin an EaP study, such as selecting and entering a site for observation?
  • As theories of practice guide us to study the real-time and unique instances of practices related to entrepreneurship, how can we observe, analyze and theorize about these unique instances, whilst still accounting for their relations to other practices?
  • What are some common research questions that can be formulated and answered using an EaP perspective, and which practice theory is appropriate for which research questions in entrepreneurship?
  • How can one catalogue and rigorously analyze large amounts of video-based ethnographic data?
  • What can we methodologically learn from the history of the Strategy as Practice (SaP) community?

Abstract / Paper Submission

All scholars who are interested in the paper development workshop and PhD candidates wishing to attend the conference should submit an abstract (of less than 1,000 words) by 3 December 2018 to eap4@audencia.com.

Abstracts should not exceed two single-spaced pages, and may not exceed the maximum limit of 1,000 words. They should present the purpose of the research, the relevance of the problem, the literature review, the methods and the main findings. 3 to 5 keywords and an indicative Topic of the Conference should be included. Authors will be notified of acceptance or otherwise by December 15, 2018. Full working papers are due for February 15, 2019.

Full working papers should have the following structure: introduction, literature review or conceptual framework, methodology, results, discussion and conclusion. The text should be 10-15 pages, characters Times New Roman 12, single spacing. Abstracts and papers should be written and presented in English.

All working papers will be assigned to discussion groups.  Each group member will be responsible for providing feedback on the papers received during the working paper session on April 5.

Important Dates

Abstract Submission Deadline   PhD Symposium and Research ConferenceDecember 3rd, 2018
Notification of Acceptance   PhD Symposium and Research ConferenceDecember 15th, 2018
Full Paper Submission DeadlineFebruary 15th, 2019
Registration DeadlineMarch 1st, 2019
Conference DateApril 3-5th, 2019

Conference Fees:

Fees for PhD Symposium and Research Conference attendees are to be determined and posted by October 1, 2018.

Organizing Committee (extract)

Claire Champenois (Audencia Business School), Miruna Radu-Lefebvre (Audencia Business School)
William B. Gartner (Babson College and Linnaeus University), Bruce Teague (Eastern University Washington), Neil Thompson (VU University Amsterdam), Ola Byrne (UCD Dublin)

Audencia Business School & Nantes

EAP4 will be held at Audencia Business School, Nantes, France on April 2-5 2019. Founded in 1900, Audencia Business School is one of France’s elite Grande Ecole higher education institutions – ranked 6th in the nation (SIGEM). World renowned for education and research in business and management, it ranks among the top 100 worldwide (The Economist). Among the 90 tenured faculty members, seven focus on Entrepreneurship.

http://www.audencia.com/en/

Nantes is a modern innovative and green city with old-world flair city. It is two hours from Paris (by train), one hour from London (by plane), and 45 minutes from the Atlantic Coast (by car or train).

For Further Information and Questions Please contact eap4@audencia.com

References

Chalmers, D. M., & Shaw, E. (2017). The endogenous construction of entrepreneurial contexts: A practice-based !perspective. International Small Business Journal, September(1967), 19–39.

De Clercq, D., & Voronov, M. (2009). Toward a Practice Perspective of Entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial Legitimacy as Habitus. International Small Business Journal, 27(4), 395–419.

Dimov, D. (2018). Opportunities, language and time. Academy of Management Perspectives, in press.

Dodd, S. D., Pret, T., & Shaw, E. (2016). Advancing understanding of entrepreneurial embeddedness : forms of capital , social contexts and time. In F. Welter & W. B. Gartner (Eds.), A research agenda for entrepreneurship and context (pp. 120–133). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Pub.

Gartner, W. B., Stam, E., Thompson, N. A., & Verduyn, K. (2016). Entrepreneurship as practice: grounding contemporary practice theory into entrepreneurship studies. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 28(9–10), 813–816.

Goss, D., Jones, R., Latham, J., & Betta, M. (2011). Power as practice: A Micro-sociological Analysis of the Dynamics of Emancipatory Entrepreneurship. Organization Studies, 32(2), 211–229.

Hill, I. (2018). How did you get up and running? Taking a Bourdieuan perspective towards a framework for negotiating strategic fit. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 1–35.

Johannisson, B. (2011). Towards a practice theory of entrepreneuring. Small Business Economics, 36(2), 135–150.

Keating, A., Geiger, S., & Mcloughlin, D. (2013). Riding the Practice Waves: Social Resourcing Practices During New Venture Development. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 38(5), 1–29.

Matthews, R. S., Chalmers, D. M., & Fraser, S. S. (2018). The intersection of entrepreneurship and selling: An interdisciplinary review, framework, and future research agenda. Journal of Business Venturing, (June 2016), 1–0.

Steyaert, C. (2007). ‘Entrepreneuring’ as a conceptual attractor? A review of process theories in 20 years of entrepreneurship studies. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 19(6), 453–477.

Tatli, A., Vassilopoulou, J., Özbilgin, M., Forson, C., & Slutskaya, N. (2014). A Bourdieuan relational perspective for entrepreneurship research. Journal of Small Business Management, 52(4), 615–632.

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

Editeurs du dossier :

Caroline VERZAT, ESCP Europe,

Saulo DUBARD BARBOSA, emlyon business school,

Stéphane FOLIARD, Université Jean Monnet, St-Etienne,

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

Appel à com EI n 40 – éducation Entrepreneuriale

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

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

L’éducation entrepreneuriale

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

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

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

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

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

Les dates principales à retenir sont :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Call for Papers – 4th Annual Entrepreneurship as Practice Conference and PhD Symposium – 3-5 April 2019 – Audencia Business School, Nantes, France

Call for Papers – 4th Annual Entrepreneurship as Practice

Conference and PhD Symposium – 3-5 April 2019

Audencia Business School, Nantes, France

 

About the Conference

 The 4th version of this conference aims to advance understanding of entrepreneurship-as-practice, foster network ties, facilitate collaborative writing relationships, and build a strong community of practice scholars. To do so, we have developed a Research Conference and PhD Symposium that educates interested scholars as well as develops empirical and conceptual papers regarding the ‘practice turn’ taking place in entrepreneurship studies.

Building on the first (February 2016 at VU Amsterdam), second (February 2017 at University College Dublin Quinn School of Business) and third (April 2018 at Linnaeus University) Entrepreneurship as Practice conferences, this conference and PhD symposium bring together the growing community of researchers who embrace the “practice turn”. Initiated by such calls as Steyaert (2007) and Johannisson (2011), the entrepreneurship-as-practice movement is now gaining traction, witnessed by such contributions as De Clercq & Voronov (2009), Tatli et al. (2014), Goss et al. (2011), Keating et al. (2013), Chalmers and Shaw (2017), Dimov (2018) and Matthews et al. (2018).

Practice theorists of entrepreneurship studies share a number of common assumptions. First, instead of thoughts and ideas hidden inside individual entrepreneurial minds, the central focus of inquiry are the spontaneously expressed, living, responsive, relational practices occurring out in the world between us for all to see. Second, practices are seen as the relevant unit of analysis for the exploration of entrepreneurial phenomena. Although there is no one definition of practice possible, they are fundamentally collaborative and relational activities, not solely reducible to the agents who carry them out. As they are defined by Schatzki, practices are organized by the enactment of sequential bodily activities, mediated by ‘things’ and their use, and drawing upon practical knowledge. Practices bring together actors, activities and contexts, thus interrelating social structures and human agency (Dodd et al., 2016; Hill, 2018; Tatli et al., 2014). Consequently, EaP research aims to observe, theorize and unfold the practices―as ways of doing and saying things―carried out by practitioners (entrepreneurs and their partners).

Drawing on these shared assumptions, recent scholarship has advanced entrepreneurship research in several ways. First, entrepreneurship as practice continues to move away from understanding ‘who’ an entrepreneur is towards the importance of collaborative activity, performance, and work in the creation and perpetuation of entrepreneuring (Gartner et al., 2016; Keating et al., 2013; Matthews et al., 2018). Second, theories of practice help us understand the critical role of the body, practical know-how and material objects in organizing entrepreneurship. Third, theories of practice help us perceive and better understand the reproduction and transformation of practices and practical knowledge related to entrepreneurial phenomena across time and space.

However, emphasizing the intricate socially-situated nature of practices comes with considerable ontological, theoretical and methodological implications. These will be addressed during the Conference and PhD Symposium.

For background and information on EaP literature, prior conferences and other pertinent materials, please go to:

https://www.entrepreneurshipaspractice.com/

Structure of the Conference and PhD Symposium

The Conference will be held over three full days: Registration & welcoming will take place on April 2nd late afternoon. April 3rd will focus on theoretical issues, April 4th on methodological issues and April 5th on a paper development workshop. The conference will include keynote lectures and workshops, a panel session on publishing entrepreneurship as practice research and a working paper development session.

Participating scholars are welcome to choose one or more days of the conference when registering.

PhD candidates who want ECTS credits for their participation are required to attend all three days of the conference, as well as generate additional work beyond what is required by other participants in the conference.

We welcome papers addressing theories of practice and creative organizing from a variety of disciplinary and methodological perspectives. Entrepreneurship, management, strategy, social sciences, humanities studies are all welcomed.

Potential although not exclusive topics that may be addressed include:

Theoretical challenges:

  • What are the differences between the individualism, structuralism and practice traditions of entrepreneurship research and how can they be combined?
  • How is the process approach to entrepreneurship (entrepreneuring) similar and different from practice approach?
  • How can we carve out insights and theories without the traditional aim of reification and generalization, given practice theories’ phenomenological roots?
  • How can we theoretically cope with the enormous diversity of practices in which entrepreneurship is implicated?
  • How can entrepreneurship studies help to theorize the reproduction and transformation of practical knowledge?
  • How can we incorporate embodiment and sociomateriality into our understanding of practices related to entrepreneurship?
  • How can an EaP perspective rejuvenate our thinking about traditional entrepreneurship related topics of innovating, creating opportunities, networking, venturing, strategizing, financing and organizing?
  • What is the value of existing theoretical frameworks of practice for entrepreneurship research, and when should we employ or go beyond them?
  • How can EaP be used as a platform for critical studies of entrepreneurship?

 

Methodological and Empirical Challenges:

  • How does one begin an EaP study, such as selecting and entering a site for observation?
  • As theories of practice guide us to study the real-time and unique instances of practices related to entrepreneurship, how can we observe, analyze and theorize about these unique instances, whilst still accounting for their relations to other practices?
  • What are some common research questions that can be formulated and answered using an EaP perspective, and which practice theory is appropriate for which research questions in entrepreneurship?
  • How can one catalogue and rigorously analyze large amounts of video-based ethnographic data?
  • What can we methodologically learn from the history of the Strategy as Practice (SaP) community?

Abstract / Paper Submission

All scholars who are interested in the paper development workshop and PhD candidates wishing to attend the conference should submit an abstract (of less than 1,000 words) by 3 December 2018 to eap4@audencia.com.

Abstracts should not exceed two single-spaced pages, and may not exceed the maximum limit of 1,000 words. They should present the purpose of the research, the relevance of the problem, the literature review, the methods and the main findings. 3 to 5 keywords and an indicative Topic of the Conference should be included. Authors will be notified of acceptance or otherwise by December 15, 2018. Full working papers are due for February 15, 2019.

Full working papers should have the following structure: introduction, literature review or conceptual framework, methodology, results, discussion and conclusion. The text should be 10-15 pages, characters Times New Roman 12, single spacing. Abstracts and papers should be written and presented in English.

All working papers will be assigned to discussion groups.  Each group member will be responsible for providing feedback on the papers received during the working paper session on April 5.

Important Dates

 

Abstract Submission Deadline

PhD Symposium and Research Conference

December 3rd, 2018
Notification of Acceptance

PhD Symposium and Research Conference

December 15th, 2018
Full Paper Submission DeadlineFebruary 15th, 2019
Registration DeadlineMarch 1st, 2019
Conference DateApril 3-5th, 2019

 

Conference Fees:

Fees for PhD Symposium and Research Conference attendees are to be determined and posted by October 1, 2018.

Organizing Committee (extract)

Claire Champenois (Audencia Business School), Miruna Radu-Lefebvre (Audencia Business School)
William B. Gartner (Babson College and Linnaeus University), Bruce Teague (Eastern University Washington), Neil Thompson (VU University Amsterdam), Ola Byrne (UCD Dublin)

Audencia Business School & Nantes

EAP4 will be held at Audencia Business School, Nantes, France on April 2-5 2019. Founded in 1900, Audencia Business School is one of France’s elite Grande Ecole higher education institutions – ranked 6th in the nation (SIGEM). World renowned for education and research in business and management, it ranks among the top 100 worldwide (The Economist). Among the 90 tenured faculty members, seven focus on Entrepreneurship.

http://www.audencia.com/en/

Nantes is a modern innovative and green city with old-world flair city. It is two hours from Paris (by train), one hour from London (by plane), and 45 minutes from the Atlantic Coast (by car or train).

For Further Information and Questions Please contact eap4@audencia.com

References

Chalmers, D. M., & Shaw, E. (2017). The endogenous construction of entrepreneurial contexts: A practice-based !perspective. International Small Business Journal, September(1967), 19–39.

De Clercq, D., & Voronov, M. (2009). Toward a Practice Perspective of Entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial Legitimacy as Habitus. International Small Business Journal, 27(4), 395–419.

Dimov, D. (2018). Opportunities, language and time. Academy of Management Perspectives, in press.

Dodd, S. D., Pret, T., & Shaw, E. (2016). Advancing understanding of entrepreneurial embeddedness : forms of capital , social contexts and time. In F. Welter & W. B. Gartner (Eds.), A research agenda for entrepreneurship and context (pp. 120–133). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Pub.

Gartner, W. B., Stam, E., Thompson, N. A., & Verduyn, K. (2016). Entrepreneurship as practice: grounding contemporary practice theory into entrepreneurship studies. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 28(9–10), 813–816.

Goss, D., Jones, R., Latham, J., & Betta, M. (2011). Power as practice: A Micro-sociological Analysis of the Dynamics of Emancipatory Entrepreneurship. Organization Studies, 32(2), 211–229.

Hill, I. (2018). How did you get up and running? Taking a Bourdieuan perspective towards a framework for negotiating strategic fit. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 1–35.

Johannisson, B. (2011). Towards a practice theory of entrepreneuring. Small Business Economics, 36(2), 135–150.

Keating, A., Geiger, S., & Mcloughlin, D. (2013). Riding the Practice Waves: Social Resourcing Practices During New Venture Development. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 38(5), 1–29.

Matthews, R. S., Chalmers, D. M., & Fraser, S. S. (2018). The intersection of entrepreneurship and selling: An interdisciplinary review, framework, and future research agenda. Journal of Business Venturing, (June 2016), 1–0.

Steyaert, C. (2007). ‘Entrepreneuring’ as a conceptual attractor? A review of process theories in 20 years of entrepreneurship studies. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 19(6), 453–477.

Tatli, A., Vassilopoulou, J., Özbilgin, M., Forson, C., & Slutskaya, N. (2014). A Bourdieuan relational perspective for entrepreneurship research. Journal of Small Business Management, 52(4), 615–632.

 

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

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

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

Convenors and Guest editors

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

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

 Dialogue JMI pmdeh AF 09072018

Convenor and JMI supervising Editor

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

2

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

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

 

Background and objectives of the Dialogue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

Process

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

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

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

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

 

Submission process

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

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

 

 

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

__________________________________

Rédacteur invité pour cet appel :

Didier Chabaud

Date limite d’envoi des articles :

15 octobre 2018

Adresse mail d’envoi des textes complets :

contact@rimhe.com

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

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

Nouvelle date limite de soumission 26 mars – Workshop Entrepreneuriat dans les Industries Culturelles et Créatives

Workshop – Appel a communications_2

Bulletin d’inscription

Le CREGO (EA 7317), Centre de REcherche en Gestion des Organisations des universités de Bourgogne, Franche-Comté et de Haute Alsace, en partenariat avec l’AIMAC (Conférence Internationale sur le Management des Arts et la Culture) et soutenu par la MSH (Maison des Sciences de l’Homme de Dijon, Université de Bourgogne) organise le 21 septembre 2018 un workshop sur le thème de l’Entrepreneuriat dans les Industries Culturelles et Créatives (Arts, Culture et Tourisme). Ce workshop sera la 3ème journée consacrée à l’axe « Entrepreneuriat culturel et créatif », organisée pour la première fois en 2015 et s’appuyant sur un projet de recherche de la MSH de Dijon.

La réduction des subventions, la concurrence endogène et exogène et le marché de l’emploi incertain fragilisent le secteur artistique et culturel. Parallèlement, de nombreuses villes (Nantes, Marseille, Dijon, Saint-Etienne et aussi Bilbao ou Glasgow) transforment les anciens sites industriels en quartiers créatifs et culturels, s’appuyant ainsi sur une configuration de « classes créatives » (Florida, 2002, 2005) ou de « districts culturels » (Greffe, Simonnet, 2008). Ces évolutions territoriales posent de nombreuses questions sur la capacité des organisations à se transformer en profondeur et à inventer de nouvelles formes de travail et managériales. La figure de l’artiste-manager et celle de l’« artiste-entreprise » (Greffe, 2012) interrogent l’équilibre entre exigences économiques et projet artistique (Dupuis, 2010). Elles nécessitent une relecture de la relation art-management (Leroy, 1996 ; Chiapello, 1998 ; Benghozi, 1995, 2006) et sans doute un accompagnement et un apprentissage organisationnels (Horvath, 2013). L’entrepreneuriat créatif et culturel est également une voie de survie-développement.

Cette notion qui ne cesse de se redéfinir depuis une dizaine d’années (Henry, 2008 ; Henry and De Bruyn, 2011 ; Saives, Charles-Pauvers, Schieb-Bienfait, Michel, 2016) recouvre souvent de nouvelles formes organisationnelles.

Le but de l’événement est d’explorer ce champ de recherche qui n’est certes pas nouveau, mais il est sans doute utile d’en approfondir les enjeux et de mieux comprendre les interrelations entre la créativité, les structures et le management dans une vision prospective, voire prescriptive.

Plusieurs thèmes seront au programme :

  • Développement de la notion d’« entrepreneuriat culturel et créatif »
    • Pratiques des entrepreneurs culturels et créatifs
    • Accompagnement de l’entrepreneur culturel et créatif
    • Spécificités de l’entrepreneuriat et de l’entrepreneur culturels et créatifs
    • Dynamiques entrepreneuriales dans le secteur des activités culturelles : art vivant, patrimoine et muséologie, musiques actuelles …
  • Entrepreneuriat culturel et créatif, et innovations numériques
    • Spécificités des différents secteurs et modes d’entrepreneuriat
    • Nouvelles formes de structuration des organisations
    • Nouveaux modes d’institutionnalisation (financement, incubation, clusters, pépinières)
  • Implications managériales et économiques des politiques culturelles
    • Processus de fertilisation croisée entre le secteur artistique et culturel et le secteur traditionnel
    • Effets de la créativité sur l’entrepreneuriat et l’innovation
  • Politiques publiques et entrepreneuriat créatif et culturel
    • Rôle des politiques publiques dans le processus de développement des activités des
    • artistes-entrepreneurs
    • Contribution de l’innovation artistique et culturelle à la construction et l’attractivité d’une ville “intelligente”
    • Apports de l’innovation artistique et culturelle à la reconversion des territoires urbains

Cet événement s’adresse aux enseignants chercheurs, chercheurs et doctorants en sciences de gestion, sociologie et sciences humaines, de même que les professionnels du secteur des arts et de la culture.

PROCEDURE DE SELECTION

Les projets de communication peuvent être rédigés (en français ou en anglais). Ils seront sélectionnés en fonction de l’originalité et de l’intérêt scientifique de leurs apports.

Le processus de sélection se fera sur la base des résumés en français ou en anglais. Un intérêt particulier sera porté aux contributions qui analysent les controverses et les débats dans le champ de l’entrepreneuriat culturel.

COMITÉ SCIENTIFIQUE

  • Francis AUBERT, Professeur AGROSUP, Université Bourgogne Franche-Comté.
  • Dominique BOURGEON-RENAULT, Professeure des Universités, CREGO, Université de Bourgogne.
  • Pierre-Jean BENGHOZI, Professeur à l’Ecole Polytechnique, Membre de l’ARCEP.
  • Kirsten BURKHARDT, Maître de Conférences, CREGO, Université de Bourgogne.
  • Alain CHENEVEZ, Maître de Conférences, CIMEOS, Université de Bourgogne.
  • Gaëlle DECHAMP, Maître de Conférences, COACTIS, Université de Lyon, Université Jean Monnet de Saint-Etienne.
  • Sandrine EMIN, Maître de Conférences, GRANEM, Université d’Angers.
  • Yves EVRARD, Professeur Emérite, HEC PARIS.
  • Marc FILSER, Professeur des Universités, CREGO, Université de Bourgogne.
  • Isabelle HORVATH, Maître de Conférences, CREGO, Université de Haute Alsace.
  • Mathilde PULH, Maître de Conférences, CREGO, Université de Bourgogne.
  • Nathalie SCHIEB-BIENFAIT, Maître de conférences HDR, LEMNA, Université de Nantes.
  • Danielle BOUDER-PAILLER, Maître de conférences HDR, LEMNA, Université de Nantes.
  • Thomas PARIS, CNRS (GREGHEC) & HEC PARIS.
  • Zannie VOSS, Professeure et Directrice, SMU National Center for Arts Research.

PUBLICATION

Les communications retenues seront mises en ligne sur le site Internet du CREGO.

Les auteurs conservent tous leurs droits sur les textes, et sont encouragés à les soumettre ensuite à des revues académiques, conformément à l’esprit de ces journées qui se veulent lieu de rencontre, d’échange et de débat.

COMITÉ D’ORGANISATION

  • Dominique BOURGEON-RENAULT, Professeure des Universités, CREGO, Université de Bourgogne.
  • Kirsten BURKHARDT, Maître de Conférences, CREGO, Université de Bourgogne.
  • Isabelle HORVATH, Maître de Conférences, CREGO, Université de Haute Alsace.

CALENDRIER

26 mars 2017 Proposition de communications (résumé en français ou en anglais de deux pages maximum, présentant la question de recherche, développant les principaux apports théoriques, méthodologiques et opérationnels).

20 avril 2018 Notification aux auteurs des communications acceptées.

25 juin 2018 Envoi des textes définitifs des communications en français ou en anglais.

Consignes : maximum d’une quinzaine de pages, Times 12, interligne 1,5.

21 septembre 2018 Workshop :

Université de Bourgogne (Dijon, France)

CREGO (Centre de REcherche en Gestion des Organisations) en partenariat avec l’AIMAC et soutenu par la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme de Dijon

Mise en ligne des actes sur le site Internet du CREGO.

 

INSCRIPTION ET INFORMATIONS PRATIQUES

Tarifs :

  • Auditeurs : 60 euros
  • Participants présentant une communication : 40 euros

 

Contacts :

Dominique Bourgeon-Renault, Professeure de Sciences de Gestion, Université de Bourgogne
Téléphone : +33(0)6 87 82 92 10
Courriel : dominique.renault-bourgeon @ orange.fr

Frédéric Pellerin, chargé de valorisation, CREGO, Université de Bourgogne
Téléphone : +33(0)3 80 39 54 13
Courriel : frederic.pellerin @ u-bourgogne.fr

ESU 2018 CONFERENCE AND DOCTORAL PROGRAM ON ENTREPRENEURSHIP

ESU 2018 CONFERENCE AND DOCTORAL PROGRAM ON ENTREPRENEURSHIP

call-for-papers_esu

The Faculty of Economics and Sociology at the University of Lodz is happy to invite you to the ESU 2018 Conference and Doctoral Programme. We are looking forward to meeting you all from the 9th to the 15th of September 2018 in Łódź (Lodz), Poland.

During the week we will focus our attention on some core issues in entrepreneurship research, such as formulating interesting research questions, methodologies, the writing process, and publishing in academic journals. There will also be plenty of time for networking and social interaction.

The programme contains plenary sessions as well as group sessions. In order to make the doctoral programme as fruitful as possible, we divide participating PhD students into 3 groups:

  • Early stage group – students that haven’t started their PhD studies and PhD students in their first year of doctoral studies. Students in this group present their research proposal.
  • Work in progress group – PhD students that are in the middle of their PhD studies. Students in this group present their early phase research.
  • Mature group – PhD students that are in their end of the PhD process or PhDs that have finalized their thesis. Students in this group present their results papers.

The ESU PhD programme gives 6.0 ECTS.

Conference presentations are open to all attendants. The presentations will take place on Conference Day –

Wednesday, 12th September 2018. Students from all groups, as well as conference participants, are requested to submit abstracts of their work.

Conference Venue

The Faculty of Economics and Sociology, University of Lodz

90-255 Lodz, 3/5 POW Street

Poland

Important dates

ESU Conference and Doctoral Programme: 9th-15th September 2018

  • Deadline for the abstract submission: 2nd April 2018
  • Deadline for the full paper submission: 29th of June
  • Early registration & reception: 9th September 2018
  • Social Event: Saturday 15th September 2018

Abstract submissions

For both Doctoral Programme and Conference: max. 500 words abstracts, single spaced, Times New Roman 12pt, capitalized first letters in title, no more than ten words in title, no reference list. Since all abstracts are reviewed using a double blind review process, it is compulsory that neither your name nor your contact details appear on the submission. Please, indicate in your e-mail: author(s) name(s), main affiliation(s), email address(es) of all authors in the order of appearance on your paper. The abstracts will appear in an abstract booklet. Please send your abstract by email to: esu@uni.lodz.pl.

 

Registration fees

Early registration: 400€

Early registration doctoral student rate: 350€

Late registration (after July 16th, 2018): 425€ for doctoral students and 475€ for other participants

Guest rate: 150€ (including Monday, Tuesday and Friday dinners and Gala Dinner on Thursday)

Saturday field trip: 50€

Cancellation policy: to receive a refund of your registration, the registered attendee must request a cancellation in writing and postmark by email to ESU by Tuesday, July 31st 2018. No refunds will be issued after July 31st, 2018.

 

More information

Please contact: esu@uni.lodz.pl or visit our websites: www.esu.uni.lodz.pl or http://www.esu-network.eu/.

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

Call for Papers International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business

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

IJESB Call for Papers

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

References

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

 

Subject Coverage

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

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

 

Notes for Prospective Authors

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

All papers are refereed through a peer review process.

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

 

Important Dates

Manuscripts due by: 31 December, 2018

Notification to authors: 28 February, 2019

Final versions due by: 30 September, 2019

Appel à communications – 3ème colloque interdisciplinaire sur la Défaillance d’Entreprise – 15 juin 2018 – Caen

APPEL A COMMUNICATIONS
3e Colloque Interdisciplinaire sur la Défaillance d’Entreprise
15 JUIN 2018

3ème Colloque Interdisciplinaire sur la Défaillance d’Entreprise « La défaillance d’entreprise vers une approche multidimensionnelle »
Maison de la Recherche en Sciences Humaines
Université de Caen Normandie
Esplanade de la Paix – Campus 1 – 14000 Caen
LA DÉFAILLANCE D’ENTREPRISE :
VERS UNE APPROCHE MULTIDIMENSIONNELLE
Les coûts psychologiques, sociaux et économiques de l’échec font de ce phénomène un sujet sensible à aborder
et un événement indésirable et inattendu à éviter. 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, telles que le droit, la finance, la sociologie, l’économie, le management, la stratégie, l’entrepreneuriat et les sciences des organisations, ces premiers 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.
Les recherches récentes se focalisent de plus en plus sur les leçons à tirer des échecs afin de les capitaliser plutôt que sur les causes d’échec à éviter. Ce phénomène n’est plus perçu comme étant un sujet sensible qui demeure peu étudié, mais comme une étape indispensable à la réussite, qui mérite d’être étudiée en profondeur.
L’augmentation du nombre de publications scientifiques, d’ouvrages collectifs et de numéros spéciaux sur le sujet
nous amène à la conclusion suivante : l’échec commence à occuper une place grandissante et fondamentale dans la littérature académique. Ce phénomène est aujourd’hui considéré comme un vrai objet d’étude qui suscite l’intérêt de nombreux chercheurs et praticiens. 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 de l’entrepreneur et de l’entreprise. 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
unidimensionnelle, linéaire et binaire dominent à ce jour,il existe une tendance de plus en plus marquée pour les
approches intégratives. Selon ces approches, l’échec est vu comme un phénomène multi dimensionnel et  complexe composé de différents éléments interdépendants qui interagissent sur plusieurs niveaux. C’est dans ce cadre que s’inscrit le 3ème Colloque Interdisciplinaire sur la Défaillance d’Entreprise.
En plus du contexte spécifique de la création d’entreprises, le phénomène de l’échec a été exploré dans
d’autres contextes organisationnels à l’image des entreprises familiales, des jeunes entreprises technologiques
innovantes, des entreprises en réseaux de franchise et des groupes. Il faut noter également que les
recherches antérieures se sont centrées sur les niveaux organisationnels et/ou individuels. Une autre piste de
recherche réside dans l’étude de l’échec collectif au sein des équipes.
Au-delà des causes (pour quelles raisons certaines entreprises échouent-elles et d’autres non ?) ou encore
des conséquences (quelles sont les conséquences que peut avoir l’échec de l’entreprise sur les entrepreneurs
?), toutes les contributions à dimension empirique ou théorique, quantitatives ou qualitatives, sur le thème
de la défaillance des entreprises (petites, moyennes ou grandes) et des entrepreneurs peuvent être proposées
telles que celles liées aux thèmes suivants (liste non-exhaustive) :
• Identification des déterminants de la faillite/des difficultés des entreprises,
• Défaillance et structure financière,
• Relation entre gestion (gouvernance, gestion des ressources humaines, …) et défaillance,
• Survie et accompagnement,
• Mécanismes et instruments de prévention des difficultés des entreprises,
• Transmission d’entreprise et défaillance,
• Coûts et conséquences de la défaillance,
• Politiques de ressources humaines et risque d’entreprise,
• Relation entre les caractéristiques du dirigeant et la défaillance des PME,
• Études de cas de faillite (points de vue économique et/ou juridique),
• Souffrance de l’entrepreneur en situation de liquidation.
CALENDRIER
15 avril 2018 : envoi des propositions de communication sous la forme d’un résumé (rédigés en français ou en anglais) d’environ 500 mots accompagné de trois à cinq mots clés et de(s) code(s) JEL à l’adresse électronique suivante : nabil.kheli l@ unicaen.fr
en copie à xavier.bredart@umons.ac.be
15 mai 2018 : décision d’acceptati on ou de refus.
01 juin 2018 : date limite des inscripti ons
INSCRIPTION
Pour vous inscrire, cliquez ICI
Les frais d’inscripti on à ce colloque s’élèvent à 80 euros
et comprennent les pauses-café ainsi que le déjeuner.
Ces frais s’appliquent à l’ensemble des parti cipants
qu’ils présentent ou non un papier.
COMITÉ DE COORDINATION :
Xavier Brédart (Université de Mons, HumanOrg)
Nabil Khelil (Université de Caen, CREM CNRS)
Nadine Levratt o (Université Nanterre, CNRS, EconomiX)
COMITÉ D’ORGANISATION :
Adel Jemaa
Aurélien Lamy
Bruno Drouot
Christophe Trowski
Haïfa Naff akhi Charfeddine
Isabelle Lebon
Meriem Ben Salah
COMITÉ SCIENTIFIQUE :
Alain Fayolle (EM Lyon Business School)
Alain Finet (Université de Mons)
Albéric Tellier (Université de Caen Normandie)
Alina Gomez Mejia (Ponti fi cia Universidad Javeriana, Cali)
Anne-Laure Le Nadant (Université de Rennes 2)
Fanny Simon-Lee (Université de Rouen)
Franck Moraux (Université de Rennes 1)
Frank Janssen (Université catholique de Louvain)
Fréderic Perdreau (université Jean Monnet – Saint Eti enne)
Gerhard Krauss (Université de Rennes 2)
Giuseppe Pagano (Université de Mons)
Jean Bonnet (Université de Caen Normandie)
Jean-Pascal Guironnet (Université de Caen Normandie)
Jean-Sébasti en Pentecôte (Université de Caen Normandie)
Juan Javier Saavedra (Universidad del Rosario)
Julien Cusin (Université de Bordeaux)
Karin Comblé (Université de Mons)
Marcus Dejardin (Université de Namur)
Mauricio Sanabria (Universidad del Rosario)
Nazik Fadil (EM Normandie)
Nicolas Le Pape (Université de Caen Normandie)
Olivier Germain (ESG UQÀM)
Pascal Aurégan (Université de Caen Normandie)
Patricia Renou Maissant (Université de Caen Normandie)
Rachida Justo (IE Business School Madrid )
Roland Condor (EM Normandie)
Ruth Esperanza Román Casti l lo (Universidad de Bogotá)
Sonia Boussaguet (NEOMA Business School, Rouen)
Matt hijs H ammer (Saxion University)
Thomas Loilier (Université de Caen Normandie)
Virginie Blum (Université Lyon 2)
Julien de Freyman (ESC Troyes)
https://businfailure.sciencesconf.org

22nd Annual Interdisciplinary Conference on Entrepreneurship, Innovation and SMEs

22nd Annual Interdisciplinary Conference on Entrepreneurship, Innovation and SMEs

G-Forum 2018 – Call for Papers

Submissions via email to: submission-gforum2018@fgf-ev.de

Dear entrepreneurship, innovation and family business researchers,

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 submission-gforum2018@fgf-ev.de.

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 https://www.fgf-ev.de/en/g-forum-2018-stuttgart-germany/

Paper Development Seminar – New developments in entrepreneurial process research – Seville – 2/3 April

Paper Development Seminar

New developments in entrepreneurial process research

IUSEN PROYECTO COFINANCIADO POR LOS FONDOS FEDER

Referencia del Proy.: ECO2016‐75655‐P

April 2nd‐3rd, 2018

University of Seville, Spain

 Entrepreneurial Process Seminar

The entrepreneurial process is a “hot” topic attracting increasing attention from researchers and PhD students around the world. More research in this topic is matched with increasing opportunities for publication in entrepreneurship journals, as well as in Special Issues in wider Business or Management journals. However, the competition for publication is fierce and crafting a perfectly rounded manuscript is essential to increase the chances of getting any paper accepted for publication in such outlets. The aim of this Seminar is to help participants develop their research results into papers that may be fit for publication in top‐tier academic journals. In order to achieve this aim, the seminar will benefit from the participation of a panel of well‐reputed entrepreneurship scholars, who will present some of their recent contributions in the analysis of the entrepreneurial process, and will also review and comment the papers/extended abstracts submitted by the participants.

This seminar is developed in collaboration with the following institutions and projects from the University of Seville:

  • IUSEN: “Tomas de Mercado” Institute for Research in Economics and Business.
  • ELITE project: “Longitudinal study on the process of emergence of high‐impact entrepreneurs” (Spanish National Research Plan. Ref.: ECO2016‐75655‐P).
  • Master in Economics and Development.

Participants will have the opportunity to present their research to the audience. They will not only receive general feedback from other participants, but also specific comments and suggestions from the panel scholars.

We aim to develop a fruitful and intimate working atmosphere. For this reason, we will limit the number of participants to an absolute maximum of 20.

The venue:

The Seminar will take place at the Faculty of Economics and Business Sciences, University of Seville (Av. Ramon y Cajal, 1. 41018‐Sevilla, Spain).

Seville is a well‐known tourist destination full of interesting places to visit and activities to carry out. Seville has just been selected as the best city to visit in 2018 by Lonely Planet (https://www.lonelyplanet.com/spain/seville).

During Spring time, Seville is especially attractive since it is at this time of year when the famous “Easter Week Processions” and “Feria de Abril” take place. For this reason, we strongly recommend participants to stay some additional days in Seville and enjoy all it has to offer.

 

Registration and submission:

To register, please apply via email to entrepreneurs@us.es. Include your full name, contact information and affiliation in the email, as well as the title and short abstract of your research. The Seminar is open and research works on any of the aspects of the entrepreneurial process field will be welcome. A maximum of 20 participants will be accepted on a first‐come first‐served basis. Once you are communicated of your provisional acceptance, you can pay the registration fee. Please note that acceptance will only be confirmed after the fee has been paid (see below).

The paper/extended abstract submission deadline is January 31st, 2018.

Registration fee:

Participants will cover their own travel and accommodation expenses. In order to cover the cost of materials, meals and refreshments, the participants will be asked to pay a €50 registration fee. The fee shall be paid by bank transfer as follows:

Account holder: Universidad de Sevilla

Bank Account (IBAN): ES95 0049 2588 7024 1425 0158

BIC/SWIFT: BSCHESMM

It is essential to include the full name of the participant, together with the seminar code and topic (“292-entrepreneurial research seminar”) as a description of the transfer.

Example: Joseph Schumpeter – 292‐entrepreneurial research seminar

Once the transfer has been completed, please send a copy of the receipt/printout by email to entrepreneurs@us.es

Accommodation:

April is high season in Seville and hotel rooms book out very quickly. Therefore, an early booking is recommended. Accommodation in Seville is generally good, you can find excellent hotels through any major travel agent. The following hotels are close to the Seminar Venue and well communicated with the city centre:

NH Viapol (****): https://www.nh‐hoteles.es/hotel/nh‐sevilla‐viapol

NH Collection (****): https://www.nh‐collection.com/es/hotel/nh‐collection‐sevilla

Sevilla Center (****): https://www.hotelescenter.es/hotel‐sevilla‐center/

Melia Sevilla (****): https://www.melia.com/es/hoteles/espana/sevilla/melia‐sevilla/

Pasarela (****): http://www.hotelpasarela.com/

Hesperia Sevilla (****): https://www.nh‐hoteles.es/hotel/hesperia‐sevilla

Novotel Sevilla (****): http://www.novotel.com/es/hotel‐3210‐novotel‐sevilla‐/index.shtml

 

Draft programme

Monday April 2nd, 2018

11.00‐12.00 Opening Speech:

Teemu Kautonen: “The entrepreneurial intention‐action gap”

12.00‐12.30 Coffee Break

12.30‐13.30 Participants’ presentations (with feedback)

13.30‐14.30 Lunch

14.30‐15.30 Plenary session:

Matthias Fink: “Understanding Stress in Entrepreneurship”

15.30‐16.00 Coffee Break

16.00‐17.00 Participants’ presentations (with feedback)

17.00‐18.00 Plenary session:

Juan A. Moriano: “Think entrepreneur‐think male”

‐‐‐

20.30 Dinner at a local restaurant

Tuesday April 3rd, 2018

9.30‐10.30 Plenary session:

Francisco Liñán: “Culture’s mode of influence in entrepreneurship”

10.30‐11.00 Coffee Break

11.00‐12.30 Participants’ presentations (with feedback)

12.30‐13.30 Closing speech:

Ute Stephan: “Entrepreneurs’ Mental Health and Well‐being: A Review”

13.30‐14.30 Lunch

Paper Development Seminar

 

Keynote speakers (alphabetical order)

Matthias Fink is head of the Institute for Innovation at the Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria and a Professor for Innovation and Entrepreneurship at the Institute for International Management Practice at Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK. Matthias previously worked as a Professor for International Small Business Management and Innovation at Leuphana Univerity Lüneburg Germany and was Head of the Research Institute for Liberal Professions at WU Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria. Matthias holds a Ph.D. and a postdoctoral qualification (Habilitation) from WU Vienna University of Economics and Business and was a Visiting Professor at several universities. In research, Matthias’ focus is on the role of innovation in new venture creation and small business management. His current interests include entrepreneurship as a driver of innovation and change in rural contexts, entrepreneurial finance, health of entrepreneurs and ethical issues in business research. His research has been published in journals such as Journal of Business Venturing, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, British Journal of Management, Journal of Banking and Finance, Technological Forecasting and Social Change as well as Regional Studies. Additionally, he has published three monographs and two edited volumes.

Teemu Kautonen is Professor of Entrepreneurship and Head of the Department of Management Studies at Aalto University School of Business, Finland. Teemu’s research explores entrepreneurial intentions and actions, the role of trust in SME‐bank relationships, and entrepreneurship and ageing. His work appears in Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Harvard Business Review, Journal of Business Venturing, Journal of Economic Psychology and Small Business Economics, among others. In addition to serving on the Editorial Review Board of Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Teemu served as Consulting Editor for International Small Business Journal (2014‐2017) and continues to serve in that journal’s Editorial Review Board. In addition, he has served as a consultant for the European Commission, the International Labor Organization (ILO), the OECD, and national ministries on policy issues such as senior entrepreneurship.

Francisco Liñán is Professor of Entrepreneurship and Innovation at Anglia Ruskin University (UK) and the University of Seville, Spain. Prof. Liñán research interests include entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial intentions and entrepreneurship education, leading to several publications in academic journals such as Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, International Small Business Journal, Journal of Small Business Management or Small Business Economics. He has participated in projects funded by the Spanish national government, EU and Paper Development Seminar Management and Editorial Board Member at the International Entrepreneurship and  Management Journal, Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research and the International Journal of Management Science and Information Technology.

Juan A. Moriano is Associate Professor with Tenure at the Department of Social and Organizational Psychology at the Spanish University for Distance Education (UNED). Juan A. Moriano holds a Ph.D. in Psychology from UNED. His doctoral thesis entitled “The Psychosocial Study of the Entrepreneur” (2005) was award and published by the Spanish Economic and Social Council (ESC). His research focuses on Work and Organizational Psychology, and more precisely on Entrepreneurship and Leadership. His work has been published in journals such as Journal of Vocational Behavior, Journal of Career Development, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Journal of Career Assessment, International Small Business Journal, and International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal.

Ute Stephan is Professor of Entrepreneurship at Aston University, Birmingham (UK), Director of the Aston Centre for Research into International Entrepreneurship and Business (ACRIEB), and Editor‐in‐ Chief of Applied Psychology: An International Review. Professor Ute Stephan holds a PhD in Psychology from the University of Marburg (Germany) and was previously at the University of Sheffield (UK), the London School of Economics (UK), KU Leuven (Belgium), and TU Dresden (Germany). Her research interests are (1) culture and entrepreneurship, (2) social entrepreneurship and (3) entrepreneurial motivation, health and well‐being. Ute published in leading journals such as the Journal of Management, Journal of International Business Studies (JIBS), Management Science, Journal of Business Venturing (JBV) among others. Her research has been featured in the media including the Financial Times and Bloomberg, has won multiple international awards, and has attracted over 3 Mio GBP of funding from the European Commission, the UK Government, UK Research councils, Charities, German Government Institutions, and the German Research Council. Ute is a member of the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor project and the GLOBE (Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness) study, and currently co‐leads the European Commission funded SEFORIS project – Social Entrepreneurship as a Force for more Innovative and Inclusive Societies (www.seforis.eu). She serves on the editorial boards of JIBS, JBV and Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, as a member of the Academy of Management Entrepreneurship Division Research Committee and the Aston University Senate.

Call for papers – IVe journée de recherche « PME et Territoires » – 8 juin – Corte

IVe journée de recherche « PME et Territoires »

En partenariat avec l’Académie de l’entrepreneuriat et de l’innovation, le GRT Territoires, Réseau & Innovation de l’AGRH, l’AIREPME, la Fondation de l’Université de Corse, Pépite France, Question(s) de Management

UMR CNRS 6240 – LISA

Appel à communication

« Talents et Territoires »

Entreprendre et Manager dans une réalité complexe

Vendredi 8 juin 2018

Corte, Corse

Appel à communication Talents & Territoires Corte 8 juin 2018

Depuis sa popularisation au début des années 2000 (Michaels, et al. 2001), la notion de « talent » a suscité un intérêt croissant, tant chez les praticiens (CIPD 2015 , ANDRH, 2017), que chez les chercheurs (Collings et al. 2017). Attirer, former, permettre l’expression des talents est devenu un enjeu majeur pour toutes les organisations, quelle que soit leur taille, ou leur contexte d’exercice (Thunnissen et al. 2013, Festing et al. 2013, Deloitte, 2010). Or, malgré leurs évolutions, les propositions de conceptualisation restent pour l’essentiel focalisées sur les entreprises multinationales (Powell et al. 2012, McDonnell et al. 2017) et montrent leurs limites lorsqu’elles sont confrontées à une réalité complexe (Tatoglu et al. 2016, Krishnan et Scullion, 2017). Face à ce manque, l’interrogation de la gestion des talents au sein des territoires, définis comme des lieux de vie, indissociables d’un groupe social (LeBerre, 2011) apparait comme un espace d’investigation privilégié permettant, au-delà des seuls aspects organisationnels et économiques (Barney, 1991, 2001), de mieux comprendre l’effet des dimensions individuelles, organisationnelles et extra-organisationnelles dans l’attraction, le management et l’expression des talents.

Les contributions à cette journée de recherche peuvent prendre la forme d’études de cas, de retours d’expériences, d’études empiriques ou de réflexions conceptuelles. Elles pourront notamment porter sur les aspects suivants :

Au niveau individuel et inter-individuel

– Identifier les attentes économiques et non économiques des talents vis-à-vis des organisations et des territoires ;

– Questionner l’intégration des talents au sein d’espaces socio-culturels à fortes spécificités ;

– Interroger la gestion des relations « talents » / « salariés traditionnels » au sein d’espaces d’interactions restreints ;

– Explorer l’influence du contexte territorial dans l’expression des talents.

 

Au niveau organisationnel

– Mettre à jour les conceptions multiples du talent pouvant être développées par les différents acteurs (PME, startups, grandes entreprises, universités, collectivités, salariés, étudiants, etc.) et les éventuelles divergences entre celles-ci ;

– Dessiner les contours de pratiques contingentes de management des talents ;

– Identifier les spécificités des pratiques de management des talents au sein des PME ;

– Questionner la contribution des talents dans la création de valeurs au sein des PME ;

– Identifier les enjeux spécifiques du management des talents dans les phases de création, de lancement et de croissance des entreprises ;

– Mettre à jour les motivations économiques et non économiques (éthiques, politiques, institutionnelles) des organisations engagées dans une politique de management des talents ;

– Apprécier les perspectives ouvertes par les relations d’emploi à court terme (outsourcing, missions) et les technologies de communication en matière de management des talents.

 

Au niveau extra-organisationnel

– Apprécier les apports attendus et réels des talents au sein des territoires ;

– Explorer la réalité des notions de « people climate », « business climate », de « territoire entrepreneurial », favorisant l’attraction et l’expression des talents au sein des territoires (Florida, 2003).

– Interroger les caractéristiques d’une performance extra-organisationnelle des talents ;

– Questionner les modalités de développement de stratégies inter-organisationnelles ; d’attraction, de développement et de rétention des talents (coopération, coopétition, concurrence) ;

– Interroger les modalités de développement de politiques territoriales d’attraction, de retour et de développement des talents ;

– Apprécier le rôle des pratiques de marketing territorial dans l’attraction des talents (marques régionales, stratégies de différenciation des territoires) ;

– Comprendre le rôle des talents dans la conquête de nouveaux territoires.

 

COMITÉ SCIENTIFIQUE

Thérèse ALBERTINI, Maître de conférences HDR, Université de Corse ;

Laurice ALEXANDRE, Maître de conférences HDR, Université Paris Descartes ;

Jean-Pierre BOISSIN, Professeur des Universités, IAE de Grenoble, Université Pierre Mendès France ;

Ludivine CALAMEL, Professeure associée, Grenoble Ecole de Management ;

Didier CHABAUD, Professeur des Universités, IAE de Paris 1 Panthéon – Sorbonne ;

Thierry FABIANI, Maître de conférences, Université de Corse ;

Véronique FAVRE-BONTE, Professeure des Universités, IAE Savoie Mont Blanc, Université Savoie Mont Blanc ;

Colette FOURCADE, Maître de conférences HDR, Université de Montpellier, Secrétaire Générale de l’Association Internationale de Recherche en Entrepreneuriat et PME (AIREPME) ;

Julien de FREYMAN, Enseignant chercheur, South Champagne Business School ;

Soufyane FRIMOUSSE, Maître de conférences HDR, Université de Corse ;

Anne GERONNE, Maître de conférences, Université de Corse ;

Gilles GUIEU, Professeur des Universités, Aix Marseille Université ;

Nathalie LAMETA, Qualifiée aux fonctions de Maître de conférences, Responsable du Pôle Pépite Université de Corse ;

Catherine LEGER-JARNIOU, Professeure des Universités Emérite, Université Paris-Dauphine, Présidente de l’Académie de l’Entrepreneuriat et de l’Innovation (AEI) ;

Stéphanie LOUP, Maître de conférences, Université Paul Sabatier Toulouse III ;

Elise MARCANDELLA, Maître de Conférences, Université de Lorraine ;

Jean-Claude PACITTO, Maître de conférences HDR, Université Paris-Est Créteil ;

Agnès PARADAS, Maître de conférences HDR, Université d’Avignon ; Montpellier Recherche en Management, LabEx Entreprendre ;

Jean-Marie PERETTI, Professeur des Universités, Université de Corse – ESSEC Business School ;

Jean-Michel PLANE, Professeur des Universités, Université Paul-Valery Montpellier 3 ;

Jean-Paul TCHANKAM, Docteur et HDR en Sciences de Gestion, KEDGE Business School Bordeaux ;

Patrice TERRAMORSI, Maître de conférences, Université de Corse ;

Marc VALAX, Professeur des Universités, Université Lyon 3 Jean Moulin, IAE Lyon School of Management.

Calendrier

Remise des textes pour examen par le comité scientifique : 8 avril 2018

Avis du comité scientifique : 6 Mai 2018

Réception des communications définitives : 27 Mai 2018

Les contributions seront envoyées à lameta @ univ-corse.fr, terramorsi @ univ-corse.fr

NORMES DE PRESENTATION

Times New Roman 12, format A4, Marges de 2,5 cm, interligne simple

Longueur maximale 50 000 signes, espaces et caractères compris

Les références bibliographiques seront présentées conformément aux normes de l’APA.

Les meilleures communications pourront faire l’objet d’une publication dans la revue

Question(s) de Management.

revue-qdm.com

Contact :

UMR CNRS – Université de Corse – LISA 6240

Tél : +33 (0)4 95 45 02 59

lameta@univ-corse.fr terramorsi@univ-corse.fr

CfP RSA Annual Conference 2018 Special session on Transnational/International Entrepreneurship and Global Pipelines

 

CfP RSA Annual Conference 2018

Special session on Transnational/International Entrepreneurship and Global Pipelines

CfP Special session on TE IE (1)

Convenors: Dr Su-Hyun Berg (Business Consultant, Flensburg Germany), Dr Sarika Pruthi ((San Jose State University, California, USA), and Prof. Jay Mitra (University of Essex, UK)

Introduction

The study of transnational entrepreneurs (TEs) has attracted interest from academics, policy-makers and practitioners. TEs are acknowledged as an important source of innovation contributing to economic development in both host and home countries (Light, 2010; Terjesen and Elam,2009; Patel and Conklin, 2009; Portes et al., 2002; Wagner, Head & Ries, 2002). However, little is known about external knowledge sourcing of TEs; and how TEs create, accumulate, agglomerate and circulate new and existing knowledge through extra local linkages.

In this session, we seek to build upon and explore these dynamics of knowledge sourcing of TEs, which not only cross disciplinary boundaries, but have produced a diverse range of investigations into the different modes of knowledge creation and diffusion in both host and home countries. We focus on five key and related themes:

  • Ontological Freshness: Transnational Ontologies
  • Flows of Opportunity Development
  • Fluid Dual and Multiple Habitus
  • Reforming Institutions; and
  • Multidimensional Networks.

 

These themes are outlined below

Theme 1:Transnational and Migrant entrepreneurs –Varying and Mutating Ontologies

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

Theme 2: Flows of Opportunity Development

Research on migrant entrepreneurs makes clear distinctions between other types of migrant entrepreneurs and transnational entrepreneurs (TEs) that cross host country borders to commercialize a business idea in their home countries (Drori, Honig & Wright, 2009). The phenomenon of transnational entrepreneurship implies a distinct opportunity structure, which enables those migrants who found and maintain businesses to benefit from ‘two worlds’ as a crucial factor for survival, a way of breaking out, and/or a method for providing competitive advantage (Terjesen & Elam, 2009). Apart from enabling a globalization from below in developed host markets (McEwan, Pollard & Henry, 2005), TEs also make available, locally, a wide range of managerial, technical and international marketing skills through their ventures in emerging home markets (Breshnahan, Gambardella & Saxenian, 2001; Parthasarathy & Aoyama, 2006).

.

Theme 3: Fluid Dual and Multiple Habitus

Transanational Entrepreneurs (TEs) are focal actors in the creation, organization and growth of transnational and international new ventures (Autio, Sapienza & Almeida, 2005; Oviatt & McDougall, 1994). TEs can be seen to operate their dual structured activities between developed economies, between emerging economies, or between developed and emerging economies (Drori et al., 2009; Wright, Pruthi & Lockett, 2005). These different trajectories likely involve different challenges for TEs (Hoskisson et al., 2013; Kiss, Danis & Cavusgil, 2012). Entrepreneurial action of TEs is constrained by their home country endowments due to variations in home country institutional structures (Yeung, 2002, 2009). They also have to cope and adapt to, and form strategies shaped by, institutional constraints, political-economic structures, and dominant organizational and cultural practices in both previous and currently adopted countries in which they operate (Portes, 1995; Saxenian, 1999, 2002, 2005). There is a need to understand how varied institutional contexts and differences, rather than merely their personal attributes and innovative capacities, shape the way they operateThe literature on TEs of ethnic origin in developed markets describes the significance of ‘transnational communities’ for the transfer of knowledge back home. However, not all TEs form transnational ventures (TNVs) from the position of being based in the host country; they can also do so from being based in the home country (Drori et al., 2009) which can then influence or create new forms of cross-border institutional governance.

Theme 4: Reforming Institutions

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

Theme 5: Multidimensional Networks

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

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

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

For this open session We welcome contributions from studies explore the global pipelines (Bathelt et al., 2004) of TEs. Specifically, we invite contributions to theorize how and what kind of extra local linkage is created, through time and space, and/or maintained. In this session, we look forward to diverse and indeed, conflicting or controversial perspectives and a lively debate on the role of institutional contexts, collaborative knowledge creation technology and transformative/alternative practices.

For further details please contact:

References

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

Bachkaniwala, D., Wright, M., & Ram, M. (2001). Succession in South Asian family businesses in the UK.

International Small Business Journal, 19(4), 15–27.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discua Cruz, A & Basco, R. (2017). A family perspective on Entrepreneurship, in Turcan R & Fraser, N (eds),

A Handbook of Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Entrepreneurship. Basingstoke, United Kingdom: Palgrave. Discua Cruz, A., Howorth, C., & Hamilton, E. (2013). Intra-family entrepreneurship: The formation and member-

ship of family entrepreneurial teams. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(1), 17–46.

Drori, I., Honig, B., & Wright, M. (2009). Transnational entrepreneurship: An emergent field of study.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(5), 1001–1022.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harvey, M., Novicevic, M.M., & Garrison, G. (2005). Global virtual teams: A human resource capital architecture.

The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(9), 1583–1599.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nanda, R.,&Khanna, T. (2007). Diasporas and domestic entrepreneurs: Evidence fromthe Indian software industry.

Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 19(4), 991–1012.

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

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

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

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

Portes, A. (1995). Economic sociology and the sociology of immigration:Aconceptual overview. In A. Portes (Ed.),

The Economic Sociology of Immigration (pp. 1–41). New York, NY: Russel Sage Foundation.

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

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

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

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

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

Ram, M., & Jones, T. (2008). Ethnic minority businesses in the UK: A review of research and policy developments.

Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26(2), 352–374.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disadvantage and Entrepreneurship: from Shadow to the Light

Special Issue

European Management Review

CFP EMR Disadvantage and entrepreneurship 

Guest Editors:

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

France

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

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

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

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

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

Description

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

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

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

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

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

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

Submission and Timetable for the special issue:

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

 

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

All submissions should conform to EMR style guidelines detailed: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1740-4762/homepage/ForAuthors.html

 

References:

 Aldrich, H. E., & Waldinger, R. (1990). Ethnicity and Entrepreneurship. Annual Review of Sociology, 16(1), 111-135.

Aliaga-Isla, R., & Rialp, A. (2013). Systematic review of immigrant entrepreneurship literature: previous findings and ways forward. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 25(9-10), 819-844.

Bjerregaard, T., & Lauring, J. (2012). Entrepreneurship as institutional change: Strategies of bridging institutional contradictions. European Management Review, 9(1), 31-43.

Carter, S., Mwaura, S., Ram, M., Trehan, K., & Jones, T. (2015). Barriers to ethnic minority and women’s enterprise: Existing evidence, policy tensions and unsettled questions. International Small Business Journal, 33(1), 49-69.

Cooney, T.M. (2012) – Reducing Recidivism Through Entrepreneurship Programmes Inside Prison – International Journal for Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Vol 13, No 2, 2012, pp 99–107

Dana, L. P. (Ed.). (2007). Handbook of Research on Ethnic Minority Entrepreneurship: A Co-Evolutionary View on Resource Management. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Evans, D. S., & Leighton, L. S. (1989). Some empirical aspects of entrepreneurship. The American Economic Review, 79(3), 519-535.

Fischer, E. M., Reuber, A. R., & Dyke, L. S. (1993). A theoretical overview and extension of research on sex, gender, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(2), 151-168.

Kautonen, T., Tornikoski, E. T., & Kibler, E. (2011). Entrepreneurial intentions in the third age: the impact of perceived age norms. Small Business Economics, 37(2), 219-234.

Krueger, N. F., Reilly, M. D., & Carsrud, A. L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5), 411-432.

Loarne-Lemaire, S. L., Maalaoui, A., & Dana, L. P. (2017). Social entrepreneurship, age and gender: toward a model of social involvement in entrepreneurship. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 31(3), 363-381.

Levesque, M., & Minniti, M. (2006). The effect of aging on entrepreneurial behavior. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(2), 177-194.

Light, I. (1979). Disadvantaged minorities in self-employment. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 20, 31.

Maâlaoui, A., Castellano, S., Safraou, I., & Bourguiba, M. (2013). An exploratory study of seniorpreneurs: a new model of entrepreneurial intentions in the French context. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 20(2), 148-164.

Marlow, S., & Patton, D. (2005). All credit to men? Entrepreneurship, finance, and gender. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(6), 717-735.

Miller, J. (2008). The ongoing legitimacy project: corporate philanthropy as protective strategy. European Management Review, 5(3), 151-164.

Miller, D., & Breton‐Miller, L. (2017). Underdog Entrepreneurs: A Model of Challenge‐Based Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,41(1), 7-17.

Kushnirovich, Nonna, Sibylle Heilbrunn, and Liema Davidovich. “Diversity of Entrepreneurial Perceptions: Immigrants vs. Native Population.” European Management Review (2017).

Stevenson, L. A. (1986). Against all odds: The entrepreneurship of women. Journal of Small Business Management, 24, 30.

Volery, T. (2007). Ethnic entrepreneurship: a theoretical framework. Handbook of Research on Ethnic Minority Entrepreneurship, 1, 30-41.

Zhou, M. (2004). Revisiting ethnic entrepreneurship: convergencies, controversies, and conceptual advancements. International Migration Review, 38(3), 1040-1074.

 

Guest editor’s information

Dr. Adnan Maalaoui is the Head of the chair Entrepreneurship and diversity at Paris School of Business. His researches mainly focus on entrepreneurship issues and especially on disadvantaged entrepreneurs (elderly, refugees, disabled entrepreneurs, etc.). He is interested in topics such as: entrepreneurial intention and cognitive approach to entrepreneurship. He mainly applies those questions to cases of diversity and social entrepreneurship. Adnan Maalaoui is the author of 20+ articles published in academic journals. Likewise, he is the author of articles published in professional journals, and in edited books. Adnane is also the author of a series of French speaking MOOCs on entrepreneurship.

 

Vanessa Ratten is Associate Professor of Entrepreneurship and Innovation at La Trobe Business School Melbourne Australia. She received her PhD from the UQ Business School, The University of Queensland, Australia. Her research publications include six edited books by Routledge, Springer and Edward Elgar; and publications in journals including Entrepreneurship & Regional Development; Journal of Business Research, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business amongst others. Her main research interests include social entrepreneurship, gender entrepreneurship and international entrepreneurship.

Alan Carsrud is Visiting Research Professor at Åbo Akademi University and PSB Paris School of Business. He previously was the Loretta Rogers Chair of Entrepreneurship at Ryerson University in Toronto. He is widely published in entrepreneurship, family business, social and clinical psychology. He has nine books and over 225 research papers.

Malin Brännback is Dean and Chair of International Business at Åbo Akademi University where she received her doctoral degree in management science in 1996. She also holds a B.Sc. in pharmacy. Prior to her return to Åbo Aka- demi University in 2003, she served as Associate Professor in Information Systems at University of Turku, and Professor of Marketing at Turku School of Economics where she was head of the Innomarket research unit. She is Docent at the Turku School of Economics where she taught prior to returning to Åbo Akademi and she is Docent at Hanken. She has held a variety of teaching and research positions in such fields as Entrepreneurship, Market Research, Information Systems, International Marketing, Strategic Management and Pharmacy. She has published widely on en- trepreneurship, biotechnology business, and knowledge management. Her current research interests are in entrepreneurial intentionality, entrepreneurial cognition and entrepreneurial growth and performance in technology entrepreneurship.

Sibylle Heilbrunn, Ph.D., is Professor for Organizational Sociology and holds currently the position of Dean of School of Social Sciences and Humanities at Kinneret Academic College in Israel. Formerly she was Head of MA Studies in Immigration and Social Integration at the Ruppin Academic Center. Her research focuses on entrepreneurship of minority and migrant groups, cultural diversity issues and on forms of organizational behavior including perspectives of diversity and multi-culturalism.

Thomas M. Cooney is Professor in Entrepreneurship at the Dublin Institute of Technology, Academic Director of the DIT Institute for Minority Entrepreneurship and Adjunct Professor at the University of Turku (Finland). He is a former President of the International Council for Small Business (2012-13) and of the European Council for Small Business (2009-11), and was Chair of the ICSB 2014 World Entrepreneurship Conference. He was a Member of the Department of Enterprise, Jobs and Innovation ‘Entrepreneurship Forum’ (2013-14) and has been a policy advisor to the Irish Government, European Commission, OECD and other international organisations. He was a founding Director of Startup Ireland and works in various capacities with a range of businesses. He has researched and published widely on the topic of entrepreneurship and further details of his work can be found at www.thomascoon ey.com.

CfP – The 6th CR3+ Conference: Navigating the Plural Voices of CSR – Audencia Business School, Nantes, France 12-14 June 2018

Call for papers
Deadline: December 11, 2017

CR3+ 2018_Call for papers

Audencia Business School is pleased to host the 6th CR3+ conference in June 2018, co-organized by Audencia and its CR3+ partners, Hanken School of Economics (Helsinki, Finland), ISAE/FGV (Curitiba, Brazil) and La Trobe University Business School (Melbourne, Australia). The general theme for the 2018 conference is ‘Navigating the Plural Voices of CR’.

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) / Corporate Responsibility (CR) (hereafter CR), is situated at the interface of business and society. Much work has been done on the impact of business on society and the ways in which businesses have sought to reduce their harmful impacts and/or contribute to society’s wellbeing. But business and society do not speak with homogeneous voices and nor do the researchers who explore them. A wide range of different actors are relevant in CR, each have different worldviews, values, beliefs and interests, different degrees of influence, and different ways of communicating. Stakeholder groups themselves do not always speak with one voice. This plurality of voices makes it difficult to navigate the path toward CR and has highly relevant implications for teaching and practice. Furthermore, a multitude of different lenses have been used to theorize CR. Consequently, the vast and complex patchwork of voices provides a challenging landscape as well as a rich opportunity for research.
The conference aims to draw out the different voices in CR research and practice. We look forward to exploring the general theme and particularly: (1) the voices of actors often unheard in CR, (2) how to manage multiple voices in business, (3) the usual and unusual theoretical voices in CR research, (4) the different voices in CR education.

CONFERENCE TRACKS

We invite you to submit your papers to one of the following tracks:

  1. Giving voice to marginalized stakeholders in Business & Society research
    This track is an invitation for conceptual and empirical papers to challenge some of the foundations of the stakeholder salience and identification framework regarding marginalized, fringe stakeholders and to provide a future research agenda with the aim of better understanding their 1) identities, needs and demands, 2) roles and impacts, and 3) interactions with business.
    Convenors: Emma Avetisyan and Sandrine Stervinou
  2. Enriching CR research through inter-disciplinary and multiple theoretical voices
    A wide range of theoretical perspectives have been used to explore CR from a management perspective but also borrowing from other disciplines. This is an invitation to reflect on the different theoretical voices, their value and limitations and to explore new lenses through which to study CR.
    Convenors: Céline Louche, Guilherme Azevedo, and Andreas Georg Scherer
  3. Diversity as a Voice in CR
    Diversity is a reality in organizations and can be observed in many different dimensions: Gender, Age, Disability, Sexual Orientation, Ethnic Origin, Religion, etc. This track invites papers that explore the various aspects of diversity and its management under the perspective of CR in an organizational context.
    Convenors: Camilla Quental, Christine Naschberger, Nicole Maccali, and Marcia Cassitas Hino
  4. Innovating toward a sustainable future
    To address the grand societal challenges, innovation plays a crucial role. This track invites contributions that explore the various views and voices on innovation for a sustainable future and engage in a discussion about the need for innovation, its drivers and processes, and its implications for sustainable development.
    Convenors: Jennifer Goodman & Christian Voegtlin
  5. Exploring the SDGs: Plural Worldviews and Practices in Responsible Management Education
    This track wants to build knowledge around pedagogy for sustainability and responsible management education. Taking the Sustainable Development Goals as a guiding concept for responsible management education, it invites empirical and theoretical perspectives to explore how actors in management education integrate the SDGs into their programmes and pedagogical activities.
    Convenors: Martin Fougère, Nikodemus Solitander, Camilla Quental, Umesh Mukhi
  6. Entrepreneurship and society
    This track intends to create a dialogue between CR and Entrepreneurship research. The track is an invitation explore the link between entrepreneurs/ entrepreneurial practices and society and consider entrepreneurship as a social activity embedded in society.
    Convenors: Claire Champenois, Vincent Lefebvre, Miruna Radu-Lefebvre & Kathleen Randerson
  7. Implementing Corporate Sustainability Strategies at the Supply Chain Level
    This track invites contributions to develop and build new insights on governance mechanisms to be used in sustainable supply chain management and consider the plurality of different voices from the supply chain rather than focusing only on focal companies.
    Convenors: Marco Formentini and Paolo Taticchi
  8. CR community engagement
    This track is a call to deepen our understanding of the community engagement of business. It invites contributions investigating the practical challenges associated with planning and decision-making within the area of community engagement and stakeholder management.
    Convenor: William Keeton
  9. Exploring the relationship between artists and society
    With this track, we want to explore artists’ actions in and on society. We invite empirical, theoretical but also critical perspectives to question the relationship between artists and the notion of societal responsibility.
    Convenors: Dominique Billier, Carole Le Rendu
  10. Open track
    We wish to keep an open track for contributions that fit the conference theme but none of the specific tracks.

More information on the tracks: http://faculte-recherche.audencia.com/en/6th-cr3-conference/

SUBMISSION OF PAPER PROPOSALS

We would like to invite you to submit paper proposals to one of the 10 tracks.
Submission guideline:

  • Please indicate the Track you are applying to in your email and the proposal.
  • Proposals should be between 500 and 1000 words.
  • Full length papers will not be formally reviewed, but they should be submitted prior to the conference.

How to submit?

The deadline for sending proposals is December 11, 2017. They should be sent to CR3plus @ audencia.com.

For more information about the conference, click here.

DATES AND DEADLINES

  • Submission of proposals 11 December 2017
  • Notification acceptances Early February 2018
  • Submission of full papers April 2018
  • Conference 12-14 June, 2018

Call for Papers Strategic Change: Briefings in Entrepreneurial finance – Special Issue – Challenging the legitimacy assumption in entrepreneurship

Guest Editors:

Olivier Germain, School of Management, Université du Québec à Montréal, Canada.

Frank Janssen, Louvain School of Management, Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium.

Amira Laifi, Normandy Business School, France.

SUBMISSION:

Papers have to be submitted by April 30th 2018. Submissions should be sent to legitimacySC@gmail.com

Original papers must be submitted using the Journal two-stage submission process; early submissions are encouraged. Authors of papers invited to revise and resubmit will be expected to work within a tight timeframe to meet the special issue’s publication deadline.

Please make sure to indicate that your submission is made for the special issue on: Challenging the legitimacy assumption in entrepreneurship.

Please refer to Authors Guidelines to write your paper: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1697/homepage/ForAuthors.html

About the Journal Strategic Change: Briefings in Entrepreneurial finance is an international journal designed to support entrepreneurs, new businesses and those who provide services to them. The journal editorial policy is interdisciplinary, bridging economics, business strategy and finance to support better decision-making and business performance. BIEF targets valuable findings published in scholarly research journals to create accessible ‘briefing articles’ that practitioners find appealing. BIEF is unique in applying vigorous research analysis to inform

Call for papers : Special Issue Cooperative Longevity: Why are So Many Cooperatives So Successful?

Message from the guest editors:

Despite popular misconceptions, cooperatives present a very successful organizational form worldwide. A recent study found that, in the U.S., for example, among the companies that have survived for over 100 years, more than 80 firms are cooperatives. This observation on cooperative longevity is not matched by a corresponding research on what makes cooperatives so successful. Most of the extant research seems to focus on intracooperative problems that posit significant challenges to cooperatives. This Special Issue of Sustainability aims at bridging the considerable gap between scholarly work and reality. By focusing on what makes cooperatives so successful for such a long period of time, this issue will shed light on key aspects of cooperative longevity. The insights thereby gained will be useful to students of cooperatives, practitioners, and policy makers. We are primarily interested in the social science approaches to the study of cooperatives. The unit of analysis can be either the cooperative or the member. Theoretical, conceptual, and empirical papers are welcome as long as they do not make heroic assumptions.

A special issue of Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050).

http://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/special_issues/cooperative_longevity

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 28 February 2018

Call For Papers SUSTAINABILITY

 

Call for papers Journal of Management Studies – Corporate Entrepreneurship and Family Business

SPECIAL ISSUE: CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND FAMILY BUSINESS: LEARNING ACROSS DISCIPLINES

Submission Deadline: 15 June 2018

Guest Editors:

Tommaso Minola, University of Bergamo, Italy Franz W. Kellermanns, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA Nadine Kammerlander, WHU – Otto Beisheim School of Management, Germany Frank Hoy, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, USA

JMS Editor: Riikka Sarala, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, USA

Call for Papers June 2017 JMS SI-CEFB

Background to Special Issue

Scholars have been calling for research into corporate entrepreneurship (CE) for decades (Guth and Ginsberg, 1990; Schendel and Hofer, 1979). Early contributions to the literature proposed recommendations for introducing entrepreneurial and innovative behaviour into large, complex organizations, while acknowledging that successful applications were the exception rather than the rule (Block and MacMillan, 1993; Kanter, 1984; Pinchot, 1985). Although resistance to innovative behaviour within large organizations can still be found (Vuori and Quy, 2015), evidence now indicates greater acceptance of entrepreneurship by corporate leaders (Clarysse et al., 2011; Czarnitzki et al., 2010; Dess and Lumpkin, 2005; Dunlap-Hinkler et al., 2010; Zahra and Covin, 1995). After resolving initial definitional issues (Sharma and Chrisman, 1999), interest in CE has been growing in strategic management research (Covin and Miles, 2007; Hitt and Ireland, 2000).

McKelvie et al. (2014) proposed that there is a need to increase research on CE strategies in family businesses, offering the following justifications: 1) “strategic management in family businesses differs from non-family businesses based on their systems of governance and needs for family harmony” (p. 340); 2) “family involvement can result in the development of resources unique to family businesses” (p. 340), which can influence CE activities; and 3) “agency problems are thought to influence CE, and family businesses experience different agency problems than non-family businesses” (p. 341). These issues, as well as many others driven by family firm uniqueness, together with family firm dominance across the world, open up fruitful paths for future research.

Early contributions to the family business literature in the 1980s and 1990s were predominantly from consultants as well as based on biographies and autobiographies of business owners. These publications laid frameworks that were mostly unsubstantiated by empirical research but some of them still serve as assumptions for how family businesses should and do operate. One important assumption is that family firms are not as professionally managed as nonfamily businesses (Stewart and Hitt, 2012), suggesting inherent problems in family firms and dysfunctional behaviour that need to be resolved. Contrary to that rather pessimistic view, however, in 2005, Miller and Le Breton Miller published a breakthrough comparison study of family and nonfamily firms in Canada finding superior performance by many family-owned and -managed enterprises. Based on lessons learned from family businesses, those authors were able to formulate recommendations from their research for nonfamily companies. Another disruptive contribution in this regard was a study by Anderson and Reeb, published in 2003, indicating that family-owned firms were more profitable over time than nonfamily corporations. In 2016, a meta-analysis by Duran, Kammerlander, van Essen, and Zellweger revealed that family businesses, and particularly those firms that are managed by later generation family members, are more efficient in their innovation processes leading to higher innovation output as compared to nonfamily firms, despite lower input. Thus, while much attention from scholars continues to be given to problems characterizing family businesses, theories and models are being developed that propose best practices from family businesses that can be applied to other organizations (e.g., König et al., 2013). These and several other highly rigorous contributions, particularly surging from the last decade, have contributed to make family business a research field that fulfils the requirements of top tier management journals, contributes to mainstream management disciplines and even finds ways to give back to business and economics general theories (such as behavioural theory and agency theory) (Gedajlovic et al., 2012; Melin et al., 2014; Sharma, 2010).

The field of CE makes no exception in this respect. So, while we expect a number of contributions to take advantage of CE literature to address the distinctiveness of family firms’ entrepreneurial behaviour in the proposed special issue, we also aim at stimulating contributions for the CE literature in general. That is, research on family business that has the potential to provide insightful suggestions to CE scholars. For example, Minola et al. (2017) provide a developmental perspective to corporate venturing in enterprising families that introduces the concept of norms and attitudes as ‘internal triggers’ of CE. This complements and extends the notion of ‘external triggers’ largely adopted in holistic, process-based models of CE (Kuratko, 2010). In a similar vein, concerns for noneconomic goals (Gomez-Mejia et al., 2011), imprinting of a firm’s legacy (Jaskiewicz et al., 2015; Kammerlander et al., 2015) and stakeholder engagement (Eddleston et al., 2012) have been recently used to explain entrepreneurial behaviour in family firms. They provide insights that are generalizable and customizable also to nonfamily firms. Hence, for the proposed special issue we will also solicit submissions that examine prospective applications from the family firms literature to CE theories, models and practical recommendations (Hoskisson et al., 2011; Teng, 2007; Williams and Lee, 2011).

This special issue seeks to determine the relevance that research findings from studies of CE have for family businesses and the relevance that findings from family business investigations have for CE. While the crossroad of the two fields of research is deemed as promising, it is the reciprocity of the two directions of scholarly contributions that represents the novelty of this special issue. Such area of inquiry has not been satisfactorily addressed in management literature, but it has the potential to stimulate the contributions from a broad scholarly community as well as the interest of a quite vast readership. It could also substantially advance our scholarly understanding of both family business behaviour and CE.

There are many interesting questions that could be addressed in the context of family business, with the aim of capturing their distinctiveness and the sources of such distinctiveness, providing conceptual elements that are generalizable to nonfamily businesses (Miller et al., 2016). The following questions would represent illustrative examples of such research endeavours:

  • How are the behavioural antecedents and foundations of CE represented in family and nonfamily firms?
  • How do capabilities and attitudes towards CE evolve and interact over time? How do these patterns relate to the complexity of the family business system?
  • What is the role of social dynamics (such as social exchange, social comparison and social identity processes) in entrepreneurial family firms? How do they affect entrepreneurship-oriented and human resource management practices?
  • How are different types of CE initiatives (e.g., internal vs. external, explorative vs. exploitative) affected by the trade-off of economic and noneconomic goals of family firms?
  • How does CE create value and by which criteria is this assessed in family vs. nonfamily firms?
  • What are the founding conditions of family- and corporate-sponsored new ventures and how do these conditions affect the development of such ventures (e.g., behaviour, performance)?
  • How does a family firm’s embeddedness in a local innovation ecosystem affect CE investment and performance?
  • When, and under which circumstances, does stewardship behaviour induce individuals within an organization to behave entrepreneurially?
  • How and when does psychological ownership emerge and deploy into CE?
  • How do family firms conceive, manage and allocate resources in CE? Which resources are particularly valuable?
  • What family-related factors and contingencies determine the way CE initiatives are operationally managed (e.g., autonomy, delegation, accountability)?
  • How do family firms engage in CE to support the growth of the enterprising family?
  • What are the components of family and organizational culture that are at work in promoting and managing CE initiatives?
  • How does family involvement determine the emergence of CE initiatives in periods of crisis or declining business performance?

There are no universally accepted definitions of either CE or family business. For the special issue, we require authors to specify how they are defining the terms for their studies, whether conceptual or empirical, in order to assist scholars in assessing and in replicating the studies. We will provide guidance to authors by referencing frequently cited articles addressing the terms including Sharma and Chrisman (1999) for CE and Chua et al. (1999) for family business.

Submission Process and Deadlines

  • Manuscripts will be reviewed according to the JMS double-blind review process.
  • Submissions should be prepared using the JMS Manuscript Preparation Guidelines (see: http://www.socadms.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/JMS-Manuscript-Preparation-Guidelines.pdf)
  • The deadline for submission is 15th June 2018.
  • Manuscripts should be submitted by e-mail to business.jms @ durham.ac.uk
  • For informal inquires related to the Special Issue, proposed topics and potential fit, and/or the conferences below, please contact the guest editors at jms.ce.fb @ gmail.com

Special Issue Workshop

November 2018 at University of Bergamo (Italy) To help authors advance their manuscripts, the proponents of the Special Issue will organize a special issue workshop. Authors of R&R manuscripts will be invited to present their papers and react to their colleagues’ papers during the workshop, but presentation at the workshop will not guarantee acceptance of the paper for publication in JMS. Attending the workshop will not be a precondition for acceptance into the Special Issue.

References

Anderson, R. C. and Reeb, D. M. (2003). ‘Founding‐family ownership and firm performance: evidence from the S&P 500’. Journal of Finance, 58, 1301-28.

Block, Z. and MacMillan, I. C. (1993). Corporate Venturing: Creating New Businesses within the Firm. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J. and Sharma, P. (1999). ‘Defining the family business by behavior’. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23, 19-39.

Clarysse, B., Wright, M. and Van de Velde, E. (2011). ‘Entrepreneurial origin, technological knowledge, and the growth of spin-off companies.’ Journal of Management Studies, 48, 1420-42.

Covin, J. G. and Miles, M. P. (2007). ‘Strategic use of corporate venturing’. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31, 183-207.

Czarnitzki, D., Dick, J. M. H. and Hussinger, K. (2010). ‘The contribution of corporate ventures to radical innovation’. ZEW Discussion Papers, No. 10-060.

Dess, G. G. and Lumpkin, G. T. (2005). ‘The role of entrepreneurial orientation in stimulating effective corporate entrepreneurship’. Academy of Management Executive, 19, 147-56.

Dunlap-Hinkler, D., Kotabe, M. and Mudambi, R. (2010). ‘A story of breakthrough versus incremental innovation: Corporate entrepreneurship in the global pharmaceutical industry’. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4, 106-27.

Duran, P., Kammerlander, N., van Essen, M. and Zellweger, T. (2016). ‘Doing more with less: Innovation input and output in family firms’. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 1224-64.

Eddleston, K. A., Kellermanns, F. W. and Zellweger, T. M. (2012). ‘Exploring the entrepreneurial behavior of family firms: does the stewardship perspective explain differences?’. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36, 347-67.

Gedajlovic, E., Carney, M., Chrisman, J. J. and Kellermanns, F. W. (2012). ‘The adolescence of family firm research: Taking stock and planning for the future’. Journal of Management, 38, 1010-37.

Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Cruz, C., Berrone, P. and De Castro, J. (2011). ‘The bind that ties: Socioemotional wealth preservation in family firms’. Academy of Management Annals, 5, 653-707.

Guth, W. D. and Ginsberg, A. (1990). ‘Guest editors’ introduction: Corporate entrepreneurship’. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 5-15.

Hitt, M. A. and Ireland, R. D. (2000). ‚The intersection of entrepreneurship and strategic management research’. In Sexton, D. L. and Landstrom, H. (Eds.), Handbook of Entrepreneurship. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 45-63.

Hoskisson, R. E., Covin, J., Volberda, H. W. and Johnson, R. A. (2011). ‘Revitalizing entrepreneurship: The search for new research opportunities’. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 1141-68.

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

Kammerlander, N., Dessi, C., Bird, M., Floris, M. and Murru, A. (2015). ‘The Impact of Shared Stories on Family Firm Innovation: a Multi-Case Study’. Family Business Review, 28, 332-54.

Kanter, R. M. (1984). Change Masters. New York: Simon and Schuster.

König, A., Kammerlander, N. and Enders, A. (2013). ‘The Family Innovator’s Dilemma: How Family Influence Affects the Adoption of Discontinuous Technologies by Incumbent Firms’. Academy of Management Review, 38, 418-41.

Kuratko, D. F. (2010). ‘Corporate entrepreneurship: An introduction and research review’. In Acs, Z. J. and Audretsch, D. B. (eds), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research. New York: Springer, 129-63.

McKelvie, A., McKenny, A. F., Lumpkin, G. T. and Short, J. C. (2014). ‘Corporate entrepreneurship in family businesses: Past contributions and future opportunities’. In Melin, L., Nordqvist, M. and Sharma, P. (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Family Business. Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 340-63.

Melin, L., Nordqvist, M. and Sharma, P. (Eds.). (2014). The SAGE Handbook of Family Business. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Miller, D. and Le Breton-Miller, I. (2005). Managing for the Long Run: Lessons in Competitive Advantage from Great Family Businesses. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Miller, D., Steier, L. and Breton-Miller, L. (2016). ‘What can scholars of entrepreneurship learn from sound family businesses?’. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40, 445-55.

Minola, T., Brumana, M., Campopiano, C., Garrett, R. and Cassia, L. (2017). ‘Corporate venturing in family business: A developmental approach of the enterprising family’. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 10, 395-412.

Pinchot, G. (1985). Intrapreneuring: Why You Don’t Need to Leave the Corporation to Become an Entrepreneur. Cambridge, MA: Harper & Row.

Schendel, D. and Hofer, C. W. (Eds.). (1979). Strategic Management: A New View of Business Policy and Planning. Boston, MA: Little Brown.

Sharma, P. and Chrisman, J. J. (1999). ‘Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the field of corporate entrepreneurship’. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 23, 11-27.

Sharma, P. (2010). ‘Advancing the 3Rs of family business scholarship: Rigor, relevance, reach’. In Stewart, A. Lumpkin, G. T. and Katz, J. (Eds.), Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth. Bingley: Emerald Group, 12, 383-400.

Stewart, A. and Hitt, M. A. (2012). ‘Why can’t a family business be more like a nonfamily business? Modes of professionalization in family firms’. Family Business Review, 25, 58-86.

Teng, B.-S. (2007). ‘Corporate entrepreneurship activities through strategic alliances: A resource-based approach toward competitive advantage’. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 119-42.

Vuori, T. O. and Quy, Q. N. (2015). ‘Distributed attention and shared emotions in the innovation process: How Nokia lost the smartphone battle’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 1-43.

Williams, C. and Lee, S. H. (2011). ‘Political heterarchy and dispersed entrepreneurship in the MNC’. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 1243-68.

Zahra, S. A. and Covin, J. G. (1995). ‘Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurship-performance relationship: A longitudinal analysis’. Journal of Business Venturing, 10, 43-58.