CFP – 5th Annual Entrepreneurship as Practice Conference and PhD Symposium 2020 – March 30 – April 3 – Amsterdam

5th Annual Entrepreneurship as Practice Conference and PhD Symposium 2020
PhD Symposium: March 30 – April 3 2020
Conference: March 31 – April 2 2020

​Source: https://www.entrepreneurshipaspractice.com/5th-eap-conference-apr-2019

CFP: Final Call for Papers EAP5

Host: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Organizing team: Karen Verduijn (VU Amsterdam), Neil Thompson (VU Amsterdam), Orla Byrne (UC Dublin), Bill Gartner (Babson College), Bruce Teague (Eastern Washington), Inge Hill (Coventry), Thomas Cyron (Jönköping University)

Confirmed keynote speaker: Chris Steyaert (University of St. Gallen)

 

Important Dates:

December 16, 2019                       Abstract Submission Deadline                                             

December 20, 2019                       Notification of Acceptance

February 16, 2020                          Full Paper Submission Deadline 

March 1, 2020                                Registration Deadline 

March 31 – April 2 2020               Conference Dates

March 30 – April 3 2020               PhD Symposium

 

ABOUT THE CONFERENCE

The 5th version of this conference aims to advance our 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), third (April 2018 at Linnaeus University) and fourth (April 2019 at Nantes Business School) Entrepreneurship-as-Practice conferences, this conference and PhD symposium bring the growing community of researchers who embrace the “practice turn” back to Amsterdam.

 

INTRODUCTION

The practice tradition (also known as practice-based studies, the practice approach or the practice lens) in the social sciences forefronts the notion that practices and their connections are fundamental to the ontology of all social phenomena (Rouse, 2006; T. Schatzki, Knorr-Cetina, & Savigny, 2001). Ventures, firms or startups, in this view, are not ontologically separate phenomena from the performance of everyday, materially accomplished and ordered practices (Chalmers & Shaw, 2017; Hill, 2018; Johannisson, 2011; Vincent & Pagan, 2019). This is to say that no description or explanation of features of entrepreneurial life—such as, recognizing, evaluating and exploiting opportunities—is possible without the ‘alternate’ description and explanation of how entrepreneurial life is actually lived in and through practices (Gross, Carson, & Jones, 2014; Keating, Geiger, & Mcloughlin, 2013). The term ‘practice’, therefore, does not refer to an ‘empty’ conceptual category of ‘what entrepreneurs think and do’ (Sklaveniti & Steyaert, 2019), but encompasses the meaning-making, identity-forming and order-producing interactions (Chia & Holt, 2006; Nicolini, 2009) enacted by multiple entrepreneurial practitioners and situated in specific (historical) conditions. Therefore, practice theories orient entrepreneurship scholars to take seriously the practices of entrepreneuring as they unfold and are experienced in real-time rather than as they are remembered. Simply put, practice scholars are concerned with the ‘nitty-gritty’ work of entrepreneuring—all the meetings, the talking, the selling, the form-filling and the number-crunching by which opportunities actually get enacted (Matthews, Chalmers, & Fraser, 2018; Whittington, 1996). This comes with considerable ontological, theoretical and methodological implications which will be addressed during the Conference and PhD Symposium.  

 

For background and information on EaP literature, prior conferences, media 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, March 31st- April 2nd. March 31st will be about Mapping the developing field of EaP that includes plenary sessions and an unconference event (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconference), concluding with drinks. April 1st will be about Methodological approaches and publishing EaP research and include keynote session, parallel sessions on various methodologies, and plenary session. We will end the day with a boat ride, tour of entrepreneurial district and dinner. April 2nd will prominently feature the paper development workshop and a keynote lecture, with the conference ending around 16.30.

The PhD symposium includes 30th March (late afternoon and evening) up until 3rd April morning (until lunch). PhD candidates who want ECTS credits for their participation are required to attend. In these additional sessions, PhD students will be able to ask questions about EaP, meet and discuss ideas for research as well as generate additional work and discussion beyond what is required by other participants in the conference. Affordable hotels during entire duration are being held in Amsterdam for selected participants.

 

CALL FOR PAPERS

We welcome papers employing theories of practice to understand a wide array of entrepreneurship phenomena.

 

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? How is the process approach to entrepreneurship (entrepreneuring) similar to and different from practice approach?  How are entrepreneurial behaviour theories (discover, creation, effectuation, bricolage) similar and different than practice-based theories? 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) are EaP contributions critical?

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, analyse 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 analyse 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 those are interested to attend the conference should submit an abstract (of approximately 1,000 words) by December 16, 2019 to . 

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. Authors will be notified of acceptance or otherwise by December 20, 2019. Full working papers are due for February 16, 2020. 

The manuscript should be 10-15 pages, 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 2nd.  

Conference Fees:

Fees for Research Conference participants: 525 euros

Fees for PhD Symposium (inclusive Research Conference) for selected participants: 275 euros

 

Registration:

After abstract acceptance, please go to www.entrepreneurshipaspractice.com

 

Questions:

eap5vu@gmail.com

 

References

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

  • Chia, R., & Holt, R. (2006). Strategy as Practical Coping: A Heideggerian Perspective. Organization Studies , 27(5), 635–655. 

  • Gross, N., Carson, D., & Jones, R. (2014). Beyond rhetoric: re-thinking entrepreneurial marketing from a practice perspective. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 16(2), 105–127. 

  • 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, In Press. 

  • Nicolini, D. (2009). Zooming in and out: studying practices by switching theoretical lenses and trailing connections. Organization Studies, 30(12), 1391–1418.

  • Rouse, J. (2006). Practice theory. In D. M. Gabbay, P. Thagard, & J. Woods (Eds.), Handbook of the Philosophy of Science (Vol. 15, pp. 500–540). Elsevier. 

  • Schatzki, T., Knorr-Cetina, K., & Savigny, E. von. (2001). The practice turn in contemporary theory. (T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr-Cetina, & E. von Savigny, Eds.). London: Routledge. 

  • Sklaveniti, C., & Steyaert, C. (2019). Reflecting with Pierre Bourdieu: Towards a reflexive outlook for practice-based studies of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, (forthcoming), 1–21. 

  • Vincent, S., & Pagan, V. (2019). Entrepreneurial agency and field relations: A Realist Bourdieusian Analysis. Human Relations, 72(2), 188–216. 

  • Whittington, R. (1996). Strategy as practice. Long Range Planning, 29(5), 731–735. 

​Source: https://www.entrepreneurshipaspractice.com/5th-eap-conference-apr-2019

 

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

Appel à contributions

 Revue Management & Avenir

 « Nouveaux espaces et territoires de l’accompagnement entrepreneurial »

 Rédacteurs invités

Isabelle Bories-Azeau Institut Montpellier Management, Université de Montpellier

Karim Messeghem Institut Montpellier Management, Université de Montpellier

Sylvie Sammut Institut Montpellier Management, Université de Montpellier

Date limite de soumission : 1er décembre 2018   

 

Appel à contributions RMA Bories-Azeau Messeghem Sammut

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

– Espaces de coworking

– Incubateurs d’entreprise

– Incubateurs virtuels

– Écosystème entrepreneurial

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

– Politique publique d’accompagnement entrepreneurial

– Accompagnement territorial collectif

– Accompagnement et tiers lieux

– Types d’accompagnement et territoires

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

– Accompagnement durable et territoires

 

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

 

Bibliographie indicative

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Modalité de soumission

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

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

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

 

Calendrier indicatif

Envoi des textes : 1er décembre 2018

Retour de la première évaluation : 31 janvier 2019

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

Retour de la seconde évaluation : 1er juin 2019

Envoi de la version finale : 1er septembre 2019

Publication : novembre 2019

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

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

CERI Colloquium 2018 – Call for papers VA MAJ 09.03.18

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some possible perspectives and topics might include:

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

KEYNOTE SPEAKERS

David COURPASSON

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

 

Ignasi MARTI

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

 

SUBMISSION DEADLINES

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

 

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

(for more information about this journal, please visit the website: http://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/products/journals/journals.htm?id=sbr).

Abstracts and full papers must be addressed to the following mail address: colloqueceri@istec.fr

For further information, please contact:

Carine Farias, c.farias@istec.fr

Loïc Sauce, l.sauce@istec.fr

 

ORGANIZING COMMITTEE

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

DARMON Véronique, Head of Pedagogy, ISTEC

FARIAS Carine, ISTEC

MOREL Sylvie, ISTEC

SAUCE Loïc, ISTEC

REY FERRER Anne, Head of Communication, ISTEC

 

SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE

ACQUIER Aurélien, ESCP Europe, Paris

ALOUI Adel, ISTEC, Paris

BAZIN Yoann, EM Normandie, London

BEAU Gaëlle, ISTEC, Paris

BECHE Jérôme, ISTEC, Paris

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

BEZES Christophe, ISTEC, Paris

BOUCHER Ronald, ISTEC, Paris

BOTHELLO Joël, Concordia University, Montreal

BUREAU Sylvain, ESCP Europe, Paris

BYLUND Per, Oklahoma State University, Oklahoma

BYRNE Janice, IESEG, Paris

CANEVET-LEHOUX Sophie, ISTEC, Paris

CHABOUD Mathieu-Claude, Burgundy School of Business, Dijon

COULIBALY Daouda, ISTEC, Paris

ELABIDI Houda, ISTEC, Paris

FARIAS Carine, ISTEC, Paris

FERNANDEZ Pablo, IAE Business School, Buenos Aires

GIACOMONI Gilbert, Agro Paris-Tech and ISTEC, Paris

GIMENEZ-ROCHE Gabriel, NEOMA Business School

HUDSON Bryant, IESEG, Paris

ISLAM Gazi, Grenoble Ecole de Management, Grenoble

KEFI Mohamed Karim, ISTEC, Paris

PESQUEUX Yvon, Lirsa, CNAM, Paris

PICARD Hélène, Grenoble Ecole de Management, Grenoble

SAUCE Loïc, ISTEC, Paris

 

REFERENCES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cfp – Cognitive Perspective in Entrepreneurship Research – Ipag Paris – 24th & 25th september

IPAG Business School & Grenoble Ecole de Management are delighted to host the Workshop “Cognitive Perspective in Entrepreneurship Research” from 24th to 25thSeptember 2018, Paris, France : http://www.ipag-entrepreneurship.fr

Our workshop aims to work on this direction by identifying future avenues for cognitive research in entrepreneurship. We next elaborate some topics in the hope of encouraging scholarly submissions to the workshop.

In addition, during the workshop we organize a two hours’ session with Professor’s ICEK AJZENALAN CARSRUD, NORRIS KRUEGER, MARCO VAN GELDEREN, FRANCISCO LINAN & KELLY SHAVER, will join our workshop and the doctoral consortium. This session offers an opportunity to discuss the TPB and its associated methodology with examples drawn from latest entrepreneurship research of the participants of the workshop. Professors ROBERT BLACKBRUN (ISBJ) and DIDIER CHABAUD (Revue de l’Entrepreneuriat) will join our special “Meet the editor’s session”.

If you are interested by the workshop and would like to submit your contributions:

– Abstract Submission Deadline: June, 15th 2018

– Deadline for Doctoral Consortium Abstract Submission: June, 15th 2018

Do not hesitate to contact us if you need further information : Prof. Adnane Maalaoui and Prof. Erno Tornikoski: a.maalaoui[@]ipag.fr and erno.tornikoski[@]grenoble-em.com

 

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

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

Regards croisés sur l’échec entrepreneurial

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

Éditeurs associés :

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

Deadline des soumissions : 15 septembre 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

Soumission des textes

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

– au plus tard le 15 septembre 2018,

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

 

Normes de publication

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

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

Echéancier

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

 

3e Colloque Interdisciplinaire sur la Défaillance d’Entreprise

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

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

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

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

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

CfP – Special Issue Entrepeneurship as Practice – IJEBR

Entrepreneurship as Practice


Special issue call for papers from International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research

Guest Editors:
Bruce Teague, Eastern Washington University
Richard Tunstall, University of Leeds
Claire Champenois, Audencia Business School
William B. Gartner, Babson College and Linnaeus University

This special issue focuses on a core tenet of IJEBR to “advance the study of human and behavioural dimensions of entrepreneurship” by furthering an “entrepreneurship as practice perspective” (EAP) that should showcase fieldwork that explores specific entrepreneurial practices in specific settings.  As championed by Steyaert (2007), Johannisson (2011) and Watson (2013), the entrepreneurship-as-practice perspective is now gaining traction, witnessed by such contributions as De Clercq & Voronov (2009), Terjesen & Elam (2009); Goss et al. (2011), and Keating et al. (2013).
While classic “philosophers of practice” (e.g. Heidegger, 1929/1996; Wittgenstein, 1953, 1969, 1982, 1980) and “theorists of practice” (e.g. Bourdieu, 1990; Giddens, 1976) have emphasized the habitual, repetitive and taken-for-granted role of human practices, we posit that current research on practice focuses on the coordination of actions that reflect people’s understandings of “how to get things done” in complex settings (Nicolini, 2012; Orlikowski, 2002).  Expanding upon this search for commonalities across practice theory approaches, Schatzki argues that practice theories generally recognize elements of human activity that cannot be put into words, or neatly captured through methodologies that assume subject-object independence.   Instead, scholars attempt to capture an understand the tacit interplay that leads to emergence, reproduction, and transition of social practices (Schatzki, 2002; 2012).  Taking a practice approach makes it possible to conceive of the entrepreneurial process “as a culturally shaped achievement, the result of engaging with and transforming social practices of doing and living” (Steyaert, 2007).
From an “entrepreneurship as practice” perspective, the entrepreneur carries patterns of bodily behaviour, but also of certain routinized ways of understanding, knowing how and desiring, for and about, entrepreneurship. These conventionalized ‘mental’ activities of — understanding, knowing how and desiring — are necessary elements and qualities of entrepreneurship practices in which the entrepreneur participates, and which are not necessarily qualities of the entrepreneur.  Moreover, practice as a ‘nexus of doings and sayings’ (Schatzki, 2001) is not solely understandable to the agent or the agents who carry it out, it is likewise understandable to potential observers (at least within the same culture). Entrepreneurship practices are thus routinized ways in which entrepreneurs move bodies, handle objects, treat subjects, describe things and understands the world. Schatzki (2001) summarizes these elements within the umbrella term of ‘field of practices’, comprising of knowledge, meaning, human activity, science, power, language, social institutions, and historical transformation.
We see the use of practice theory and the general framework of “entrepreneurship as practice” as a means to advance entrepreneurship research in several ways. First, entrepreneurship as practice moves us away from a focus on ‘who’ an entrepreneur, placing emphasis instead on the importance of activity, performance, and work in the creation and perpetuation of entrepreneurial practices.  Second, practice theory helps us understand the critical role of the body and material objects in organizing entrepreneurship. Third, the practice perspective helps us perceive and better understand the reproduction of entrepreneurial practices across time, space, and individuals. Fourth, EAP highlights the importance of mundane, and often overlooked activities within the performance of action hierarchies and higher order teleological hierarchies.  Finally, we see EAP as a lens through which strong ethnographic research can be developed that facilitates understanding the relatedness of actions and practices across contexts and nets of practices.
We invite authors to clarify the question of how individual entrepreneurship practices relate to (the) ‘organizing context’ and that employ fieldwork and careful observation to capture those mechanisms by which collective support for entrepreneurship may be mobilized (Johannisson, 2011).   We specifically look for research that (1) identifies the every-day and socially situated nature of entrepreneurship, or that elaborates how practices relate to their broader contexts; (2) clearly recognize and describe the practice theory approach used to motivate the research, (3) recognize entrepreneurship practices, tools and methods used, and (4) relates and integrates these practices with the cognitions, behaviours, and/or skills of entrepreneurs.  We reiterate that articles accepted for this special issue will report on empirically based fieldwork rather than manuscripts that focus on or elaborate theoretical conjectures.
Submission Guidelines: We invite papers that focus on fieldwork that explores entrepreneurial practices.  Papers should be clear on the methodological approaches used for studying entrepreneurial practices and provide linkages between the practice ontologies grounding their theory with the methods used and evidence offered. We are not particularly interested in theory development papers or papers that offer speculative methodological innovations that are not applied to actual settings.  All submissions are subject to the standard double- blind review process. Manuscripts must be original, unpublished works not concurrently under review for publication at another outlet and are expected to follow the standard formatting guidelines for the journal.

Full paper submission must be made through the ScholarOne site at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijebr by October 1, 2018. Submissions should be prepared according to the IJEBR Author Guidelines found at http://emeraldgrouppublishing.com/products/journals/author_guidelines.htm?id=ijebr.
When submitting your manuscript, please ensure you select this special issue from the relevant drop-down menu on page four of the submission process. Reviews, drafts and outcomes will be conducted through early to mid-2019, with publication for those accepted papers expected to be in 2020. Initial queries can be directed towards any of the guest editors at the following email addresses:
Bruce Teague: bteague@ewu.edu
Richard Tunstall: r.tunstall@leeds.ac.uk
Claire Champenois: cchampenois@audencia.com
William B. Gartner: william.gartner@lnu.se or wgartner@babson.edu

Relevant References 
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice. Stanford University Press.
De Clercq, D. and Voronov, M. (2009). Toward a practice perspective of entrepreneurship entrepreneurial legitimacy as habitus. International Small Business Journal, 27(4), 395-419.
Feldman, M.S. and Orlikowski, W.J. (2011). Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organization Science, 22(5), 1240-1253.
Giddens, A. (1976). New Rules of Sociological Method. Hutchinson, London.
Goss, D., Jones, R., Latham, J., and Betta, M. (2011). Power as practice: A micro-sociological analysis of the dynamics of emancipatory entrepreneurship. Organization Studies, 32(2), 211–229.
Heidegger, M. (1929/1996). Being and Time. Albany: SUNY Press.
Johannisson, B. (2011). Towards a practice theory of entrepreneuring. Small Business Economics. 36(2), 135-150.
Keating, A., Geiger, S. and McLoughlin, D. (2014). Riding the practice waves: Social resourcing practices during new venture development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 38(5), 1207-1235.
Nicolini, D. (2012). Practice Theory, Work and Organization: An Introduction. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
Orlikowski, W.J. (2002). Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organization Science, 13(3), pp. 249-273.
Schatzki, T.R. 2001. “Practice Theory: An Introduction.” In: The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory, edited by Theodore R. Schatzki, Karin Knorr-Cetina, and Eike von Savigny, 1–14. London: Routledge.
Schatzki, T.R. (2002). The site of the social: A philosophical account of the constitution of social life and change, Penn State Press.
Schatzki, T.R. (2012). “A primer on practices.” Practice-based education: Perspectives and strategies: 13-26.
Schatzki, T.R., Knorr-Cetina, K. and von Savigny, E. (Eds.). (2001). The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. Psychology Press. London.
Steyaert, C. (2007). ‘Entrepreneuring’ as a conceptual attractor? A review of process theories in 20 years of entrepreneurship studies. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 19(6), 453-477.
Terjesen, S. and Elam, A. (2009). Transnational entrepreneurs’ venture internationalization strategies: A practice theory approach. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 33(5), 1093–1120.
Watson, T.J. (2013). “Entrepreneurship in Action: Bringing Together the Individual, Organizational and Institutional Dimensions of Entrepreneurial Action.” Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 25 (5–6): 1–19.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.
Wittgenstein, L. (1969). On certainty. Oxford: Blackwell.
Wittgenstein, L. (1981). Zettel (2nd. Ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Wittgenstein, L. (1980). Culture and value (Amended 2nd Ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.

Contenu provenant de la page suivante : http://emeraldgrouppublishing.com/products/journals/call_for_papers.htm?id=7510